Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

and_dont_blink t1_jdwls0m wrote

Theyre actually freeze dried blueberry powder donated from the Wild Blueberry Association of North America. I'd not only take this study with a grain of salt, Id buy a stake in a salt mine:

>This was a non-randomized, quasi-experimental, free-living trial.

It was 11 people, aerobically trained, that they saw three times over the course of a month. For two weeks they ate whatever they wanted, but were asked to avoid eating a whole bunch of things like red wine, green tea, and any fruits and veg with dark or bright colors -- but to also eat the freeze-dried blueberry powder. They also changed their fluid intake over the few days leading up to testing...

In some, their diet changed quite a bit over the two weeks -- with the blueberry powder then becoming 30% of their carb intake.

It goes against a larger study that did it for 20 days and found no effect (using tart cherry juice) for these compounds with recreationally-active adults, but their thought is it's because they weren't at the same athletic level (this study removed participants who couldn't hit certain cycling metrics, even if they thought of themselves as active) or because they used a different exercise protocol... This study had people getting up to speed then stopping quite a bit for tests (like every 10 minutes IIRC). I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader as to why that could change things...

Weirder, this study introduced an overnight fast of 12 hours before the exercise. We know from previous studies that not eating for a period of time and then exercising hard will increase fat oxidization. If you can see how that could end up with weird results with only 11 people...

So yeah, a salt mine.

Edit: typos

Edit 2: Pointed out some strangeness with the authorship in another comment here.

345

betweentourns t1_jdwshjr wrote

Big blue(berry) strikes again

55

sanman t1_jdywj48 wrote

they've had to do this to fight off the threat from Big Strawberry

6

needtofigureshitout t1_jdxhvfg wrote

Visit one: sign consent forms and be informed of what you have to do.

For the next two weeks consume no anthocyanin containing foods and whatever the rest of the guidelines are.

Visit two: test fat oxidation during exercise after a 12 hour fast after the anthocyanin washout.

Then for the next two weeks consume the blueberry powder. The powder equals 101kcal, which is unlikely to be over 30% of some of these participants carb intake. Their calculation seems off as 92g of carbohydrate in 25g of powder is physically impossible, and the caloric value would be closer to 400kcal. But this may not be relevant, since they're measuring anthocyanin content and effects.

Visit three: test fat oxidation after eating the blueberry powder for two weeks.

There were two diet phases to provide a control of whether the blueberries affected fat oxidation.

Tart cherry is primarily investigated for recovery, not fat oxidation. Cite your source?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31986108/

https://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Article/2021/02/11/Meta-analysis-finds-tart-cherry-juice-effective-exercise-recovery-aid

Edit: added stuff

Edit 2: added more stuff because this comment is a horrible analysis of the OP study

5

and_dont_blink t1_jdzcy5e wrote

>Edit 2: added more stuff because this comment is a horrible analysis of the OP study

needtofigureshitout, you don't seem to be aware that others don't see when you make a bunch of edits to your comments.

>Tart cherry is primarily investigated for recovery, not fat oxidation. Cite your source?

It's literally in the actual published article we're talking about, of which you said my analysis was "horrible" but which I actually read and comprehended. Open the article at the top of the page and search for "cherry." Best of luck.

Edit: Dear lord, this account is brand new, has 13 karma and almost their entire comment history is all over this one story... Interesting.

Are you involved with the study in any way, needtofigureshitout? If so I have some questions about the authorship and how it went from being someone's master's thesis in 2019 to someone else's paper, and how most of their committee ended up as authors?

1

needtofigureshitout t1_jdztgjt wrote

As far as i know, edits are visible on browser.

The study also cites other anthocyanin sources having similar effects, and specifically says the tart cherry one didn't provide anthocyanin content. That study also used 11 people, so it isn't "larger". If you truly comprehended you'd know that the blueberry diet was separate from anthocyanin washout diet, and that both tests were done fasted, one without anthocyanins and one with, which removes the variable of fasted exercise being the cause, and you'd notice their inaccurare carb intake assessment of the powder. There's no way 25g of a powder adds 92g of carbs and takes up nearly 30% of someone's carb intake unless they eat only around 70g per day. I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be 9.2g because then the math for carb, protein and fiber composition would be closer to 25g.

This is a junk account and i subscribed to r/science when making, but man people on subs (this and nootropics) that i would think would have the best reading comprehension regarding research have really been disappointing.

Is this the 2019 paper you're referring to? This is a different experiment entirely. https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol8/iss7/74/

1

and_dont_blink t1_je1exd2 wrote

>As far as i know, edits are visible on browser.

...that isn't how this works, there's no track changes.

Again, were you involved in this study in any way?

>There's no way 25g of a powder adds 92g of carbs and takes up nearly 30% of someone's carb intake unless they eat only around 70g per day.

You should take that up with the authors. They would have to be wrong at multiple points, and they have the dietary data.

1

needtofigureshitout t1_je1kuvl wrote

They are wrong at multiple points regarding the carb content of the powder.

Why would i be involved in the study? Because I'm calling out the fact that you omitted information that would render your initial comment entirely pointless had you included it? Makes sense. For some reason you have yet to acknowledge the misinformation in your comment and keep focusing on my editting and supposed involvement based on the age of my account, as if just a random person can't come across this post then make an account to comment.

1

and_dont_blink t1_je1ooxw wrote

>Why would i be involved in the study?

...most people don't have a newly-created throaway almost entirely devoted to one post. It's fascinating, you are all throughout only these comments on a newly created account

It's interesting, so I'm trying to work out as to why -- and you won't actually say no. For the third time, were you involved with the study in any way, or know the authors?

>Because I'm calling out the fact that you omitted information that would render your initial comment entirely pointless had you included it?

I don't believe you did, there being a washout isn't really relevant for my points and something is lost in translation.

1

needtofigureshitout t1_je2g10p wrote

Check the rest of my comment history and age if you're so obsessed with who i am. It just so happens that this post has one of the dumbest conclusions I've seen about a study. No I'm not involved. I just dislike when people misinterpret studies.

You made several points to try to conver whatever conclusion you had.

You said the study had the participants remove anthocyanin containing foods while eating whatever they want, but that the were told to eat blueberries. Based on your wording, you're implying this was all in one period, which it wasn't. The first two weeks had removal of anthocyanin content from diet, then they did a fasted test, so the fasted exercise was already a controlled variable. The two weeks after that, they ate the blueberry powder, then again did a fasted test.

You mentioned the "larger" tart cherry study showing no effect and that this study was going against it. If the tart cherry study used actual juice, the anthocyanin content would likely have been significantly less since the highest anthocyanin content is right at harvest, and it degrades over time. Frozen berries have the highest anthocyanin content, but that's beside the point. You fail to mention how the study itself mentions similar results produced from anthocyanin-standardized new zealand black currant supplementation.

Then you mention how the blueberry powder added up to 30% of carb intake in the participants. If you had accurately read it you would've seen the discrepancy in carb calculation and realized it doesn't make sense. The carb intake is potentially also irrelevant, as the results showed lower carb utilization during the exercise.

The authorship "issues" of the study don't make sense either. Someone wrote a master's thesis, then the same person was involved in an experiment using 9 people. Then a bit later, someone else replicates the study with some more people to see if the results would match. This seems pretty standard because experiments need to be replicable. Then the study done at a university was funded by the university, go figure. And they were donated a product that is standardized for anthocyanin content, which would remove the variation in anthocyanins had the participants used fresh berries.

There's really not a whole lot to criticize except the macronutrient discrepancy.

1

and_dont_blink t1_je2ivq4 wrote

>Check the rest of my comment history and age if you're so obsessed with who i am.

I did, your account was recently created, has 11 karma and most of it came from commenting all over this one post.

I scanned your reply,and while I'd normally ask forfor the fourth time if you happen to know anyone involved with this study I'll leave that for others.

>You mentioned the "larger" tart cherry study showing no effect and that this study was going against it. If the tart cherry study used actual juice,

The study itself mentioned it, which you showed you hadn't thoroughly read. You're being disingenuous enough here it's time for me to move on, you have a great day.

1

dr_eh t1_jdy6nti wrote

Huh? No mention of salt. Why would I buy a salt mine? Hasn't been shown to burn fat

2

PsychologicalLuck343 t1_jdxmjs3 wrote

Thanks so much for having the energy to check that out. I've been considering throwing out a bag of frozen ones I don't like.

1

needtofigureshitout t1_jdykmy5 wrote

Freeze dried is not frozen. Also freeze drying and freezing maintains nutritional content.

3

GrassyField t1_jdyfj16 wrote

Well, thank goodness for those tenths of a percent in the results then.

1

dethskwirl t1_jdz3muy wrote

Hammonton New Jersey at it again with their big propaganda machine

1

Scientific_Methods t1_jdzxvhb wrote

I agree with the other poster. This isn’t an ideal study but you’re being disingenuous or didn’t really understand the study design.

The washout happened prior to either control diet or wild blueberry supplemented diet. There is an issue with the control as you pointed out. But it’s not nearly as egregious as you make it seem. The WB powder provides an additional 100 calories per day. That should have been easy to replicate those calories in the control diet and so I’m confused as to why they either didn’t, or didn’t mention it in the methods.

I would take this study to mean that eating colorful fruits is likely to help you burn more fat. With more experimentation needed.

Finally. It’s very common for companies to donate drugs/supplements/specific foods to researchers for their studies. When I’m designing a study to test a specific drug I will contact the manufacturer to see if they are interested in donating drug for the study. And they often say yes. I acknowledge them appropriately but there is nothing nefarious about it.

1

and_dont_blink t1_je1e1o7 wrote

>I agree with the other poster.

That's nice, Scientific_Methods. I'll note the other poster showed in their comment they hadn't actually read the study thoroughly.

>This isn’t an ideal study but you’re being disingenuous or didn’t really understand the study design.

I very much did.

>The washout happened prior to either control diet or wild blueberry supplemented diet.

That isn't really relevant given all the diet changes, and how loose the study is in general. Plenty of fields have similar issues with the expense and hassle required to do things to the point where you have a strong result, but that doesn't mean a weak result really tells us much it more means someone needed to graduate and it's not very likely to be replicated.

>I would take this study to mean that eating colorful fruits is likely to help you burn more fat.

I wouldn't take this as relevance of much of anything honestly, but we can agree to disagree.

1

pooptwat1 t1_je86w0s wrote

Can you elaborate why the washout is irrelevant and what is loose about the study besides it being free living? The dietary changes that were instructed weren't highly likely to cause increases in fat oxidation to such a degree, except fasting and potentially alcohol reduction.

1

pooptwat1 t1_je83gei wrote

As far as i know, the additional 100 calories on their own shouldn't induce a metabolic effect like increasing fat oxidation by up to 40% and reducing carb oxidation. Adding 100 calories into the control would be nearly impossible to skew the metrics they were investigating.

Since you're a researcher, is the washout really irrelevant as the other guy says? None of the changes the participants would've made during the washout would have increased fat oxidation and they weren't restricting a lot except colorful foods basically. Since they were required to provide food journals they could be accounted for, and even if they did eat some anthocyanins without reporting, why would the fat oxidation rates increase that after the powder was given? Wouldn't the increase have been lower or non existent if they still consumed large anounts of anthocyanins during the washout?

1