You must log in or register to comment.

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.


betweentourns t1_jdwshjr wrote

Big blue(berry) strikes again


sanman t1_jdywj48 wrote

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


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?

Edit: added stuff

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


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


dr_eh t1_jdy6nti wrote

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


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.


needtofigureshitout t1_jdykmy5 wrote

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


GrassyField t1_jdyfj16 wrote

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


dethskwirl t1_jdz3muy wrote

Hammonton New Jersey at it again with their big propaganda machine


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.


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.


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.


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?


RadBadTad t1_jdwk1mt wrote

So do I have to go into the woods to find them myself? or what


SmoothBrainSavant t1_jdwmtb8 wrote


  1. go into the woods.
  2. find and eat wild berries.
  3. fight locals bears to defend secret berry patch.
  4. Get shredded one way or another.
  5. ???
  6. profit.

[deleted] t1_jdwwb20 wrote



lilrabbitfoofoo t1_jdx9qow wrote

2a) sprinkle cocaine to attract cocaine bears for defense.

  1. sprinkle cocaine nearby to distract cocaine bears when harvesting berries.

8urnMeTwice t1_jdx3rk9 wrote

Just look for the nearest fruit rave and pick out the blueberries that really know how to get loose. Thems the wild ones…


mime454 t1_jdxq1hd wrote

They sell wild blueberries at most grocery stores. Slightly more expensive than “organic” blueberries that are farmed, but not prohibitively more expensive. I already eat 1 cup of them per day because of how many wild blueberry studies have been funded. Get them from the frozen section because freezing the berries first makes the antioxidant compounds more bioavailable.


FireteamAccount t1_jdy9acx wrote

The best part about this is you are financing the lives of people who are obviously smarter than you.


[deleted] t1_jdwhgx6 wrote



WisePhantom t1_jdwivwy wrote

Good points. It would also be helpful to study whether it’s actually the blueberries or if eating anything healthy before a workout increases fat burn. Compare it to nothing, pre-workout, control doses.

In addition, I would love some future research into timing of the snack - whether delays between eating and beginning the work out matter.


[deleted] t1_jdwj9y1 wrote



needtofigureshitout t1_jdyn3b3 wrote

What would be the point of using less trained individuals? That creates another variable to account for, since training adaptations would be greater in novices than those already adapted. Using trained individuals would give a more accurate representation of the effects the study is researching.


[deleted] t1_jdynbja wrote



needtofigureshitout t1_jdynpyz wrote

I think you aren't understanding. Yes fit people burn more fat. Which is why using fit individuals to measure an increase in fat oxidation is more significant than using untrained people. If it worked for the fit people, it would work for untrained people on top of their adaption to exercise. Using fit people is more accurate because it already accounts for a variable.


[deleted] t1_jdynvr2 wrote



needtofigureshitout t1_jdyog2h wrote

That isn't what is measured though. The study measured for a change in fat burning by addition of anthocyanins into the diet, not whether fit people burn more fat. It is not useless to untrained people because these effects in trained people are a measure of the effects of blueberries for fat oxidation during exercise, so untrained people would theoretically have greater benefit from exercise by adding anthocyanins into their diet.


needtofigureshitout t1_jdyrtce wrote

Your other reply isn't visible to me in the comments.

I'm not sure what is difficult to understand. Trained people burn more fat, yes. Untrained people burn less. So the experiment wants to see what eating blueberries does in regards to the fat burning effects of exercise. To remove the potential of beginner gains from skewing the results, use trained individuals to study the effects. The participants abstained from anthocyanins, and tested the fat oxidation. Then introduced anthocyanins, and tested again, showing an increase. Your point is irrelevant. The result of the study is that blueberries in the diet increase fat oxidation in response to exercise in humans. Like i said, if it showed effects in trained people, it would likely show effects in untrained people. There isn't some switch that just rejects anthocyanins because you aren't aerobically trained.

A small sample size isn't necessarily bad, it provides a stepping stone for the next group to investigate.

Edit: the authors of the study also declared the funders (blueberry company) basically didn't touch the study, and it is published in a peer reviewed journal.


[deleted] t1_jdyszdv wrote



needtofigureshitout t1_jdytr2m wrote

Man, sorry, but you're kind of dense. What do you think would happen if they tested moderately trained people? That they don't further develop aerobic adaptations from training?


needtofigureshitout t1_jdym800 wrote

They didn't eat it preworkout, and they used a blueberry powder. The point was to measure differences of adding anthocyanins into the diet.


WisePhantom t1_jdyqf59 wrote

Pre-workout as in the supplement powder not as a reference to timing. Basically to compare it to other supplements.

And per my understanding they fasted overnight for a morning workout. I’m interested in the timing between ingestion and beginning the work. Does the benefit decrease with increasing time and if so how much - is 12, 8 or even 2 hours enough to see a noticeable decrease in effectiveness?


needtofigureshitout t1_jdysge9 wrote

"Or if eating anything healthy before a workout"

I understood that as you meaning that they had the blueberries before working out. The study was meant to evaluate anthocyanin content in the diet having an effect, i don't think they were considering timing. But that would be interesting to see. EGCG shows increased fat oxidation when taken prior to exercise.


WisePhantom t1_jdywi4t wrote

Ah I see where I wasn’t clear. That’s my bad. To clarify, I was wondering what the results would be if they added controls.

Something like: Group 1: 0 supplements + healthy diet + 12 hr fast

Group 2: pre-workout + healthy diet + 12 hr fast

Group 3: blueberries + healthy diet + 12 hr fast

Group 4-n: (same as 1-3 but vary fasting time and dosage to establish max/min recommendations).

I took a look back at some of the reference papers and there’s been several studies already on this particular supplement. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone else has already looked into my questions and I just haven’t come across it yet.


needtofigureshitout t1_jdywwj1 wrote

That would be interesting to see. It really is amazing how much stuff is already out there, sometimes I'll randomly think of an effect a food may have on a condition or body function and after looking it up there's already a dozen experiments regarding it.


PigeroniPepperoni t1_jdwt535 wrote

You should really exercise though even if it isn't for weight loss.


[deleted] t1_jdwvh4w wrote



PigeroniPepperoni t1_jdx05lb wrote

Fair enough. I never was an active person until a few years ago and it's made a really big difference in my self-confidence. Once you feel comfortable doing so I really recommend finding more activities that you enjoy. It's great that you are walking and enjoy that.


PM-ME-SOMETHING-GOOD t1_jdwlbyg wrote

Yeah exercise is a lot more important for your mental and physical health than it is for your weight. If you look up calories lost by exercising you quickly realize it's not really going to help you with that. But it might make you a more disciplined, healthy person who is more easily able to enjoy their life and do the things they want, which helps with the mental battle of weight loss.

I think the only other thing besides caloric restriction that's effective is probably stimulant/appetite suppressant use.


joshrice t1_jdwq58f wrote

Depends on the exercise and for how long. I can burn over 6-800 calories per hour cycling - and this is measured by a power meter, not just some estimation based on heart rate or something. Even for someone more casual 3-400 calories is a pretty substantial deficit.

Diet absolutely has the biggest effect though. You can't out-exercise a bad diet.


PigeroniPepperoni t1_jdws3lh wrote

I mean exercise can absolutely use up a ton of calories. 40 minutes of moderate-intensity cycling is probably burning 500ish calories. Maybe that doesn't sound like a lot but it's basically a 25% increase in calories burned for an average(ish) person. Ignore the fact that exercising can make maintaining a calorie deficit psychologically more difficult since you'll probably end up really hungry after.


PM-ME-SOMETHING-GOOD t1_jdwxrkb wrote

That last sentence is pretty important. But your numbers check out and that's crazy surprising to me. Most of the cardio exercises I had looked at were nowhere close to that, or I was completely misremembering.



[deleted] t1_jdwn15d wrote



PM-ME-SOMETHING-GOOD t1_jdwpakc wrote

Yeah pretty much, it might raise your metabolism too depending on the substance. But if you're able to meet your calorie goals then it's not necessary and it's probably not good for you to use drugs like that for weight loss anyway, especially without medical supervision.


bpetersonlaw t1_jdxbh8y wrote

Yeah, the amount of fat burned after an intense 40 minute ride isn't relevant when I am not riding that intensely for that long.


pooptwat1 t1_je2s0p9 wrote

You can actually just eat lot's of fruits and veggies and they activate the same pathway exercise and caffeine do for increasing energy expenditure. You would likely lose more weight than if you were to abstain from them.


AgedAmbergris t1_jdwxf3v wrote

Yet another garbage headline for a garbage nutrition study.


ImSnackered t1_jdwg8u1 wrote

I read 'cycling' as 'crying' and was thrilled!


iamfondofpigs t1_jdxvmrj wrote

11 volunteers were recruited for a third arm of the trial. Crying was induced by instructing participants to watch a movie clip from their choice of "Titanic," "Grave of the Fireflies," or "Up." Fat metabolism was increased at suggestive but sub-significant levels. Further research is needed to determine whether this effect can be reproduced.


Looking4APeachScone t1_jdxpwu3 wrote

I'll say it again; poor sample size or misleading "research" should be tagged appropriately. ESPECIALLY in this sub. Meaning it should be a strictly enforced rule. It's cool if this is a first step of a more robust research process, but we should not have to waste our time with this stuff when it's so poorly designed and appears manipulative with questionable motives.


needtofigureshitout t1_jdyvejj wrote

Can you elaborate on what is poorly designed and why it is manipulative or misleading? Merely because of the funding?

And wouldn't small sample sizes be necessary to spread to reach researchers on reddit who may be interested in further looking into the subject, who may not have seen it otherwise? Should no research be published unless it's a 100+ sample? Or 1000? 1 million? What even defines a small sample size? This study could be used as part of a meta analysis that reviews similar studies, and if they all have samples of 15 or less, are they all invalid? Particularly when using trained athletes of specific levels, finding a sample size over 100 may be difficult. Many studies regarding hypertrophy and strength use around half of that.


Looking4APeachScone t1_jdyw2m3 wrote

That's not for me to decide. Either way, I'm not saying to ban the content, but tagging it appropriately so that headline readers don't run with misinformation would be prudent.


needtofigureshitout t1_jdywje8 wrote

So you're implying that this is misleading research but it's not for you to decide why?


Upvotes_poo_comments t1_jdwu9et wrote

So was this study conducted by The National Wildberry Sellers Consortium or something?


[deleted] t1_jdwww7u wrote



pooptwat1 t1_je2t8t0 wrote

The funding section of the paper says it was funded by the university's dean of research. The product was donated by the association. As another commenter that actually performs research mentioned, this is apparently pretty common for research.


AngusKeef t1_jdx6of3 wrote

Another study showed that foraging for wild blueberries burns even more fat than eating them alone.


HotPocket_Consumed t1_jdxb03f wrote

Blueberry sellers doing confirmation bias studies.

Kinda like big tobacco conducting “science” that concluded smoking cigarettes was totally safe


elguapo67 t1_jdxs3gf wrote

What happens if I consume a less wild, more domesticated berry?


ccmp1598 t1_jdxl6xg wrote

Between 40 mins of cycling and daily foraging for wild blueberries, I don’t think one would need the increased fat oxidation to burn fat


urbanlandmine t1_jdxrj6u wrote

Especially if you have to hike up the side of a rock face to pick them.


AutoModerator t1_jdwd64a wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


jonathanlink t1_jdxcwh0 wrote

Free living. So it demonstrates nothing.


Prestigious_Fee_4920 t1_jdxy1z2 wrote

How about frozen wild blueberries? Hard to find fresh around here.


PlayAccomplished3706 t1_jdyhc8p wrote

What about poorly grown domesticated blueberries? I swear they taste worse than wild ones.


654342 t1_jdz36l6 wrote

"How" is fat oxidation rate done? vO2max or clickbait?


Wagamaga OP t1_jdwdagy wrote

A cup of wild blueberries a day may keep low energy at bay. The berries have long been hailed as a superfood—while they’re known for a plethora of health benefits, new research from Cal Poly Humboldt proves this superfruit could help burn fat during exercise.

The study, recently published in the journal Nutrients and the first to examine wild blueberries’ fat-burning effects during exercise in non-elite athletes, suggests that wild blueberries may help accelerate fat oxidation—the process of breaking down fatty acids or burning fats for energy.

The study included 11 healthy aerobically trained males. Each was instructed to follow a diet, which included consuming 25 grams of freeze-dried wild blueberries (equivalent to 1 cup of raw fruit) daily for two weeks. Participants exercised on a bike for 40 minutes at Cal Poly Humboldt’s Human Performance Lab. Researchers collected urine and blood before and after cycling, and blood samples every 10 minutes during the workout.

Results showed participants burned notably more fat after consuming wild blueberries. For example, fat oxidation rate rose by 19.7%, 43.2%, and 31.1% at 20, 30, and 40 min after cycling.

Overall, the research found that consuming roughly 1 cup of wild blueberries daily for two weeks increases the ability to use/burn fat during moderate-intensity exercise, like cycling.

While it accelerates fat burning, it also decreases the use of carbohydrates. Burning more fat while using less carbs is significant for athletes, explains Cal Poly Humboldt Kinesiology Professor Taylor Bloedon, the study’s lead researcher.

“Increasing the use of fat can help performance, particularly in endurance activities as we have more fat stores to keep us going longer than we do carb stores,” says Bloedon. “Saving stored carbs also helps when we need to increase our intensity, often towards the end of the race or training session, or when challenged by an opponent. At these higher intensities we cannot rely on fat to fuel us as fat cannot be used as a fuel source for high-intensity activities.”


ThrillDr1 t1_jdwg2aa wrote

Are these really wild blueberries? Or the kind we can buy at any supermarket?


farox t1_jdwjqnz wrote

I was thinking as well "Maybe it's the running through the forest to pick them that accounts for the calories burned"


joshrice t1_jdwoxqv wrote

In the acknowledgements they say they used freeze dried wild blueberries given to them by The Wild Blueberry Association of North America.


[deleted] t1_jdwibev wrote

You can get frozen wild blueberries at the supermarket. They taste better than regular blueberries.


ThrillDr1 t1_jdwkdw6 wrote

They are labeled "wild" but, how do we know.


[deleted] t1_jdwnhaa wrote

They are not cultivated. They are harvested in the wild and they have a different taste than regular blueberries. They are smaller and have more flavor. They are difficult to cultivate, so they are just picked wherever they grow.


Breadtopia t1_jdwx3xx wrote

The best blueberry pie filling is half wild blueberries (frozen) and half fresh regular blueberries. Fatty butter in the crust ;)