At 1mg lsd and 90ish mg dmt, i would say the lsd was more pleasant, and I've never broke through with dmt but i did learn about myself, whereas with lsd i felt like i learned more about the world.

Sorry, i must be misunderstanding what you are asking for. Could you please clarify what you would like me to answer?

Did the rest of my middle paragraph answer your question? Why didn't you answer my question in that?

It's a known glitch that happens with comments. I get a notification but can never see the comment unless i look on the user's profile.

I'm sorry that this is how you see it. But you've never clarified what the question is after i asked for clarification. If you can reiterate what exactly the question you want me to answer is, i will gladly try my best. I thought i was answering it but apparently i wasn't. Is it what i consider "trained" to mean? If so, then i consider training to be any education and practice that a person can get to do a certain thing. Does that answer the question?

I don't see how my anecdote is pointless as it is the paramedic's literal job to provide first aid. A person that has a first aid certification doesn't automatically become a paramedic.

Cant see your other comment again, but I'm genuinely not sure what is unclear about the implication of my original comment. Being trained by a trained medical professional does not classify you as a trained medical professional, you just have medical training. If two people were available to provide me with first aid, one of which was a paramedic and the other was someone trained by a paramedic, i would ask the paramedic for help before the other person.

How has anything i said implied what i think trained means? My entire point is that while a trained medical professional can give you training, it does not by default make you a trained medical professional. You just have medical training. I can get trained by a professional martial artist, but that doesn't make me a professional martial artist.

What is the question, dude?

Can't see you other comment, but what exactly is the question I'm dodging? Im telling you what i consider to be a trained professional and it's whether the person does it as a profession vs just having training. You can know first aid and not be a professional.

What else is there to explain? You can be trained by a medical professional, but until you professionally do whatever you're trained in, you are an amateur.

Yeah being trained by a professional just makes you trained. Not necessarily a professional.

The same thing that makes the difference between an amateur and a professional.

That's interesting. DMT supposedly has negligible 5ht1a activity compared to 5ht2a (quite less than LSD) and it felt as a much more intense and profound experience, solitary and internal. LSD always felt "brighter" and connecting. I'm curious what 5 meo would be like now.

Being trained by trained professionals doesn't make you a trained professional.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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

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.

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?

"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.

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.

11 isn't that bad to establish a preliminary base for other researchers to further investigate.

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.

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.