So the study asked them to consume 1500 extra calories per day? Regardless of the source, that’s a confounding variable right there. I’d like to see this done again with a steady calorie count and just a different source for those calories. Personally, if I go nuts on the junk foods for a meal I typically find myself compensating by eating less of my normal, healthier diet.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 2 points 3 days ago

I mean, junk food diets tend to be more calorie dense

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

the issue is volume though. ~3500 calories of “healthy” foods will be physically harder to consume than 2000 calories of healthy foods and 1500 calories of calorically dense food.

[–] dingdongitsabear@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

never heard of:

zme science
nature metabolism
mihal andrei
tibi pulu

also sample size. Imma assign this the weight of an eye-lash suspended in vacuum.

[–] JokklMaster@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

OK so let's start with Nature Metabolism because that's the big one here. Nature is one of the number one scientific journals to get published in. They are so big they have a portfolio dedicated for different fields. This is one of them. This tells me you are not familiar with the field. Getting published in Nature alone is impressive and tells us this article did go through a rigorous peer review process.

Secondly, the effects mentioned in the news article align with similar research I am familiar with, and in science consensus is usually a good sign for the findings being valid.

I haven't had time to look through the actual published article yet but I'm inclined to believe this. Regarding the sample size, yes it's smallish, but you can't judge it on its own. You have to look at the stats to see if it was sufficient or not. The larger the effect the smaller the sample size you need to show it. Liver fat went from like 1.5-2.5% which is a huge difference. I have definitely seen legitimate studies before with similar sample sizes.

Imma assign this weight heavier than the average study you come across, though less groundbreaking.

Source: neuroscience PhD student.

[–] slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org 1 points 3 days ago

So fast food is healthy? Thank god.

[–] hmmm@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Did people actually eat Junk food like normal diet?

Damn, I can't even imagine that.

[–] JokklMaster@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

When you literally don't have the money to buy groceries or the time to prepare food, yep. Or the education to truly understand the impacts of eating that food all the time... This is why poor people in America are overweight.

[–] the_q@lemm.ee 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Americans have to go out of their way to not buy junk food since nearly everything sold in stores technically falls into that category.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago

The entire middle of store is just pure sugar. One aisle of juice and sports drinks, next aisle of sugar cereal and sugar bars, next aisle soda, next aisle chips and candy, next aisle literal sugar and baking goods, you get to deviate into simple carbs for two aisles after that of canned goods, pasta and international foods and then were back to the sugar in the freezer section.

If you really think about what is actual food and not some sugar snack you could fit an entire grocery store into the footprint of a GameStop sized store.

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

Unhealthy food isn’t healthy!? Centipedes in my what!?