←back to thread

228 points curmudgeon22 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.447s | source
1. dhimes ◴[] No.26613913[source]
I no longer give much attention to nutrition or sports performance studies that test a handful of people for a few weeks. It's simply not enough people, not a long enough study, and probably not controlled enough. My guess is that there are or will be (a) study(ies) with pretty much the opposite outcome.

Years ago "studies showed" that caffeine had an anabolic effect that aided muscle growth. Now it seems that the opposite is "thought" to be true. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28177708/]

replies(1): >>26614511 #
2. goostavos ◴[] No.26614511[source]
>probably not controlled enough

This is the most frustrating part of any exercise science related literature. There are just so many studies that have absolutely preposterous designs. There is no shortage of papers drawing sweeping generalizations while using a sample size of 10 untrained individuals, over the course of 3 weeks, and with no regulation of diet. Then there's the general meaninglessness of "volitional failure" as a measurement -- Gah! It's maddening!