11–20 of 50 posts
Interesting but they had no control.
The whole study design seems odd. Why not add a third high-fiber + high-protein group for example?
Soon we will have more participants in the HN comments for the study, than were studied in the study.
Interesting but they had no control.
The abstract begins, "Growing evidence supports early eating to control appetite and energy balance". What does that mean? My unskilled reading of it is that there is recent evidence that eating breakfast helps with weight loss. But I'm confused because there was a 2019 meta-analysis that found that eating breakfast does NOT help with weight loss. https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l42
I'll see myself out.
Interesting but they had no control.
Interesting but they had no control.
It sounds like this study might have been funded by.... Big Breakfast. I'll see myself out.
19 participants.
>> therefore 19 participants completed the study (2 females and 17 males) and their data are presented throughout Who in their own mind decided that this is a "study" worth publishing?
You read
We saw this effect, so it's real.
We saw this effect in a small study, so it's worth doing a larger study.
19 participants.
>> therefore 19 participants completed the study (2 females and 17 males) and their data are presented throughout Who in their own mind decided that this is a "study" worth publishing?
Some points though:
- A within-participants study has inherently more power than a between-subjects study. Trying two different diets with the same person removes a lot of variables that you'd need to control for in between-subjects studies (and yes, they randomized the order of intervention and found no difference based on order)
- It looks like this was conducted in a way that supported compliance with the protocol, and using analysis techniques that would be unwieldy for a much larger sample size.
Even with N=19, the reported significance is very compelling.