Looking4APeachScone
Looking4APeachScone t1_jdxpwu3 wrote
Reply to Study Suggests Wild Blueberries Help Burn Fat. 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. by Wagamaga
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.
Looking4APeachScone t1_j8ao1gq wrote
Reply to comment by Purple_Passion000 in Knowing we like a song takes only seconds of listening, new psychology research finds by thebelsnickle1991
I call this the five listen rule. While you may know instantly that you like something, it is also equally possible that it's the 4th or 5th time you've heard it and you just didn't notice it before because it was new and completely foreign to you.
I've found that 5 listens is generally a good measuring stick to know if I like something or not.
Looking4APeachScone t1_jdyw2m3 wrote
Reply to comment by needtofigureshitout in Study Suggests Wild Blueberries Help Burn Fat. 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. by Wagamaga
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.