8 replies to this topic

[geo12the]

Rebuttal to recent exercise study? Saw these abstracts that might rebut the recent resveratrol-exercise study. Can't access the manuscripts though.

J Physiol. 2013 Oct 15;591(Pt 20):5251-5252.

Recent data do not provide evidence that resveratrol causes 'mainly negative' or 'adverse' effects on exercise training in humans.

Smoliga JM, Blanchard OL.

J Physiol. 2013 Oct 15;591(Pt 20):4953.

Food for thought - resveratrol vs. exercise training.

Joyner MJ.

Edited by geo12the, 17 October 2013 - 05:35 PM.

[Wilmore Labs]

This might help.

http://www.emaxhealt...-benefits-heart

Edited by Wilmore Labs, 26 October 2013 - 07:20 PM.

[Wilmore Labs]

Here's a more formal copy. http://www.prweb.com...web11274730.htm

[hav]

Fwiw, here's the original study author's surrebuttal:

http://jp.physoc.org...20/5253.extract

But I think they still fail to address the basic issue of whether their fundamental assumption logically follows. That increased endurance means less benefit. To prove that I think they would need to compare the amount of exercise subjects were able to accomplish and its relative effects. Which they did not do. Indeed, their methodology of running their subjects in a single group pretty much guarantees that those with greater endurance expend the least effort.

Howard

[Wilmore Labs]

Here's the issue they didn't address in their author rebuttal. A difference in significance is not statistical significance.

http://www.stat.colu...hed/signif4.pdf

"The ubiquity of this statistical error leads us to suggest that students and practitioners be made more aware that the difference between “significant” and “not significant” is not itself statistically significant."

If you follow their data, and look at the difference between the end results, both groups are the same. Just papers like that don't get published. There are these errors in some pro-resveratrol papers too.

Whenever they state that "The exercise group reached significance and the resveratrol group did not" doesn't mean there was any diffrence between group. It's a mistake, and it's a mistake they made twice. In the paper and the rebuttal. They just chose to ignore it in the rebuttal.

-Otis

Edited by Wilmore Labs, 01 November 2013 - 05:22 PM.

[Wilmore Labs]

Another good link on stats.

http://www.refsmmat....ifferences.html

[geo12the]

More rebuttal:

http://www.wineindus...questions.html/

[Wilmore Labs]

Like we said in the rebuttal, It's the dose size!! It must be a therapeutically relevant dosage to be an exercise mimetic.

 

About 3G as a single dosage will just get you the plasma levels seen in mice.  It's all about the plasma levels.   

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/24762420

 

[Castiel]

Supposedly resveratrol also increased physical step test performance statistically significantly above placebo in this study, iirc.