Search results for:

.

I called the study garbage because of the design, but I agree with Your point that special product does not always come with better results. I guess the idea behind is to show that food supplements are no better than fast food in short run, but You can also read it as : 'wow, big macs are great recovery food, not as bad as everybody says'.
Well, they're bad, no matter what compared with.

I would like to see more attempts on that subject, maybe designed a little bit better, with control group having a balanced diet , and economical aspect taken into account as well.

That does not seem like 'sponsored' article at all.

However, the researchers said that the experiment included a fairly small sample, and the long-term effects on workout recovery of eating fast food over other, healthier sources of food are not known.

It's just another garbage study with meaningless sample size, no control group, no exercise protocol etc.

What it shows is that as long as the adequate amounts of macro-nutrients are delivered within right time frame, one's body should be able to restore body energy levels. What it does not show, is how this type of 'diet' would influence healt in the long run.

It's all good to produce garbage like that as long as it stays on PubMed.

It's not ok though to take it out on the news paper front page , giving people a false sense of security/justification. Good job The Times, really....