Too many papers are behind paywalls....(study of decrease over time of basal metabolic rate)

(Bob M) #1

This is a potentially interesting paper about how basal metabolic rate has decreased over time:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-023-00782-2

Mark’s Daily Apple characterized the decrease in being due to seed oils/PUFAs:

image
image.png922×300 73.9 KB

I have seen this seed oils/PUFAs = lowered metabolic rate argument before. For instance, Fire in a Bottle makes this argument:

The problem? The paper is behind a paywall, so there’s no way for me to determine that the study actually says what Mark Sisson says it says. The Abstract does not say anything about seed oils.

(Joey) #2

I hear you!

Obviously, when “science” is kept behind a paywall it means someone is simply trying to monetize a work product.

They’re entitled to use whatever financial agenda they wish… but that agenda clearly doesn’t include subjecting their methods and conclusions to serious public scrutiny.

To me, that’s a red flag - and so I avoid promoting what I can’t properly understand. Paywall = Nevermind.

#3

nihms-795002.pdf (570.9 KB)

nrp-9-71.pdf (423.2 KB)

Obesity - 2013 - Lazzer - Relationship Between Basal Metabolic Rate Gender Age and Body Composition in 8 780 White Obese.pdf (213.5 KB)

Obesity - 2016 - Fothergill - Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after The Biggest Loser competition.pdf (395.1 KB)

(KM) #4

Agreed, I don’t trust a paywall. Frankly if I were being underpaid for my research I might want to charge the people requesting it, but better to get that independent funding Before embarking on an experiment than withhold the results, By Far, if one’s actually interested in experimentation to advance Science.

My theory on Biggest Loser contestants v. Ancel Keys starvation participants and who did damage to their BMR and who didn’t … I think it may actually have to do with the amount of exercise. If you’ve ever watched the show, BL contestants participate in grueling physical competitions, and are also driven to exercise strenuously up to 14 hours a day, in addition to having calorie restriction. I understand the point of the study being that physical exercise doesn’t lead to the burn we expect, and I’m not sure of the answer here, but the sheer physical demand is the biggest and most obvious difference between the two groups.

Of course it could also be Mark Sisson’s flippant bad math that equates a few handfuls of peanuts with 20 calories. Lol. Shame on you, Mark! I know, silly, but it’s funny that “a few handfuls of peanuts” would just about exactly cover the mysterious “missing” 270 calorie benefit of the exercise.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #5

If you take the DOI of the article to the current incarnation of SciHub, it will unlock it for you.

(Bob M) #6

I tried that, and it didn’t work. Maybe I tried too soon?

Edit: But really, one should not have to go to a website that hacks into these locations.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #7

Possibly, but a URL for SciHub that worked last week might not work this week, so I always do a search for the current URL.

Hey, publishers of research journals need their annual bonuses, too!

#8

Jeebus.