17 Is dietary fat really the best macronutrient for

long-term satiety?
By Lorenzo Pansini

21 How much water do we need to drink? Is the

famous “8 glasses a day” guideline valid?
By Alan Aragon
Copyright © November 1st, 2020 by Alan Aragon
Home: www.alanaragon.com
Correspondence: support@alanaragon.com

2 Scientific cognition and scientific literacy:

primary components of science.
By Jamie Hale

11 A high-protein total diet replacement

increases energy expenditure and leads to
negative fat balance in healthy, normal-weight
adults.
Oliveira CLP, et al. Am J Clin Nutr, Nov 2020
https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa283 [AJCN]

13 Effect of 12 months of creatine

supplementation and whole-body resistance
training on measures of bone, muscle and
strength in older males.
Candow DG, Chilibeck PD, Gordon J, Vogt E,
Landeryou T, Kaviani M, Paus-Jensen L. Nutr Health.
2020 Nov 24:260106020975247. [PubMed]

15 Honey does not adversely impact blood lipids

of adult men and women: a randomized cross-
over trial.
Al-Tamimi AM, Petrisko M, Hong MY, Rezende L,
Clayton ZS, Kern M. Nutr Res. 2020 Feb;74:87-95.
[PubMed]
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020 [Back to Contents] Page 1

Scientific cognition and scientific literacy:
primary components of science.
By Jamie Hale
_______________
Eastern Kentucky University
Bluegrass Community and Technical College
Correspondence concerning this article should be directed to Jamie
Hale, Room: 107, BCTC, Winchester Campus, 2020 Rolling Hills Lane,
Winchester Ky. 40391. Contact: jamie.hale1@gmail.com
__________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT: This paper is a revision of other papers
examining the association of scientific cognition and
scientific literacy (Hale, 2018; Hale, Sloss, & Lawson,
2017). In the context of this paper scientific literacy is
synonymous with general scientific knowledge. Scientific
cognition is different than scientific literacy; scientific
cognition involves multiple components and sub-
components. At the very least, scientific cognition
involves philosophy of science, research methodology,
probabilistic reasoning and logic (deductive and
inductive). The primary interests in the study were the
association between scientific cognition and scientific
literacy, and whether or not there would be gender
differences for total scores for each scale. A bivariate
analysis was conducted to test the hypothesis that there
would be an association between scientific cognition and
scientific literacy. Independent samples t-tests were
conducted to test whether or not there was gender
differences on scores from the scientific cognition and
scientific literacy scale. The scientific literacy and
scientific cognition assessment consisted of mostly
questions derived from measuring devices used in the past.
The assessments were administered as part of an online
survey. The participants were 202 university students. The
study was approved by the university's Institutional
Review Board. The results indicate a positive correlation
between scientific literacy and scientific cognition, and no
gender differences for total scores from the scales.
Additional analyses indicate there was gender differences
for some of the questions. There were gender differences
for one item from the scientific literacy assessment and for
two items from the scientific cognition assessment. The
research report includes a discussion on limitations of the
study, implications for science education and future
directions regarding reconceptualizing science.
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
Background
Science is a large enterprise consisting of multiple
components. Science is a systematic approach to
knowledge. Proper use of scientific processes lead to
rationalism (basing conclusion on intellect, logic and
evidence). Science combats dogmatism (adherence to
doctrine over rational and enlightened inquiry, or basing
conclusion on authority rather than evidence) and provides
a better understanding of the world. Scientific processes/
methods are unmistakably the most successful processes
available for describing, predicting and explaining
phenomena in the observable universe.
The general scientific approach to knowledge is based on
systematic empiricism (Stanovich, 2007). Observation
itself is necessary in acquiring scientific knowledge, but
unstructured observation of the natural world does not lead
to an increased understanding of the world. “Write down
every observation you make from the time you get up in
the morning to the time you go to bed on a given day.
When you finish, you will have a great number of facts,
but you will not have a greater understanding of the world”
(Stanovich & Stanovich, 2003, p. 12).
Systematic Empiricism is systematic because it is
structured in a way that allows us to learn more precisely
about the world. After careful systematic observations,
such as those in controlled studies, relationships are
supported while others are rejected. Extending these
observations, scientists propose general descriptions,
predictions, explanations, models and inferential strategies
that support observations. “We could observe end-less
pieces of data, adding to the content of science, but our
observations would be of limited use without general
principles to structure them” (Myers & Hansen, 2002, p.
10).
The empirical approach (as used in everyday observation)
allows us to learn things about the world. However,
everyday observations are often made carelessly and
unsystematically. Thus, using everyday observations in an
attempt to describe, predict, model and explain phenomena
is problematic.
Discussions involving scientific literacy are ubiquitous.
Scientific literacy is conceptualized and operationalized in
[Back to Contents] Page 2
various ways (Norris & Phillips, 2003). Examples used in
defining scientific literacy include: understanding science
and its applications, knowledge of what counts as science,
general scientific knowledge, knowledge of risks and
benefits of science, making informed decisions regarding
science and technology, etcetera (DeBoer, 2000; Brennan,
1992) . Numerous scales and devices are used to measure
scientific literacy. A precise, standard conceptualization of
scientific literacy has not been demonstrated since the
origin of the concept (DeBoer, 2000). In the present study
scientific literacy is synonymous with general scientific
knowledge. This form of literacy is sometimes referred to
as a type of derived scientific literacy. Various forms of
scientific literacy are important, however other relevant
science related concepts are as important, or maybe even
more important.
Scientific cognition is not synonymous with scientific
literacy; scientific cognition involves multiple components
and sub-components (Feist, 2006). Deanna Kuhn asserts
that the essence of scientific thinking is coordinating belief
with evidence (2011). At the very least scientific cognition
involves philosophy of science, scientific methodology,
probabilistic reasoning and elements of logic. Scientific
cognition requires specific cognitive abilities and specific
elements of cognitive style (thinking disposition).
Cognitive style reflects types of thinking that occur during
typical performance conditions. That is, thinking or
engaging in tasks when not being explicitly cued to
maximize performance (Stanovich, West & Toplak, 2016).
Various scales have been developed to measure scientific
thinking / reasoning / cognition. Kahan developed a scale
called the Ordinary Science Intelligence Scale (OSI_2.0,
Kahan, 2014) and Drummond and Fischhoff (2015)
developed the Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS).
Drummond and Fischhoff found that measures of scientific
reasoning were distinct from measures of scientific
literacy, even though there was a positive association to
measures of scientific literacy. The OSI_2.0 scale is
intended to be a measure of the capacity to recognize and
making use of scientific evidence in everyday decision
making. The OSI_2.0 scales consists of 18 items and can
be divided into four sets: scientific fact items, scientific
methodology items, quantitative reasoning and cognitive
reflection items. A measure of cognitive reflection is a
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
measure of the tendency to avoid providing an intuitive
answer to a problem, that on further analysis is shown to
be incorrect. Reflective processing allows one to override,
by critically processing the information, an incorrect fast
response. The SRS is intended to assess the skills needed
to evaluate the quality of scientific findings. The final
version of the SRS consists of 11 items derived from
concepts taken from research method textbooks. Thus,
scientific reasoning is a measure of knowledge in research
methodology, according to Drummond and Fischhoff's
scale. Dunbar's (2000) research on scientific thinking used
a different strategy. Dunbar's research mostly involves
examining cognitive processes underpinning thinking
during the research process, rather than assessing scientific
thinking with prescribed types of measure. Fugelsang and
colleagues (2004) have examined strategies that scientists
and non-scientists use to evaluate data that is consistent or
non-consistent with expectations. Others have conducted
research on scientific reasoning, but the intent here is not a
comprehensive review of past research, but rather a brief
mention of research that had an impact on the current
study.
The primary interests in the current study was the
association between scientific cognition and scientific
literacy, and whether or not there would be gender
differences for total scores for each scale. A positive
association between scores on the scientific cognition
assessment and scientific literacy assessment was
predicted. We didn't have a prediction regarding
differences, between men and women, for total scores on
the assessments.
Methods
Participants
Participants in the study were 202 students from Eastern
Kentucky University. The sample consisted of 160 females
and 42 males. Participants received partial course credit in
exchange for their participation. Participation was
voluntary, and participants could terminate their
involvement at any time during the study without penalty.
Before participating in the study all participants reported
that they had no conditions that would prevent them from
being part of the study. All participants completed an
[Back to Contents] Page 3
online survey that included a scientific cognition and a
scientific literacy assessment. The study was approved by
the university's Institutional Review Board.
Materials
The scientific literacy assessment contained 14 questions
that were presented as part of an online survey. Some of
the questions on the scale were derived from previous
research used to assess general scientific knowledge
(Kahan, 2016; National Science Board, 2014; Pew
Research Center, 2013). The type of questions were true or
false and multiple choice. Sample items from the
assessment include:
Some food does not contain chemicals? A) True B) False
All mental processes are generated from which organ?
A) Heart B) Brain C) Not all mental processes are
generated from an organ
Lasers work by intense focusing of which of the
following: A) Sound waves B) Light waves C) Neither
The scientific cognition assessment contained 14 questions
that were presented as part of an online survey. The
questions were derived from previous research used to
assess components of scientific thinking including,
research methodology, philosophy of science, quantitative
reasoning (Drummond & Fischhoff, 2015; Kahan, 2016;
Stanovich, West, & Toplak, 2016). The type of questions
were true or false, multiple choice and short answer.
Sample items from the assessment include:
A scientific theory is defined as: A) A comprehensive
explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported
by a vast body of evidence B) An educated guess used to
explain an aspect of nature C) An explanation that has
not been tested
A new medical treatment was designed to treat a
serious health problem. Using the information provided
below decide whether the treatment was effective: 200
people were given treatment and improved 75 people
were given the treatment and did not improve 50
people were not given the treatment and improved 15
people were not given the treatment and did not
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
improve: A) Treatment was effective B) Treatment was
not effective
If you roll a fair, six-sided die 1000 times how many
times do you think the die would come up as an even
number?
Procedure
The study took place online. Participants used an on-line
research sign-up system to sign up for the study. An
informed consent was signed before participating and
participants verified that there were no conditions, such as
learning disorders, that may influence performance.
Before answering questions from the survey participants
were given the following instructions:
"Please provide a response for every question. If you
are given the option to decline to answer a question,
then declining to answer is considered a response."
There were 29 questions on the survey. The first 14
questions were scientific literacy questions; the next 14
questions were scientific cognition questions, and the last
question was a question asking if the participant was male
or female. Participants were given up to 25 minutes to
complete the study. Upon completion of the survey a
debriefing statement was provided.
Results
A bivariate analysis was conducted to test the hypothesis
that there would be an association between scientific
cognition and scientific literacy. The results of the analysis
support the hypothesis, r (200)= +.33, p < .01 (two-tailed),
r2 = .11. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to
test whether or not there was gender differences on scores
from the scientific cognition and scientific literacy scale.
The results of the independent samples t-test, for men (M =
9.36, SD = 2.63) and women (M = 9.60, SD = 2.31) using
total scores on scientific cognition as the dependent
variable was not statistically significant, t (200) = .59, p >
.05 (two-tailed), d = .10. The results of the independent
samples t-test, for men (M = 10.52, SD = 1.69) and women
(M = 10.31, SD = 1.64) using total scores on scientific
literacy as the dependent variable were not statistically
significant, t (200) = .76, p > .05 (two-tailed), d = .13.
[Back to Contents] Page 4
Total correct responses ranged from 3-14 on the scientific
cognition and scientific literacy assessment. Each correct
answer on the assessment counted as one point; 14 points
was the highest score possible for each of the assessments.
The total percentage of correct answers, for individual
items, varied on the scientific literacy assessment from
20.9% - 94.5%. The question most often answered
incorrectly was an astrology question, and the question
most often answered correctly was a question involving
the earth's orbit of the sun. The total percentage of correct
answers, for individual items, varied on the scientific
cognition assessment from 46.7% - 82.6%. The question
most often answered incorrectly was a question involving
a covariation task, and the question most often answered
correctly involved estimating chances of winning a dollar.
Table 1 gives the total percentages of correct answers for
each item:
Chi-square tests were conducted to test whether or not
there were gender differences, for individual item scores,
from both assessments. The results of the chi-square tests
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
indicate an association between gender (men vs. women)
and responses (correct vs. incorrect) for three items from
the online survey; one of the items from the scientific
literacy assessment and two of the items from the scientific
cognition assessment. The results of a chi-square test using
gender (men vs. women) and responses to scientific
literacy question no. 9 (correct vs. incorrect) as factors was
statistically significant, χ2 (1, N = 202) = 5.12, p < .05.
Men were more likely to produce a correct response for
scientific literacy question no. 9 than was expected.
Scientific literacy question no. 9 was "Which of the
following are smaller than atoms: a) proteins b) electrons
c) amino acids." The correct answer is b. The results of a
chi-square test using gender (men vs. women) and
responses to scientific cognition question no. 3 (correct vs.
incorrect) as factors was statistically significant, χ2 (1, N
= 202) = 5.57, p < .05.
Women were more likely to produce a correct response for
scientific cognition question no. 3 than expected. Scientific
cognition question no. 3 was "The falsification criteria in
the context of science suggests: a) If a scientific claim is
proven then it is not false b) False claims are not accepted
c) In order for a claim to be scientific it must be testable."
The correct answer is c. The results of a chi-square test
using gender (men vs. women) and responses to scientific
cognition question no. 9 (correct vs. incorrect) as factors
was statistically significant, χ2 (1, N = 202) = 7.05, p <
.05.
Men were more likely to produce a correct response for
scientific cognition question no. 9 than was expected.
Scientific cognition question no. 9 was "In the universal
lottery, the chances of winning a prize are 1%. How many
people do you think would win a prize if 1000 people buy
a single ticket?" The correct is answer is 10.
Discussion
The results showed a positive association between
scientific cognition and scientific literacy. The association
was moderate in strength. The differences between men
and women for total scores on scientific cognition and
scientific literacy were not significant. The results indicate
[Back to Contents] Page 5
gender (men vs. women) differences (correct vs. incorrect)
for three items from the online survey; one of the items
from the scientific literacy assessment and two of the items
from the scientific cognition assessment.
Scientific cognition and scientific literacy are measured on
a continuum. Results from a study conducted by
Drummond and Fischhoff (2015) show a positive
association between the Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS)
and two widely used measures of scientific literacy, the
Trend Factual Knowledge of Science Scale (TFKSS) and
the Understanding of Scientific Inquiry Scale (USIS). The
strength of the association was moderate, similar to our
findings regarding the association between scientific
cognition and scientific literacy. The SRS assesses skills
needed to evaluate scientific evidence; the scale consists of
items related to research methodology. The TFKSS
assesses knowledge of scientific concepts. The USIS
assesses knowledge or research methodology and
probability. The scientific literacy assessment used in this
study is similar to the TFKSS, as it is an assessment of
knowledge of general scientific concepts. These scientific
literacy scales have been used often in the field of public
understanding of science (Alum, Sturgis, Tabourazi, &
Brunton-Smith, 2008). The scientific cognition assessment
is similar to the SRS and the USIS, as it involves questions
regarding research methodology. Similar to the USIS it
also involves questions regarding probability (quantitative
reasoning). In addition, the scientific cognition assessment
involves items that require knowledge in the philosophy of
science.
In contrast to the finding that total scores, for men, on a
general scientific knowledge test were better than for
women (Sloss & Hale, Paper Forthcoming), we found no
significant differences. Also, there were no differences
between men and women for total scores on the scientific
cognition assessment. There were significantly different
scores between men and women for one item from the
scientific literacy assessment and two items from the
scientific cognition assessment. Men scored better on one
item from the scientific literacy assessment and one item
from the scientific cognition assessment. The item,
question no.9, for which men scored better from the
scientific literacy assessment involved a chemistry
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
question. Question no. 9 was "Which of the following are
smaller than atoms: a) proteins b) electrons c) amino
acids." The correct answer is b.
Past research indicates a difference in scores for some
chemistry-related items. A study comparing the
performance of boys and girls in the Australian National
Chemistry Quiz found no differences on some of the
questions, but on some of the questions boys performed
better than girls (Walding, Fogliani, Over, & Bain, 1994).
There were other chemistry items on the scientific literacy
assessment, but there were no gender differences for
chemistry items other than question 9. Men scored better
on an item (question no.9), involving quantitative
reasoning, from the scientific cognition assessment.
Question no. 9 was "In the universal lottery, the chances of
winning a prize are 1%. How many people do you think
would win a prize if 1000 people buy a single ticket?" The
correct is answer is 10. A gender difference on a task
involving quantitative reasoning is in agreement with the
scientific literature that demonstrates better performance of
males regarding quantitative reasoning (Friedman, 1989;
Leahey, & Guo, 2001). The only gender difference on
quantitative reasoning occurred for question no. 9; there
were no differences for other items involving quantitative
reasoning.
Women scored better on an item (question no.3) involving
the philosophy of science. Question no. 3 was "The
falsification criteria in the context of science suggests: A)
If a scientific claim is proven then it is not false; B) False
claims are not accepted; C) In order for a claim to be
scientific it must be testable." The correct answer is C. The
concept of falsification is one of the most discussed
concepts in the philosophy of science. Sometimes
falsification is exaggerated and misused. An example,
demonstrating exaggeration of the falsification criteria, is
the popular suggestion that all science involves null
hypothesis statistical testing (NHST). This misperception
has possibly led to the false notion of a singular scientific
method. Science involves different methods and modeling
strategies.
It is also important to point out, relevant to the falsification
criteria, that not all science claims, principles and
[Back to Contents] Page 6
inferences are testable in the conventional sense. Those are
matters that mostly involve the philosophy of science, and
are not the primary topics of this paper. In future studies,
involving measures of scientific cognition, the authors of
the current study plan to revise the question and answer
choices related to the falsification criteria. This will be an
attempt to provide a clearer representation of falsification,
and its applications across different scientific domains. We
weren't able to locate studies that investigated differences
between genders regarding philosophy of science. It is
unclear why the gender difference occurred on this task.
There were other philosophy of science questions on the
scale, but there were no gender differences on those tasks.
Gender differences are often found when comparing
scoring for individual items. A study investigating gender
differences, for Hong Kong students, didn't find significant
differences for total score in scientific literacy, but
differences were found for components of scientific
literacy (Yan Yip, D., Ming Chiu, M., & Chu Ho, E.,
2004). Scientific literacy as conceptualized in that study
was different than the conceptualization used in the current
study. Scientific literacy in the study of Hong Kong
students, consisted of five components: "understanding
concepts, recognizing questions, identifying evidence,
drawing conclusions, communicating conclusions."
Females scored significantly higher in "recognizing
questions" and "identifying evidence" while boys scored
higher in "understanding concepts." To reiterate, our
conceptualization of scientific literacy, is that scientific
literacy demonstrates general scientific knowledge.
Scientific literacy has a much broader definition in the
Hong Kong study than the definition we used.
Another important finding in the current study was that
students confused science with pseudoscience. The
overwhelming majority of students (79%) reported that
astrology is scientific, or is at least partly scientific. Only
twenty one percent of participants in the study answered
the following question correctly: "Which of the following
statements are true? A) Astrology is not at all scientific B)
Astrology is partly scientific C) Astrology is a legitimate
field of scientific study." The correct answer is A.
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
The astrology question is an item from the scientific
literacy assessment. The results from a study conducted by
Sugarman and colleagues (2011) found that the majority of
students (78%) considered astrology at least sort of
scientific. Only 52% of science majors indicated that
astrology was “not at all” scientific. Those findings are
similar to what we found. Astrology has no scientific
validity, although at one time it was considered a science
by some people. Newspapers and magazines dedicate
sections to horoscopes, and belief in astrology is prevalent
in western society. This exposure to astrology as a
legitimate domain probably has a strong influence
regarding belief in the scientific validity of astrology.
Cognitive priming is often powerful, and may modulate
beliefs, even when priming is used to promote pseudo-
science. Some people may confuse astrology with
astronomy; astrology has origins associated with positional
astronomy. This confusion may lead to an incorrect
response regarding the scientific validity of astrology. A
high level of scientific literacy and scientific cognition
may serve as safeguards against these sorts of pseudo-
scientific beliefs.
The question most often answered incorrectly, from the
scientific cognition assessment, was a question involving
a covariation task. The question was presented as: "A new
medical treatment was designed to treat a serious health
problem. Using the information provided below decide
whether the treatment was effective: 200 people were
given the treatment and improved 75 people were given
the treatment and did not improve 50 people were not
given the treatment and improved 15 people were not
given the treatment and did not improve: A) Treatment
was effective; B) Treatment was not effective." The
probability that the treatment is effective is (200/275) .727.
The probability that the treatment is not effective is
(50/65) .769. The answer is B. Approximately 53% of the
students answered the question incorrectly. The incorrect
response given to this question stems from at least two key
cognitive errors: too much focus on the large number of
people for which improvement occurred following
treatment and a focus on the fact that more people who
received treatment showed improvement than showed no
improvement (Stanovich, 2009).
[Back to Contents] Page 7
The survey used in this study consisted of items derived
from other assessment tools, as well as questions designed
by the researchers, similar to those from past studies.
Some of the questions on the survey were designed by
researchers involved with this study. Thus, it is inferred
that the constructs of scientific literacy and scientific
cognition were validly measured; the survey measured
what was intended to measure. A more comprehensive
measure may require assessments consisting of more
items. It is also possible that measures of these concepts
may yield different results inside and outside the
laboratory. A measure of internal consistency, correlation
between item responses for each assessment, was not an
issue; the questions were knowledge based, not self-report
measures. Measures such as Cronbach's alpha (internal
consistency measure) are best used when assessing
opinion, beliefs and related constructs that aren't
necessarily knowledge based (Warner, 2008). Studies
using different conceptualizations of scientific literacy and
scientific cognition may require different measuring
devices.
The study involved non-probability sampling. The
participants in the study were college students, who show
variability in scientific knowledge and variability in the
number of science courses completed. Some of the
students had taken higher level courses in research
methods and stats, and some of the students had probably
taken philosophy of science courses and other courses that
may have had an impact on performance. The external
validity of this study is limited. Non-student samples and
samples of other students, across different majors, may
provide different results.
The current study as well as past studies have important
implications for science education. Students should be
taught at an early age about the complexity of science.
Science is a systematic process for acquiring knowledge,
and doesn't include a single scientific method or specific
body of knowledge; it includes various methods and it
relevant to various fields of study. Science is important for
everyday thinking and decisions making. A key focus for
extensive investigation is the development of a model that
allows, at least a basic framework, that can be used in
teaching students and the general public. Scientific
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
cognition is essentially analytical thinking that can be
used, and should be used in a wide range of conditions. At
the very least, in an effort to develop better scientific
cognition students should be educated in the areas of the
philosophy of science, research methodology, probabilistic
reasoning and logic (inductive and deductive). Rethinking
science education involves at the most basic level
acknowledging the broad nature of science, promoting the
message that science is hard but learnable, identifying and
accepting the limitations of science, and understanding
science is about more than just retrieving scientific facts
from memory. Domain specific scientific knowledge
involves knowledge in a specific area. Domain specific
knowledge is not synonymous with scientific cognition or
scientific literacy.
Future research could include using the scientific literacy
assessment and scientific cognition assessment in a variety
of contexts. The assessments could be revised and
expanded in an effort to increase sensitivity and make
them more comprehensive. Further investigation of gender
differences as related to specific items from the assessment
may be beneficial. A key area for future research should be
the development of a model that can be used to teach
students and the general public how to use science to
understand the world and make better decisions. Scientific
thinking is relevant across everyday experiences; it
shouldn't be confined to evaluating research studies.
To reiterate, scientific cognition is about much more that
remembering scientific theories, laws and principles.
Scientific cognition is analytical thinking; it should be
used in a wide range of conditions. In an effort to develop
better scientific cognition students should be educated in
the areas of the philosophy of science, research
methodology, (probabilistic reasoning) and logic. Science
educators and the media do a disservice when they
promote science and its wide range of relevant concepts as
"just" being able to remember scientifically derived
information, or promoting science as if it is all about a just
having a sense of "wonder." Being able to recollect
scientific facts and having a sense of wonder is important
regarding science, but those qualities alone do not ensure
high levels of scientific thinking. Assessment tools may
help predict scientific eminence and be used as screening
[Back to Contents] Page 8
tools when hiring or considering admissions to college
programs. More research needs to be done regarding
scientific literacy and scientific cognition. Both of these
concepts involve related cognitive mechanisms, and being
knowledgeable in these areas will have positive
consequences. Society is heavily dependent on science and
technology, and these complex endeavors require complex
thinking. Myself and colleagues would like to see future
research indicating a strong positive association between
scientific cognition and scientific literacy. A moderate
association is not satisfactory.
Further research is needed in the area of teaching strategies
and their relation to learning about science. Research
should include various methods and be used in different
contexts. Measuring outcomes should involve qualitative,
quantitative and mixed assessments. It is essential that
people interested in science including the general public,
popular science writers and those working in specific
scientific domains (health, education, chemistry, physics,
geology neuroscience, etc...) recognize the vast nature of
science and its importance to the progress of society.
_______________________________________________
Jamie Hale. M.S., is a college
instructor, founder of
MaxCondition Training, boxing
coach and he is associated with
Eastern Kentucky University's
Cognitive Neuroscience Lab and
Perception & Cognition Lab. He is
a member of the World Martial
Arts Hall of Fame (recognition of
his strength and conditioning
work with martial artists),
member of Kentucky Academy of Science and former advisor to Karate
International Council of Kickboxing. Jamie is the director of
www.knowledgesummit.net, www.maxcondition.com, and author of
In Evidence We Trust 2nd edition: The need for science, rationality and
statistics. Contact Jamie @ jamie.hale1@gmail.com Read Jamie's
column The Rationality of Science:
https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/category/the-rationality-of-science/
References
Alum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., Brunton-Smith, I.
(2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35-
54. doi: 10.1177/0963662506070159. [SAGE]
Brennan, R.P. (1992). Dictionary of Scientific Literacy.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DeBoer, G.E. (2000). Scientific Literacy: Another look at
its historical and contemporary meanings and its
relationship to science education reform. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 37, 582-601. [JRST]
Drummond, C., & Fischhoff, B. (2015). Development and
Validation of the Scientific Reasoning Scale. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1906.
[JBDM]
Dunbar, K. (2000). How Scientists Think in the Real
World: Implications for Science Education. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 49-58. [JADS]
Feist, G.J. (2006). The Psychology of Science and the
Origins of the Scientific Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Fugelsang, J.A., Stein, C.B., Green, A.E., & Dunbar, K.N.
(2004). Theory and Data Interactions of the Scientific
Mind: Evidence From the Molecular and Cognitive
Laboratory. Canadian Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 58(2), 86-95. [PubMed]
Hale, J.P. (2018). Scientific Cognition and Scientific
Literacy. Kentucky Academy of Science Fall Newsletter.
Hale, J., Sloss, S., & Lawson, A. (2017- No longer
available). Association Between Scientific Cognition and
Scientific Literacy. Knowledge Summit, October, 1-20.
Kahan, D. (2016 ). “Ordinary science intelligence”: A
science-comprehension measure for study of risk and
science communication, with notes on evolution and
climate change. Journal of Risk Research, 1–22,
doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1148067 [JRR]
Friedman, L. (1989). Mathematics and the gender gap: A
meta-analysis of recent studies on sex differences in
mathematical tasks. Review of Education Research, 69,
185-213. [JSTOR]
Leahey, E., & Guo, G. (2001). Gender differences in
mathematical trajectories. Social Forces, 80(2), 713-732.
[University of Arizona]
[Back to Contents] Page 9
Kuhn, D. (2011). What is scientific thinking and how does
it develop? In U. Goswami (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell
Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development 2nd
Edition, 497-523. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Myers, A., & Hansen, C. (2002). Experimental
Psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth.
National Science Board. (2014). Science and engineering
indicators 2014. Arlington VA: National Science
Foundation (NSB 14-01).
Warner, R.M. (2008). Applied Statistics: From Bivariate
Through Multivariate Techniques. Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications.
Yan Yip, D., Ming Chiu, M., & Sui Chu Ho, E. (2004).
Hong Kong student achievement in OECD-PISA Study:
Gender differences in science content, literacy skills, and
test item formats. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 2, 91–106. [Springer]

Norris, S.P., & Phillips, L.M. (2003). How literacy in its

fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science
Education, 87(2), 224-240. [Sci Ed]

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. (2013).
Public's Knowledge of Science and Technology. Pew
Research Center, Washington D.C.

Sloss, G.S., & Hale, J. (Paper Forthcoming). Knowledge

in, belief in and attitudes toward science.

Stanovich, K. (2007). How To Think Straight About

Psychology 8th Edition. New York, NY: Pearson

Stanovich, K. (2009). What Intelligence Tests Miss: the

psychology of rational thought. London: Yale University
Press.

Stanovich, P., & Stanovich, K. (2003). Using Research

and Reason in Education: How Teachers Can Use
Scientifically Based Research to Make Curricular &
Instructional Decisions. National Institute of Literacy.

Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F., & Toplak, M.E. (2016). The

Rationality Quotient. Toward a Test of Rational Thinking.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Sugarman, H., Impey, C., Buxner, S., & Antonellis, J.

(2011). Astrology beliefs among undergraduate students.
Astronomy Education Review, 10, 010101-1,
10.3847/AER2010040. [AER]

Walding, R., Fogliani, C., Over, R., & Bain, J.D. (1994).
Gender differences in response to questions on the
Australian national chemistry quiz. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 31(8), 833-846. [JRST]

Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020 [Back to Contents] Page 10

 compare a high-protein diet (40% of total kcal) with a
North American diet in healthy men and women in a
A high-protein total diet replacement increases controlled feeding format. The study was conducted in an
energy expenditure and leads to negative fat in-patient setting where feeding was rigorously controlled,
balance in healthy, normal-weight adults. and energy metabolism was assessed in a whole-body
Oliveira CLP, et al. Am J Clin Nutr, Nov 2020 calorimetry unit (WBCU). The use of a cross-over design
https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa283 [AJCN] allowed all subjects to undergo both dietary treatments.
The use of both sexes prevented lingering questions of
BACKGROUND: High-protein diets and total diet how the response of men and women might differ.
replacements are becoming increasingly popular for weight
loss; however, further research is needed to elucidate their Limitations
impact on the mechanisms involved in weight regulation.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this inpatient metabolic balance Although the diet comparison was isocaloric, the
study was to compare the impact of a high-protein total diet differences in each macronutrient between the diets made
replacement (HP-TDR) versus a control diet (CON) on select
it impossible to isolate which macronutrient’s specific
components of energy metabolism in healthy adults of both
sexes. METHODS: The acute intervention was a level of intake was responsible for the results. In other
randomized, controlled, crossover design with participants words, it’s not possible to determine whether the higher
allocated to 2 isocaloric arms: 1) HP-TDR: 35% protein, lower carbohydrate, or lower fat content of the
carbohydrate, 40% protein, and 25% fat achieved through a high-protein total diet replacement (HP-TDR) diet
nutritional supplement; 2) CON: 55% carbohydrate, 15% imparted the advantages over the lower-protein diet with
protein, and 30% fat. Participants received the prescribed
diets for 32 h while inside a whole-body calorimetry unit higher carbohydrate and fat content. It’s also possible that
(WBCU). The first dietary intervention randomly offered in the results could be limited to the profile of the subjects
the WBCU was designed to maintain energy balance and the (young, health, normal-weight adults). The short study
second matched what was offered during the first stay. duration (32-hour testing periods) remain subject to further
Energy expenditure, macronutrient oxidation rates and investigation in trials that span several weeks or months.
balances, and metabolic blood markers were assessed. Body
composition was measured at baseline using DXA.
Comment application
RESULTS: Forty-three healthy, normal-weight adults (19
females and 24 males) were included. Compared with the
CON diet, the HP-TDR produced higher total energy
expenditure [(EE) 81 ± 82 kcal/d, P <0.001], protein and fat
oxidation rates (38 ± 34 g/d, P <0.001; 8 ± 20 g/d, P = 0.013,
respectively), and a lower carbohydrate oxidation rate (–38 ±
43 g/d, P <0.001). Moreover, a HP-TDR led to decreased
energy (–112 ± 85 kcal/d; P <0.001), fat (–22 ± 20 g/d; P
<0.001), and carbohydrate balances (–69 ± 44 g/d; P <0.001),
and increased protein balance (90 ± 32 g/d; P <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Our primary findings were that a HP-
TDR led to higher total EE, increased fat oxidation, and
negative fat balance. These results suggest that a HP-TDR
may promote fat loss compared with a conventional
isocaloric diet. These trials were registered at
clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02811276 and NCT03565510. The findings of this study are tabulated above (larger
FUNDING SOURCE: Almased Wellness GmbH image here). The most salient findings were higher total
(Bienenbüttel, Germany).
daily energy expenditure (81 kcal/day) and fat oxidation
(8 g/day) in the HP-TDR condition compared to the
Strengths
control condition. HP-TDR resulted in negative fat balance
This study is conceptually strong since it asks an (-20 g/d) while the control condition’s fat balance was
interesting and relevant question, and is the first to ever to positive (1 g/day). Protein balance in HP-TDR and the
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020 [Back to Contents] Page 11
control condition were 119 & 29 g/day, respectively.
Carbohydrate balance in HP-TDR was negative (-48 g)
while it was positive in the control condition (22 g).
Collectively, these changes favored HP-TDR’s
conduciveness to body fat reduction goals that also target
the retention (or gain) of bodily protein. It’s important to
reiterate that HP-TDR resulted in negative total daily
energy balance (-18 kcal) while the control condition
resulted in positive total daily energy balance (92
kcal/day). It’s clear that the high protein intake of HP-TDR
packed some metabolic heat, literally.
The HP-TDR provided 211 g protein, (3.27 g/kg). In
contrast, the control diet provided 83 g (1.28 g/kg). Total
energy content of the diets were virtually identical, at 2129
& 2128 kcal, respectively. It should be noted that HP-TDR
treatment depended upon a meal replacement product
called Almased, whose nutritional content per serving is as
follows:
The main ingredient is soy protein isolate. Using soy
protein is a great way to cut production costs. It’s
significantly cheaper than using whey protein. While whey
is out of the question for individuals purposely avoiding
animal products, it has consistently shown a greater acute
anabolic response in terms of muscle protein synthesis
(MPS) compared to soy protein.1-3 Another potential issue
is Charidemou et al’s recent study showing that a soy
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
protein-rich diet (33% of total kcal) increased triglyceride
synthesis compared to the control meal and high-fat meal
up to 3 hours after ingestion.4 Another potential concern
with relying on soy protein isolate as the main protein
source of the diet is the potential for endocrine disruption
resulting from phytoestrogen intake via soy products.5 Soy
consumption has also been demonstrated to interfere with
levothyroxine (Synthroid), a thyroid medication. Here’s an
excerpt from the article on veganism I wrote in the August
2017 issue of AARR, which conveys what might be a
good tactical strategy for not overdoing soy protein:
“There is approximately 3.5 mg of isoflavones per gram
of soy protein in soybeans and traditional soy foods.24
Older Japanese adults have been reported to have a daily
consumption of approximately 6-11 g of soy protein and
25-50 mg of isoflavones per day, and lower intakes have
been reported in Hong Kong and Singapore. It’s estimated
that no more than 10% of the Asian population consumes
25 g of soy protein (~100 mg of isoflavones) per day.”
References
1. Tang JE, et al Ingestion of whey hydrolysate, casein,
or soy protein isolate: effects on mixed muscle protein
synthesis at rest and following resistance exercise in
young men. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2009
Sep;107(3):987-92. [PubMed]
2. Yang Y, et al. Myofibrillar protein synthesis following
ingestion of soy protein isolate at rest and after
resistance exercise in elderly men. Nutr Metab (Lond).
2012 Jun 14;9(1):57. [PubMed]
3. Berrazaga I, et al. The role of the anabolic properties
of plant- versus animal-based protein sources in
supporting muscle mass maintenance: a critical
review. nutrients. 2019 Aug 7;11(8):1825. [PubMed]
4. Charidemou E, et al. A randomized 3-way crossover
study indicates that high-protein feeding induces de
novo lipogenesis in healthy humans. JCI Insight. 2019
May 30;4(12):e124819. [PubMed]
5. Jargin SV. Soy and phytoestrogens: possible side
effects. Ger Med Sci. 2014 Dec 15;12:Doc18.
[PubMed]
6. Messina M. Soy and Health Update: Evaluation of the
Clinical and Epidemiologic Literature. Nutrients. 2016
Nov 24;8(12). pii: E754. [PubMed]
[Back to Contents] Page 12

Effect of 12 months of creatine supplementation
and whole-body resistance training on measures
of bone, muscle and strength in older males.
Candow DG, Chilibeck PD, Gordon J, Vogt E, Landeryou
T, Kaviani M, Paus-Jensen L. Nutr Health. 2020 Nov
24:260106020975247. [PubMed]
BACKGROUND: The combination of creatine
supplementation and resistance training (10-12 weeks) has
been shown to increase bone mineral content and reduce a
urinary indicator of bone resorption in older males
compared with placebo. However, the longer-term effects
(12 months) of creatine and resistance training on bone
mineral density and bone geometric properties in older
males is unknown. AIM: To assess the effects of 12
months of creatine supplementation and supervised,
whole-body resistance training on bone mineral density,
bone geometric properties, muscle accretion, and strength
in older males. METHODS: Participants were
randomized to supplement with creatine (n = 18, 49-69
years, 0.1 g·kg-1·d-1) or placebo (n = 20, 49-67 years, 0.1
g·kg-1·d-1) during 12 months of supervised, whole-body
resistance training. RESULTS: After 12 months of
training, both groups experienced similar changes in bone
mineral density and geometry, bone speed of sound, lean
tissue and fat mass, muscle thickness, and muscle strength.
There was a trend (p = 0.061) for creatine to increase the
section modulus of the narrow part of the femoral neck, an
indicator of bone bending strength, compared with
placebo. Adverse events did not differ between creatine
and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Twelve months of
creatine supplementation and supervised, whole-body
resistance training had no greater effect on measures of
FUNDING SOURCE: The Saskatchewan Health
Research Foundation and the Canada Foundation for
Innovation for this research.
Strengths
This is the first study to examine the effects of 12 months
of creatine supplementation in older subjects (56-58 y)
engaged in full-body progressive resistance training. All
sessions were supervised. Creatine dosing was
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
proportionally standardized: 0.05 g/kg was ingested before
and after each training session, for a total of 0.1 g/kg.
Based on the treatment group’s mean bodyweight of 93 kg,
the dose was 9.3 g (split in half pre & post-exercise),
which is more than sufficient. Dual X-ray absorptiometry
(DXA) was used to assess body composition. According to
dietary records taken at baseline ant at the end of the trial,
there were no changes or differences between groups in
total energy and macronutrient intake/
Limitations
The authors acknowledged that starting intramuscular
creatine levels, muscle fiber properties, and habitual
dietary creatine intake were not assessed. Therefore, these
important variables that could have influenced the effect
(or lack of effect) of creatine supplementation remain open
to question. Also, there was no familiarization phase of the
resistance training equipment and protocol prior to starting
the study. This could have increased the neuromuscular
learning curve of the subjects in a confounding manner (as
opposed to everyone starting off on a more level playing
field). Despite the authors mention of the latter potential
limitation, I would counter that the long study duration (12
months) left plenty of time for initial neuromuscular
learning to level out across the subjects.
Comment/application
The main finding of this study was the big, anticlimactic
load of nothing in terms of creatine supplementation’s
contribution to resistance training’s effects on any of the
parameters tested (lean mass - including bone mass,
muscle thickness & strength). Lean mass significantly
increased at the whole-body level as well as the
appendicular level. Thickness significantly increased in the
upper arm muscles. Squat and chest press strength
significantly increased as well. Changes in bone density
were a mix if increases and decreases, but none of these
changes (nor any of the aforementioned changes in body
composition) were influenced by creatine supplementation.
This results of this study did not support the authors’
hypothesis that creatine supplementation would have a
greater effect on bone & muscle gain, and muscle strength
[Back to Contents] Page 13
compared with placebo (at least from the standpoint of
statistical significance).
Previous research on creatine’s effect on bone parameters
have been equivocal, with some studies showing positive
effects,1-3 and others showing no effects.4,5 These mixed
results are reflected in a meta-analysis by Forbes et al, who
reported that no significant effect on whole body, hip,
femoral neck, or lumbar spine bone mineral density via
creatine supplementation combined with resistance
training versus resistance training alone.6
It’s noteworthy that the authors concluded that although
the differences in lean mass change failed to reach
statistical significance, creatine was nevertheless better at
mitigating lean mass losses. Approximately 1.0 kg less
lean mass was lost in the creatine group compared to the
placebo group. The authors note that this result aligns with
the collective results of previous research7 and two meta-
analyses showing a ~1.2 kg lean mass advantage via
creatine supplementation in resistance-training older
adults.8,9
It’s easy to overlook the fact that the present study
reported a loss of lean mass in both the creatine group
(0.90 kg) as well as the placebo group (1.89 kg).
Considering that these losses occurred despite a structured,
supervised of a progressive resistance training program,
that’s, well…kinda pathetic. This is especially so, since
this happened in eucaloric (weight maintenance)
conditions, for a year. A potential explanation for this is
the low protein intake in both the creatine and placebo
group, which at the 12-month mark were 0.95 & 0.89 g/kg,
respectively. These intakes fall approximately 40-44%
short of what is considered sufficient for eliciting muscle
growth (~1.6 g/kg).10
References
1. Gerber I, ap Gwynn I, Alini M, Wallimann T.
Stimulatory effects of creatine on metabolic activity,
differentiation and mineralization of primary
osteoblast-like cells in monolayer and micromass cell
cultures. Eur Cell Mater. 2005 Jul 15;10:8-22.
[PubMed]
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
2. Candow DG, Little JP, Chilibeck PD, Abeysekara S,
Zello GA, Kazachkov M, Cornish SM, Yu PH. Low-
dose creatine combined with protein during resistance
training in older men. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008
Sep;40(9):1645-52. [PubMed]
3. Chilibeck PD, Candow DG, Landeryou T, Kaviani M,
Paus-Jenssen L. Effects of Creatine and Resistance
Training on Bone Health in Postmenopausal Women.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015 Aug;47(8):1587-95.
[PubMed]
4. Lobo DM, Tritto AC, da Silva LR, de Oliveira PB,
Benatti FB, Roschel H, Nieß B, Gualano B, Pereira
RM. Effects of long-term low-dose dietary creatine
supplementation in older women. Exp Gerontol. 2015
Oct;70:97-104. [PubMed]
5. Sales LP, Pinto AJ, Rodrigues SF, Alvarenga JC,
Gonçalves N, Sampaio-Barros MM, Benatti FB,
Gualano B, Rodrigues Pereira RM. Creatine
Supplementation (3 g/d) and Bone Health in Older
Women: A 2-Year, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled
Trial. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2020 Apr
17;75(5):931-938. [PubMed]
6. Forbes SC, Chilibeck PD, Candow DG. Creatine
Supplementation During Resistance Training Does
Not Lead to Greater Bone Mineral Density in Older
Humans: A Brief Meta-Analysis. Front Nutr. 2018 Apr
24;5:27. [PubMed]
7. Candow DG, Chilibeck PD, Forbes SC. Creatine
supplementation and aging musculoskeletal health.
Endocrine. 2014 Apr;45(3):354-61. [PubMed]
8. Chilibeck PD, Kaviani M, Candow DG, Zello GA.
Effect of creatine supplementation during resistance
training on lean tissue mass and muscular strength in
older adults: a meta-analysis. Open Access J Sports
Med. 2017 Nov 2;8:213-226. [PubMed]
9. Devries MC, Phillips SM. Creatine supplementation
during resistance training in older adults-a meta-
analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014 Jun;46(6):1194-
203. [PubMed]
10. Morton RW, Murphy KT, McKellar SR, Schoenfeld
BJ, Henselmans M, Helms E, Aragon AA, Devries
MC, Banfield L, Krieger JW, Phillips SM. A
systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression
of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance
training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in
healthy adults. Br J Sports Med. 2018 Mar;52(6):376-
384. [PubMed]
[Back to Contents] Page 14

Honey does not adversely impact blood lipids of
adult men and women: a randomized cross-over
trial.
Al-Tamimi AM, Petrisko M, Hong MY, Rezende L,
Clayton ZS, Kern M. Nutr Res. 2020 Feb;74:87-95.
[PubMed]
BACKGROUND & PURPOSE: Consumption of added
sugars in the US is estimated to be approximately 1.5
times recommended levels and has been linked to
increased risk for developing chronic diseases. We
hypothesized that relative to sugar, honey would reduce
energy intake and improve serum lipid profiles.
METHODS: To test this, we assessed the short-term (1-
week) and relatively long-term (1-month) effects of honey
versus sucrose on changes in dietary intake and serum
lipid concentrations. Thirty-seven apparently healthy
subjects (21 males; 16 females) aged 24-57 years (BMI =
17.6-37.2 kg/m2) completed two 4-week trials in a
randomized, cross-over design separated by ≥4-week
washout. During each trial, subjects consumed either
clover honey or sucrose providing 1.2 g/kg/day of
carbohydrate under free-living conditions with instructions
to avoid changing their habitual food intake. RESULTS:
Serum triglyceride (TG) concentrations were elevated (P <
.05) after 1 week for both trials but only remained elevated
(P < .05) at the 4-week time-point during sucrose
consumption. The elevation after 1 week during the honey
trial was concurrent with a transient increase (P < .05) in
body weight. No effects on serum concentrations of
insulin, total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein-
cholesterol, or high density lipoprotein-cholesterol were
detected for either trial. Subjects consumed significantly
less energy (P < .05), carbohydrate (P < .005), sugars (P <
.05), and saturated fat (P < .05) during the honey trial.
CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that honey may
serve as a favorable substitute for sucrose with regard to
reduced energy intake, carbohydrate and sugars, without
negatively influencing serum lipid concentrations.
FUNDING SOURCE: This work was supported by a
grant from the National Honey Board. ZSC is currently
supported by the National Institutes of Health award T32
DK007135-44.
Strengths
Methodological strengths that the authors acknowledged
were the inclusion of both men and women, the use of a
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
crossover design (which allowed all subjects to undergo
both conditions, mitigating the confounding potential of
inter-individual differences), and the objective monitoring
of physical activity via pedometers. The free-living
conditions of this study can be considered a strength since
it inherently reflects the real world, which tightly
controlled lab conditions sometimes fail to replicate.
I would also add that the research question is relevant to
public health, given the large amount of controversy
surrounding added sugars and health. Furthermore, the
dose (1.2 g/kg) amounted to 16% of total kcals, which is
well-targeted and sufficiently robust considering that the
USDHHS/USDA’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans1 and
the World Health Organization2 push for an intake below
10% of total kcals. The treatment dose is also appropriate
since it exceeds the current intake of added sugars by US
adults aged 19 years and above (13.1% of total kcals) and
is equal to the added sugar consumption of those aged 9-18
years (16.2%).3
Limitations
The authors diligently listed the following limitations:
Limitations of the study include:
▪ It’s difficult to disentangle the subjects’ diverse
dietary habits and other environmental factors
resulting in the nonsignificant outcomes seen.
▪ The dose of honey almost doubled the subjects’
usual sugar intake, which raises questions how
realistic or practical the chosen dose was.
▪ Clover honey was used in healthy subjects. This
limits the generalizability to other honey types and
population profiles (i.e., various disease states).
▪ FFA, LPL activity, and adipokines were not
assessed, thus leaving open questions about
potential mechanisms underlying the results.
I would add that the 4-week trial period was relatively
short, leaving lingering questions about what might occur
in the long-term. In addition, although measurement of
low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) is accepted as a valid
standard of risk assessment, there are other non-high-
density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) biomarkers
to consider, which were not assessed in this study. The
[Back to Contents] Page 15
ratio of apolipoprotein B (apoB) to lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)
has accumulated substantial evidence as a worthy risk
parameter.4 LDL particle number (LDL-P) is another risk
index worth serious consideration. Quoting a review by
Otvos et al,5 “Most studies comparing LDL-C and LDL
particle number have used plasma apolipoprotein B (apoB)
levels for estimation of LDL particle concentration, and
have consistently shown apoB to be more strongly
associated with CVD than LDL-C.”
Comment/application
As shown table above, the headline-worthy finding of this
study was a lack of effect of either treatment on total
cholesterol, LDL-C, and HDL-C. An increase in
triglyceride (TG) levels (shown in the graph above) was
seen in both conditions at the 1-week mark. However, at 4-
weeks, TG levels in the honey condition appear decreased
to a level that was not significantly higher than baseline,
while TG levels in the sucrose condition were still
significantly elevated compared to baseline. No changes
in insulin, were seen within or between groups. While
these results are a victory for honey, but I’d reiterate that
the short 4-week trial period is limited in its ability to
allow firm conclusions.
The results of this study only partially supported the
authors’ hypothesis, which was, “relative to sugar, honey
would reduce energy intake and improve serum lipid
profiles.” Honey resulted in a smaller increase in total
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
energy intake compared to sucrose. Honey increased
intake from 1998 kcal at baseline to 2112 kcal at 4 weeks,
while sucrose increased intake from 2103 to 2428 kcal.
This difference in intake was too minor to impact
bodyweight, since no significant difference within or
between conditions occurred by the 4-week mark. The
latter part of the hypothesis (improved lipids via honey vs
sucrose) didn’t occur, with the exception of TG, which
favored the honey treatment.
This study adds at least partial support to an intriguing
body of research showing that honey’s beneficial effects,
which include improved insulin, glucose, and lipid
metabolism, as well as anti-obesity and antioxidative
properties.6 In the realm of added sugars, honey stands out
as the “healthy” one among the hooligans due to its
preventive and therapeutic potential.7
References
1. Rouen PA, Wallace BR. The 2015-2020 Dietary
Guidelines: Overview and Implications for Nursing
Practice. Home Healthc Now. 2017 Feb;35(2):72-82.
[PubMed]
2. Guideline: Sugars Intake for Adults and Children.
Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.
Recommendations and remarks. [NCBI Bookshelf]
3. Bailey RL, Fulgoni VL, Cowan AE, Gaine PC.
Sources of Added Sugars in Young Children,
Adolescents, and Adults with Low and High Intakes of
Added Sugars. Nutrients. 2018 Jan 17;10(1):102.
[PubMed]
4. Upadhyay RK. Emerging risk biomarkers in
cardiovascular diseases and disorders. J Lipids.
2015;2015:971453. Added Sugars. Nutrients. 2018 Jan
17;10(1):102. [PubMed]
5. Otvos JD, Mora S, Shalaurova I, Greenland P, Mackey
RH, Goff DC Jr. Clinical implications of discordance
between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and
particle number. J Clin Lipidol. 2011 Mar-
Apr;5(2):105-13. [PubMed]
6. Ramli NZ, Chin KY, Zarkasi KA, Ahmad F. A
Review on the Protective Effects of Honey against
Metabolic Syndrome. Nutrients. 2018 Aug
2;10(8):1009. [PubMed]
7. Miguel MG, Antunes MD, Faleiro ML. Honey as a
Complementary Medicine. Integr Med Insights. 2017
Apr 24;12:1178633717702869. [PubMed]
[Back to Contents] Page 16

Is dietary fat really the best macronutrient for
long-term satiety?
By Lorenzo Pansini
_______________________________________________
\
In research, fat is recognized as the least influential
macronutrient on satiety (hunger control between meals)
and even less on satiation (hunger decrease during a meal
that leads to the cessation of eating). In fact, conventional
scientific consensus paints fat at the bottom of the
hierarchy of the macronutrients’ effect on satiety.
However, a potential characteristic of fat that seems to
give at least one advantage over the other macronutrients,
namely the ability to better affect long-term satiety, thanks
to a slower gastric emptying. This notion is often taken for
granted in nutrition, but a closer look through the scientific
literature may tell a different story.
The lines of evidence on this topic are filled with gray
areas. The aim of this article is to the examinine the body
of research and draw relevant practical conclusions in the
face of incomplete data.
Background
According to the scientific consensus, the hierarchy of
macronutrients on appetite regulation follows the order
protein > carbohydrate > fat.1,2 Fat contains more than
double the calories compared to other macronutrients and
produces only minor effects on satiation and satiety, at
least in the short-term (which may be roughly defined as
the early postprandial 2-3 hours).
While while having lacking short-term effects, fat has a
greater effect on satiety in the late postprandial period, and
this is at least in part due to the greater slowdown of
gastric emptying. Fat’s hydrophobic nature slows
digestion, but this effect is largely confined to the small
intestine (i.e. the later phase of the digestion process).
In research, this advantage is frequently mentioned, but the
original studies used to confirm that are often on animals,
or by infusion into the gut,3,4 up to old gastrectomy
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
literature.5 Still, there are several comparative studies on
healthy humans worth examining.
Macronutrients on gastric emptying: classic research
Hunt & Stubbs (1975) is a classic study on the effect of
macronutrients on gastric emptying.6 The authors analyzed
33 human studies, concluding that a high calorie density
promotes a slowdown in gastric emptying. That seems to
confirm the idea that fat, being calorically denser than
carbohydrate and protein, has an advantage. However,
these were not the implications.
Hunt & Stubbs concluded that gastric emptying rate was
overall similar between fat, carbohydrate, and protein for
the same calories.6 Furthermore, although gastric emptying
with meals with a high-calorie density (less volume) was
slower, they observed that the speed of passage of calories
from the stomach to the duodenum was instead greater. In
a review of the same year, on the basis of these data, Hunt
et al stated:7
“It follows that people choosing an energy-dense
mixture of food and drink will, for a meal of given
energy content, have an empty stomach sooner than
persons who choose a meal containing the same
amount of energy in a more dilute form.”
Contradictory conclusions are extrapolated from this
classic study. Some cite it to confirm that energy density
slows gastric emptying (suggesting an advantage of fat per
calorie); others cite it to claim otherwise. Sill, others lean
on this study to show that the calories ingested are the
most important factor, regardless of their composition.
These conclusions were also made specifically for
beverages by others, also citing one study (not available)
where carbohydrates and alcohol were compared.8
The studies included in Hunt & Stubbs’ paper examined
gastric emptying just up to the early 60 minutes, many
were unpublished, involved few subjects, and did not test
pure protein foods. Their conclusions were questioned by
others, who found a different pattern of passage from the
stomach to the duodenum.9 For this reason, it's wise to
consider other recent literature to arrive at more precise
answers.
[Back to Contents] Page 17
Macronutrients & gastric emptying: comparative trials
under scrutiny
There are only a few isocolaric randomized controlled
trials (RCTs) on humans that investigated the
macronutrients’ impact on gastric emptying through food
ingestion. In this case, trials that administered food by
infusion into the stomach or the gut will be excluded, as
they don't mimic conditions applicable to the real world.
Fisher et al. (1987) compared the gastric emptying rate of
four isovolumetric (315 mL) and isoenergetic (~380 kcal)
liquid meals within 2 hours in groups of 10 young male
subjects.10 Gastric emptying was faster with the pure fat
meal (43 g) and the mixed meal (F 20 g, C 33 g, P 17 g, or
F 47%, C 35% g, P 18%) than pure protein or
carbohydrate meal (both 95 g).
Sidery et al. (1994) observed that a high-fat meal (71% F,
14% C, 15% P) slowed gastric emptying more than an
isoenergetic (~600 kcal) high-carb meal (7% F, 74% C,
19% P) over 3 hours, in 8 young males.11
Cecil et al. (1999) showed that a high-fat tomato soup (F
70%, C 30%, P 3%) slowed gastric emptying more than
isoenergetic (~400 kcal) and isovolume (425 mL) high-
carb tomato soup (F 20%, C 77%, P 3%) within 2 hours, in
9 young men.12
Segura Molina et al. (2006) compared a high-fat (F 50%, C
42%, P 7%), high-carb (F 32%, C 61%, P 7%), higher-
carb (F 24%, C 70%, P 6%) and high-protein (F 30%, C
40%, P 30%) breakfasts in isoenergetic conditions (~500
kcal) within 2 hours, on 12 lean and 35 obese subjects of
both sexes.13 Gastric emptying was slower for the high-
protein meal in both groups, while only in the obese did
the higher-carb meal tended to produce a more rapid
emptying compared to the high-carb and high-fat meals.
Clegg & Shafat (2010) found that in 9 young males a high-
fat meal (F 60%, C 30%, P 10%) caused similar gastric
emptying (only a few minutes longer) than isoenergetic
(~780 kcal) high-carb meal (F 24%, C 70%, P 6%) at 3
hours. Furthermore, the two meals similarly affected
gastric emptying of the next meal consumed after 3
hours.14
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
Implications
It's hard to figure out which of the many confounding
variables are responsible for the inconsistent results.
Energy density, volume, texture (solid, liquid, etc.), sex,
osmolality, fat mass, and habitual diet (high vs low fat) are
some of the main factors that affect gastric emptying;5,8
many of these variables have never been standardized,
others were controlled only in some studies (volume,
texture, fat mass).
Some of these studies did not standardize volume11,14 or
just didn't report it,13 but those who did so observed
opposite results with fat vs carbohydrate.10,12 Studies that
did not standardize volume administered solid or semi-
solid (mixed) meals making the comparison more realistic,
but still, the results were not consistent (as well as
confused by a slight protein mismatch).11,14 Also, it cannot
be ruled out that macronutrient mixes have different
effects from their isolated ingestion, as tested by only one
of these trials.10
However, it's evident that fat does not appear to have an
overwhelming advantage on gastric emptying compared to
other macronutrients, both in more rigorous experimental
conditions (matched in several variables), but above all in
more realistic (and ecologically valid) conditions. This
observation is reinforced by Hunt & Stubbs' earlier
conclusions by which fat has a similar effect on gastric
emptying as other macronutrients on a per-calorie basis.6
Protein has always been found to be among the most
influential in slowing gastric emptying,10,13 explaining
some potential mechanisms by which it's the most satiating
macronutrient.1,2 But it is rather questionable to consider
the gastric emptying rate as a direct marker of appetite and
ad libitum calorie intake; one of these studies in fact did
not find a close relationship between these variables.14
Furthermore, all of these studies measured gastric
emptying rate only within 2-3 hours, leaving open
questions about longer-term satiety.
Long-term satiety of macronutrients: comparative
trials under scrutiny
Long-term satiety can be defined as satiety in the advanced
[Back to Contents] Page 18
postprandial phase, with a cutoff value at about 3-4
hours.15,16 The common notion about the fat’s superiority
to promote long-term satiety can be traced back to this
timing, suggesting that where other macronutrients fail, fat
would still be able to satiate well (or better) after 3-4 hours
after meal consumption.
Considering the previous conclusions on gastric emptying,
it's not certain that the hypothetical long-term advantage is
due to this mechanism, also because a close relationship
between the two variables is not always observed.14
However, this does not rule out the possible long-term
satiety advantage for other reasons.
Blundell et al. (1993) compared the effects of a solid
(~800 kcal) breakfast enriched with liquid carbohydrate (F
12%, C 87%, P 6%) or fat (F 57%, C 39%, P 6%) on
appetite markers within 4 hours, and on the ad libitum
energy intake after 90 and 270 min, in 16 young males.17
The high-carb breakfast reduced hunger in the early 4
hours, and reduced energy intake after 90 but not after 270
min. The high-fat breakfast did not significantly suppress
hunger, nor did it reduce the energy intake in the next two
meals.
Raben et al. (2003) compared the effects of a high-protein
(F 31%, C 37%, P 32%), high-carb (F 24%, C 65%, P
12%), high-fat (F 65%, C 24%, P 11%) and high-alcohol
(F 24%, C 43%, P 12%, A 23%) solid breakfasts with the
same calories (~700 kcal on 10 men, ~600 kcal on 9
women) and energy density (1.15 kcal/g) on appetite
markers and energy intake after 5 hours.18 All
macronutrient mixes showed similar effects on appetite
markers and ad libitum intake over 5 hours.
Clegg & Shafat (2010) compared an isoenergetic (~780
kcal) high-fat (60% F, 30% C, 10% P) and high-carb (24%
F, 70% C, 6% P) solid breakfast on the appetite and energy
intake in the two meals after 4 and 7 hours and during the
day, in 9 young males.14 The high-carb breakfast was more
satiating and led to a lower ad libitum calorie intake in
subsequent meals and throughout the day.
Bachlechner et al. (2017) compared three isocaloric (~600
kcal) and isovolume (1500 mL) liquid solutions composed
of pure carbohydrate, fat or protein (or a placebo) on
hunger and food craving within 5 hours from the ingestion,
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
in 20 young men.19 Protein suppressed hunger better
throughout the 5 hours, carbohydrate tended to satiate
more than fat for most of the 5 hours.
Implications
Again, the results are not consistent. Protein tends to
maintain primacy despite conflicting evidence.18.19 What
needs to be emphasized is that even for long-term satiety,
fat is clearly not superior to carbohydrate, much less to
protein.
Some of these studies standardized energy density or
volume, observing conflicting results,18,19 perhaps due in
part to the different texture of the respective test meals, or
due to the mixed or isolated form. Since it's unrealistic to
ingest pure fat, it's possible that when energy density is
controlled in the context of a mixed solid meal, fat has no
less effect on satiety than other macronutrients. However,
it's also not realistic to control energy density or volume,
so fat would be still disadvantageous due to its lower
volume added to the meal.
Not surprisingly, studies that did not standardize these
variables by testing solid or texture-mixed meals found a
superior effect for carbohydrates on fat even in the long
term,14,17 suggesting that in the real world, fat remains the
least satiating even many hours after ingestion of a mixed
meal. These data seem to directly refute the common
notion (or the dogma) that fat has an advantage on long-
term satiety over other macronutrients per calorie.
Conclusions
A common belief in nutrition is that dietary fat in meals
has an inherent advantage in slowing gastric emptying and
in maintaining a better satiety in the long term. Therefore,
making sure of the presence of fat in meals would ensure a
digestive process extension and a better appetite regulation
over the day. However, gastric emptying is not necessarily
a predictor of satiety and ad libitum intake, and should be
rather considered a surrogate (indirect) appetite marker.
More importantly, the research does not indicate clear and
consistent superiority of fat over other macronutrients, nor
to slow gastric emptying, nor to better maintain satiety in
[Back to Contents] Page 19
the advanced postprandial period (4-5 hours), nor to
reduce ad libitum energy intake in the subsequent meals.
Adding fat to the meal would therefore have no inherent
advantages compared to adding the same calories from
carbohydrates and especially protein to prolong gastric
digestion and slowing. Indeed, since fat has a higher
energy density (it occupies less volume) and palatability, it
would be disadvantageous from the standpoint of
economizing energy intake. This would especially be the
case from liquid, viscous or semi-solid sources of fat (oils,
creams, nuts & seeds butters, etc). This disadvantage
compared to carbohydrates would be amplified in
comparison with solid starchy foods, and even more in a
raw form.
In a realistic scenario, fat would often be intended as
added extra calories to the meal, and this certainly
contributes to slowing gastric emptying and possibly
creating slightly higher satiety compared just to adding
nothing. However, this is not due to the properties of fat
itself, but to the addition of calories; adding the same
calories from solid carbohydrates and especially from
protein would in most cases have better effects.
There is a faint chance that added fat may maintain longer-
term satiety or reduce ad libitum calorie intake (as well as
other macronutrients more likely do), but for dieting
purposes, the extra calories are probably more of a gamble
than they’re worth.
______________________________________________
Lorenzo Pansini is a personal trainer,
natural bodybuilder, and a very active
author and science writer in his country for
websites, magazines and books.
Assiduous student of training, nutrition and
everything that revolves around the world
of bodybuilding, fitness and body
composition, both from a practical and
theoretical point of view. He owns the
Italian website bodycompacademy.it,
dedicated to evidence-based fitness,
bodybuilding and nutrition education. He
stands out for his critical and objective
analyzes, based on a selected
bibliography, and for the continuous
updating on the evolution of the industry
from research and the circuit of the
reference professionals worldwide."
Website: https://bodycompacademy.it/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LorenzoPansiniBCA/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lorenzo.pansini/
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
References:
1. Carreriro AL et al. The macronutrients, appetite and
energy intake. Annu Rev Nutr. 2016 Jul 17; 36: 73–
103. [PubMed]
2. Chambers L et al. Optimising foods for satiety. Trends
Food Sci Tech. 2015; 41:149-60. [TFST]
3. Little TJ, Feinle-Bisset C. Oral and gastrointestinal
sensing of dietary fat and appetite regulation in
humans: modification by diet and obesity. Front
Neurosci. 2010 Oct 19;4:178. [PubMed]
4. van Kleef E et al. Successful development of satiety
enhancing food products: towards a multidisciplinary
agenda of research challenges. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr.
2012;52(7):611-28. [PubMed]
5. Clegg M, Shafat A. Conference on "Multidisciplinary
approaches to nutritional problems". Postgraduate
Symposium. The role of fat in gastric emptying and
satiety: acute and chronic effects. Proc Nutr Soc. 2009
Feb;68(1):89-97. [PubMed]
6. Hunt JN, Stubbs DF. The volume and energy content
of meals as determinants of gastric emptying. J
Physiol. 1975 Feb; 245(1): 209–225. [PubMed]
7. Hunt JN, Cash R, Newland P. Energy density of food,
gastric emptying, and obesity. Lancet. 1975 Nov
8;2(7941):905-6. [Lancet]
8. Leiper JB. Fate of ingested fluids: factors affecting
gastric emptying and intestinal absorption of
beverages in humans. Nutr Rev. 2015 Sep;73 Suppl
2:57-72. [PubMed]
9. Calbet JA, MacLean DA. Role of caloric content on
gastric emptying in humans. J Physiol. 1997 Jan
15;498 (Pt 2)(Pt 2):553-9. [PubMed]
10. Fisher RS et al. Effects of meal composition on
gallbladder and gastric emptying in man. Dig Dis Sci.
1987 Dec;32(12):1337-44. [PubMed]
11. Sidery MB et al. Superior mesenteric artery blood flow
and gastric emptying in humans and the differential
effects of high fat and high carbohydrate meals. Gut.
1994 Feb;35(2):186-90. [PubMed]
12. Cecil JE et al. Comparison of the effects of a high-fat
and high-carbohydrate soup delivered orally and
intragastrically on gastric emptying, appetite, and
eating behaviour. Physiol Behav. 1999 Aug;67(2):299-
306. [PubMed]
[Back to Contents] Page 20
13. Segura Molina E et al. Analysis of gastric emptying
dynamics in relationship to qualitative composition of
intake. Comparison between normal-weight and obese
subjects. Rev Esp Med Nucl. May-Jun
2006;25(3):172-9. [PubMed]
14. Clegg M, Shafat A. Energy and macronutrient
composition of breakfast affect gastric emptying of
lunch and subsequent food intake, satiety and satiation.
Appetite. 2010 Jun;54(3):517-23. [PubMed]
15. Blundell JE et al. Appetite control: methodological
aspects of the evaluation of foods. Obes Rev. 2010
Mar;11(3):251-70. [PubMed]
16. Koliaki C et al. The effect of ingested macronutrients
on postprandial ghrelin response: a critical review of
existing literature data. Int J Pept. 2010;2010. pii:
710852. [PubMed]
17. Blundell JE et al. Dietary fat and the control of energy
intake: evaluating the effects of fat on meal size and
postmeal satiety. Am J Clin Nutr. 1993 May;57(5
Suppl):772S-777S; discussion 777S-778S. [PubMed]
18. Raben A et al. Meals with similar energy densities but
rich in protein, fat, carbohydrate, or alcohol have
different effects on energy expenditure and substrate
metabolism but not on appetite and energy intake. Am
J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;77(1):91-100. [PubMed]
19. Bachlechner S et al. The effects of different isocaloric
oral nutrient solutions on psychophysical, metabolic,
cognitive, and olfactory function in young male
subjects. Front Psychol. 2017 Nov 23;8:1988.
[PubMed]

Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020 [Back to Contents] Page 21


How much water do we need to drink? Is the
famous “8 glasses a day” guideline valid?
By Alan Aragon
_______________________________________________
Backdrop
I almost titled this subsection “Background” but, we’re
talking about water, not earth, and my dad-level pun game
is too strong. Water intake is part of the bigger picture of
water balance (more commonly called fluid balance),
which is input versus output. The body tightly
autoregulates internal fluid balance to preserve the
function of vital systems. The importance of adequate fluid
balance is reflected in the reality that water comprises 60%
of the bodyweight of healthy humans. Water is a vital
component of all living cells, tissues, and bodily systems.
Whereas humans can survive weeks and even months
without food, insufficient fluid intake can cause death
within a matter of days.
Dehydration has been defined as decrease in total body
water content due to fluid loss, diminished fluid intake, or
both.1 Dehydration by as little as 1-2% of bodyweight has
been shown to impair cognition and psychomotor skills.2
Higher water balance is also associated with better body
composition.3 Fluid deficits exceeding 2% have resulted in
compromised neural capability and impaired athletic
performance, and exceeding 8% can be lethal. Urine color
is a simple and reliable indicator of hydration status. Faint
yellow indicates adequate hydration, while darker yellow
and amber shades indicate progressive degrees of
dehydration.
Hydration & physical activity
The sensation of thirst for indicating a state of dehydration
is generally reliable, but can be an inadequate gauge in
warmer weather with physical activity and exercise with
high sweat rates exceeding 90 minutes.4,5 This points to the
particular importance of regular fluid intake/replacement
in athletic populations. For prolonged endurance exercise,
both fluid and electrolyte replacement are important. In the
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020
2-4 hours prior to exercise, euhydration (adequate
hydration) can be targeted by consuming fluid at 5-10
ml/kg.6 Contrary to the practice of carrying around a jug of
water everywhere and chugging it around the clock, it’s
indeed possible to overconsume water. Hyponatremia (the
technical term for over-hydration) is a dangerous condition
resulting from fluid consumption that exceeds sweat and
urine losses. This is also known as water intoxication,
indicated by plasma sodium levels dipping below 135
mmol/L.6
Sodium and chloride are the primary electrolytes lost in
sweat. Losses of other electrolytes such as potassium are
minuscule despite their common inclusion in sports
beverages. During exercise exceeding 2 hours (especially
intense or exhaustive exercise in the heat), sodium
consumption of ~0.5-1.0 g within ~0.5-1.0 L fluid per hour
suffices for most endurance trainees.7 Commercial sports
beverages typically contain this, in addition to
carbohydrate at a concentration of 6-8%. A practical
guideline for mid-exercise intake is 5-10 oz (150-300 ml)
every 15-20 minutes. Post-exercise fluid intake, especially
in the context of sports with endurance demands, should
aim to exceed fluid loss by 25-50% (1.25-1.5 L per kg of
bodyweight lost).
Elusive origin of “8 x 8”
An age-old recommendation is to drink eight 8-oz glasses
of water per day. A widely cited paper in the peer
reviewed literature that attempts to excavate the origin of
this guideline is a 2002 editorial by Valtin,8 who proposes
a series of speculations, ultimately arriving at an
unfavorable conclusion. The following excerpt sums the
paper up:
“Despite an extensive search of the literature and
many personal inquiries and discussions with
nutritionists and colleagues, I have found no scientific
reports concluding that we all must “drink at least
eight glasses of water a day.” On the contrary, there
are publications that state the opposite, and skepticism
about 8 x 8 has begun to appear in the lay press. Not
only is there no scientific evidence that we need to
drink that much, but the recommendation could be
harmful, both in precipitating potentially dangerous
[Back to Contents] Page 22
 hyponatremia and exposure to pollutants and also in is consumed during or around exercise. This simple
making many people feel guilty for not drinking maneuver defaults individuals into staying hydrated
enough.” without overdoing it. The amount drank per “water meal”
is dictated by thirst, so it can vary from 1-2 glasses (or
In spite of Valtin’s disparaging opinion, the “8 x 8” more). Autoregulation of the amount is encouraged to
guideline (1893 ml; 64 oz) is closely reflective of meet dynamic needs, as opposed to merely following a
recommendations of the Institute of Medicine (whose rigid script.
name has changed to the National Academy of Medicine),
which were published in 2005.9 The figures in the
References
following table currently stand as authoritative/evidence-
based guidelines. The IOM’s methodology for deriving the 1. Shaheen NA, Alqahtani AA, Assiri H, Alkhodair R,
following figures can be reviewed on p.73-185 here. Hussein MA. Public knowledge of dehydration and
fluid intake practices: variation by participants'
characteristics. BMC Public Health. 2018 Dec
Adequate Intake (AI) by the Institute of Medicine 5;18(1):1346. [PubMed]
Total daily water
Age Total daily needs, including 2. Riebl SK, Davy BM. The Hydration Equation: Update
(years) beverages, water within on Water Balance and Cognitive Performance.
including water formulas, beverages,
and foods
ACSMs Health Fit J. 2013 Nov;17(6):21-28. [PubMed]
Children 3. Laja García AI, Moráis-Moreno C, Samaniego-
1-3 900 ml (30 oz) 1300 ml (44 oz) Vaesken ML, Puga AM, Varela-Moreiras G,
4-8 1200 ml (40 oz) 1700 ml 57 oz)
Partearroyo T. Association between Hydration Status
and Body Composition in Healthy Adolescents from
Adolescents
Spain. Nutrients. 2019 Nov 7;11(11):2692. [PubMed]
Males 9-13 1800 ml (61 oz) 2400 ml (81 oz) 4. Adams WM, Vandermark LW, Belval LN, Casa DJ.
14-18 2600 ml (88 oz) 3300 ml (111 oz) The Utility of Thirst as a Measure of Hydration Status
Females 9-13 1600 ml (54 oz) 2100 ml (71 oz) Following Exercise-Induced Dehydration. Nutrients.
14-18 1800 ml (61 oz) 2300 ml (78 oz) 2019 Nov 7;11(11):2689. [PubMed]
Adults
5. Kenefick RW. Drinking Strategies: Planned Drinking
Versus Drinking to Thirst. Sports Med. 2018
Males 19+ 3000 ml (101 oz) 3700 ml (125 oz)
Mar;48(Suppl 1):31-37. [PubMed]
Females 19+ 2200 ml (74 oz) 2700 ml (91 oz)
6. Thomas DT, Erdman KA, Burke LM. Position of the
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Dietitians of
In 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Canada, and the American College of Sports
issued a position statement recommending an AI of total Medicine: Nutrition and Athletic Performance. J Acad
Nutr Diet. 2016 Mar;116(3):501-528. [PubMed]
daily water (including water within foods) of 2.0 L for
7. Jeukendrup AE, Jentjens RL, Moseley L. Nutritional
women and 2.5 L for men with moderate activity levels, in
considerations in triathlon. Sports Med.
moderate environmental temperatures.10 These figures are 2005;35(2):163-81. [PubMed]
very similar to the recommendations of the IOM. Both 8. Valtin H. "Drink at least eight glasses of water a day."
organizations arrived at figures that are very close to the Really? Is there scientific evidence for "8 x 8"? Am J
age-old recommendation of eight 8-oz glasses per day, Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2002
which is approximately 1.9 ml. In the case of water intake Nov;283(5):R993-1004. [PubMed]
guidelines, it looks like the ‘ancient’ wisdom still holds. 9. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.
Water. Dietary Reference Intakes for Water, Sodium,
Practical tactic from the trenches Chloride, Potassium and Sulfate. Washington, D.C:
National Academy Press; 2005. p 73–185. [Full PDF]
In practice with clients in the general population, I would 10. EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and
assign what I call “3 square water meals a day.” This Allergies (NDA); Scientific Opinion on Dietary
meant drinking plain water to comfortable fullness at least reference values for water. EFSA
three times per day, in addition to whatever water or fluid Journal 2010; 8( 3):1459. [48 pp.]. [EFSA]

Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020 [Back to Contents] Page 23

“To succeed in life, you need two things: ignorance and
confidence.” – Mark Twain.

If you have any questions, comments, suggestions, bones

of contention, cheers, jeers, guest articles you’d like to
submit for consideration, send it over to
support@alanaragon.com.

Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November 2020 [Back to Contents] Page 24