I also wanted to dig into this. The null hypothesis and burden-of-proofs change between p tests and equivalence testing, right? P tests: null hypothesis is tha

I also wanted to dig into this. The null hypothesis and burden-of-proofs change between p tests and equivalence testing, right? P tests: null hypothesis is that there is nothing different, burden of proof to suggest there is a difference. Equivalence testing: null hypothesis is that there is something different, burden of proof to suggest there is no difference. But maybe this is just a misapplied p-test? So while the "RESULTS" section of the paper is fine: No differences between trials ( P > 0.05) were found in the overall plasma triglyceride, glucose, or insulin responses during the HFGTT. The "CONCLUSION" section is where they invert the statistics of their own study and literally suggest a p-test-able difference despite their results section literally concluding a p-test-able non-difference: These data indicate that physical inactivity (e.g., sitting ~13.5 hrs/day and <4,000 steps/day) creates a condition whereby people become "resistant" to the metabolic improvements that are typically derived from an acute bout of aerobic exercise (i.e., exercise resistance).