User:JessicaLiska/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Metabolic window

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This is a phenomenon that many people believe to be true, but I have done my own research and more and more evidence is revealing that the metabolic window doesn't really have a significant impact on anabolism / catabolism.

This matters because many people believe this is true, when evidence is contradicting. So, many people may be misinformed.

My preliminary impression of this article was not very impressed. It said that there is not sufficient evidence to support this theory, but it still explains the metabolic window, and the benefits of it (it may be untrue?)

Evaluate the article
The lead includes a good introduction sentence, it explains what the metabolic window is and the role it plays after exercise. It lacks a brief description of the article's major sections, including fasted exercise and glycogen. But, all of the information in the lead is presented in the article later on. All of the content is relevant to the topic, but it is not up to date. The oldest source is from 2004, and the newest source was in 2021. There has been a lot of research since then, which may contradict some of this information. I feel like it could include more information, such as how the body changes from an anabolic vs catabolic state, and how long the body lasts in either of these states after exercise. All of the studies mentioned used all men for their studies, so maybe there might be a difference among women. Also, does this correlate with only strength training, or are other types of exercise impacted by the metabolic window too? The article seems to be neutral, but it is clear it is not up to date as it says there is insufficient evidence as to if this idea is true or not. Even still, the article seems to be directed in a way that promotes eating protein within 2 hours of strength training. all of the sources seem to be reliable except for maybe 1: Cleveland Clinic. I don't think this is a peer-reviewed article. But all of the facts presented are backed up by strong sources. It could have more current sources, though. The article as a whole is well organized and doesn't have grammatical errors, and the sections are important aspects of the entire topic. The article contains no images, which maybe could be added to enhance the overall understanding. Regarding the talk page, there is only one comment, who was a student editor, and explained what and why they edited the page. The article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, and is of low importance within the "Health and fitness" and "Medicine" WikiProjects. Overall, I think this is a good article, but there should be newer evidence used, as it probably provides more evidence about whether or not this is an accurate idea. The article is well developed, and provides a lot of background information related to the biology / biochemistry aspect of metabolism.