3 ms·
>The rats fed HFCS for 24 hours per day, which should be expected to be fatter, were not. They weighed less (470 grams) than the rats fed sucrose for 12 hours
by nevinera 17y ago
>The rats fed HFCS for 24 hours per day, which should be expected to be fatter, were not. They weighed less (470 grams) than the rats fed sucrose for 12 hours per day. So these results are inconsistent.
I don't see why you would expect those to be fatter; the data point is completely separate. Common sense doesn't apply in biology - any number of factors could cause the results to reverse on a 24 hour feeding schedule.
Humans don't follow a 24 hour feeding schedule, as it happens.
- obfuscate 17y ago> Humans don't follow a 24 hour feeding schedule, as it happens. Regardless, I would think that instability of results under seemingly minor variations in conditions for rats suggests we should drastically reduce our confidence in any generalization of even the seemingly more relevant result.
- nevinera 17y ago>should drastically reduce our confidence in any generalization of even the seemingly more relevant result. Oh, absolutely! I certainly didn't mean that you should go trusting the scientist to vet his own research; most studies say exactly what the researcher wants them to say. But I think the results are strong enough to prompt (probably stronger) testing in other labs. If the research was done properly, then instability of results under minor variations generally implies that the variations weren't actually minor.