4 ms·
Not sure what you're trying to tell me. The first link you provide doesn't link to the original research it's talking about. The second is about a mouse study.
by hannob 10y ago
Not sure what you're trying to tell me. The first link you provide doesn't link to the original research it's talking about. The second is about a mouse study.
Maybe you're trying to reinforce my point that the HN audience likes to quote weak scientific evidence.
- leonroy 10y agoI see nothing wrong with the BBC article - it could be more accurate by adding 'in mice' to the subject but that's the only problem I see. Research starts somewhere. If you're genuinely interested in quality, well researched information there's a documentary on the subject of fasting which I can highly recommend. Changed my perspective on the matter: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvdbtt_eat-fast-live-longer-hd_shortfilms http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvdbtt_eat-fast-live-longer...
- baldfat 10y agoNot sure if your just a cynic and distrust everything or your trying to be a skeptic and try and find the truth. This is what makes medical research. Using mice is a very established way of testing hypothesis. Are you trying to say that we should only trust human studies when humans can't be controlled and limit what is impacting the body? I also fail to see that research not being reproducible = weak science when you then knock a study that is reproducible but then you knock it for being not human based. The fact that a lot of science isn't reproducible has many honest scientific reasons, while other's are fraud.