Tue, Mar-06-18, 13:35
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
|
|
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
|
|
I like this:
Quote:
|
Says Gary, looking back over this experience, ruefully: “We funded exactly the kind of science we are trying to prevent.” The study was funded and predicated on the assumption that the researchers could get the subjects weight stable in the first four weeks, so that they knew precisely how many calories to feed them daily in the next four. Instead, says Gary, the subjects lost weight consistently during this “run in”, which made the results virtually impossible to interpret. “Why did this happen? Nobody knows?” Gary says. “The investigators had their assumptions, their hypotheses, but good science is about testing hypotheses, not about assuming they’re true because they fit your preconceptions. The investigators chose the latter route. We had hoped for better.”
|
I wasn't aware that the first part of that experiment actually failed, i.e. they couldn't maintain the subjects' weight. Now that I am aware, it's clear to me that Hall is an idjit of the most bestest kind, the kind that can't possibly think he did a booboo. I mean, if they failed to do what they wanted, this means they don't actually understand what they're dealing with in the first place, which means that's the question they should ask now, and keep asking until they get a firm answer cuz until then nothing they do will mean anything, it's all gonna be completely unreliable for the rest of us.
|