Scenario: A couple of reporters want to show the physiological effects of eating some of the country's fattiest, saltiest, sugariest, highest calorie, baddest-for-you fast foods. Reporter has blood, heart rate, liver function, and other vital indicators measured at some unspecified point just before eating, eats four of these badboy dishes, and then gets the same tests run again.
Results: Amazing! Various vital signs are off the charts in various ways; heart racing, blood full of fats, etc. Return to normal takes several hours.
What we learned about the effects of bad junk food on our bodies: Absolutely nothing. Are we so poorly educated in scientific method after eight years of kowtowing to ignorance, that our intrepid reporters think this demonstrates anything? One of the keys to any test is to minimize the variables. Here, the two tests were taken (apparently) at different times of day, one when the subject had eaten nothing recently, the other when she had just eaten a huge meal. How can we tell what are the effects of eating bad food, and what might resultl just from eating any meal? We can't.
Proper procedure: Day 1, reporter eats normal lunch and gets the tests done. Day 2, same time of day, reported eats the terrible fast food lunch and gets the tests done. Compare results. Then we might learn something. University of Maryland, be ashamed.
Comments