Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleRick
Well, **** you for making me spend like 30 minutes reading the study trying to find the part about SAME CALORIC-INTAKE, THE ONLY PART OF YOUR ENTIRE POST THAT YOU BOLDED AND IT ISN'T TRUE.
I mean, seriously, how do you write a post on a topic, go through some stuff, and then decide to make up the part which you put in bold letters? Impressive. The mice were fed ab libitum. Which is, like, you know, the opposite to "same caloric intake" - the mice were allowed infinite food. Although I guess there may be some logic in saying to two people "Hey eat as much as you want" - and then claiming "they had the same caloric intake......... unlimited"
By the way, the mice given the regular chow diet had no differences in body weight, and the aspartame group there had more aspartame than the high fat group (where there was a weight difference between the aspartame group and non-aspartame group). Wiggle your head around explaining that one.
edit: It's absolutely hilarious that you call the study double blind, by the way. You don't even know what double blind means. If you did, you wouldn't call a rodent study double blind since one of the parts of "double blind" is that the subjects aren't told what experimental group they belong to. I mean, I guess they didn't tell the rodents here which experimental group they were in so it could technically be considered a single-blind study
Yes this has descended into me just mocking you.
If your post is a level then A+ for you, but I don't think it is
Last edited by Loctus; 09-23-2018 at 08:32 PM.
Reason: .