Am I missing something? Why do we need a study to prove this? Isn’t this like commissioning a study to prove ducks prefer lakes more than deserts? Maybe I should read more of the article…
The study enrolled 50 obese Australians and put them on a strict low-calorie diet for eight weeks. Two weeks after the diet and a year later researchers measured the subjects’ blood and hormone levels and asked questions regarding hunger. What they found was out of the 33 people who completed the study, the average weight loss after 10 weeks was 30 pounds with a 12 pounds gained after a year.
What does this mean? Losing weight is extremely hard, for the body actually fights a person who is dieting by retaining body mass and constantly sending impulses to the brain like “I like bacon. I need bacon NOW!!!”
We already knew dieting is a constant uphill struggle. Do we need scientists to devote a full year and X number of dollars to tell us what any dieter can sum up with a few choice words? Part of me thinks scientists need to earn a living and grants will only given to those who are able to draw a conclusion. Nobody wants to spend two million dollars on a three year study and see these three words: RESULTS WERE INCONCLUSIVE. So why not prove the obvious? There’s a good chance the study will be successful. In fact, here may be some future headlines:
STUDIES FOUND PEOPLE WHO EAT ARE LIKELY TO BE FULL.
SCIENTIFIC TESTS HAVE PROVEN PUTTING ONE FOOT IN FRONT OF THE OTHER REPRESENTS PROGRESS.
EARLY REPORTS FIND THOSE WHO DRIVE ON “E” TEND TO RUN OUT OF GAS.
LANDMARK STUDY HAS FOUND FOURTH GRADERS PREFER GIVING WET WILLIES INSTEAD OF RECEIVING THEM.
GOVERNMENT RESEARCH REVEALS A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF MALLARDS REPORT JOB DISSATISFACTION WHEN RELOCATED TO ARIZONA.