SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
While working with Horticulture Innovation Australia to reveal some hidden benefits of the fruit, a CSIRO research team led by Professor Manny Noakes found that pears can lower cholesterol, relieve constipation and have anti-inflammatory effects.
But likely the most interesting discovery for those with a tendency to overindulge was the discovery that Korean pear juice can prevent hangovers as well as lower blood alcohol levels. Further research is needed to determine whether the hangover-preventing capabilities extend to other pear varieties as the studies have so far only involved the Korean pear, which is known to have a number of compositional differences to Western pear varieties.
With study subjects measuring hangover severity using a 14-item hangover symptom scale, those given 220 ml (7.4 oz) of Korean pear juice reported reduced overall hangover symptoms compared to those in the placebo group, with the most pronounced improvement reported in the area of "trouble concentrating."
Importantly, the hangover was only avoided if the pear juice was consumed before the alcohol, so downing the juice after a big night out won't help. And although the study involved pear juice, the researchers believe consuming whole pears would produce similar effects.
What's your favorite (scientifically approved) hangover cure?
takyon: The claims are based on preliminary results reported at CSIRO news blog. Here is the abstract of an older study: Effect of Korean pear (Pyruspyrifolia cv. Shingo) juice on hangover severity following alcohol consumption.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:08AM
It's called the scientific method, jackass.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:58AM
I have no idea what AC was attempting to highlight, but from what's been quoted we're not sure how well the scientific method has been applied. How was it double-blinded? Was it randomised? How was the self-reporting of the perceived affects done? How big was the study, and what was its power of the test?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @12:22PM
That was never considered science until the 1940s. You can find many people complaining about how the scientific method began changing from comparing results to theoretical prediction to testing a null hypothesis. Think about it, the latter makes no sense, it is just a way to get any result you want if you spend enough money. No two groups of people are ever exactly the same (unless you are measuring something that does not exist like telekinesis).
And sorry, it is not two groups are exactly the same, it is somehow even more implausible: that they are samples from the same hypothetical infinite population. You cannot justify any conclusion based on that info yet that is what is passing for science these days.
What we actually care about is the size of the difference and the various possible explanations for a difference of that size. What explanations for the effect were ruled out by this research? The mere presence of a difference is of zero interest, yet that gets all the focus.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 06 2015, @03:23PM
No two groups of people are ever exactly the same
Of course not. That's why you get big enough groups of people that are as similar as you can make them. Science doesn't have to be perfect; it just has to be the best fit available.
it is somehow even more implausible: that they are samples from the same hypothetical infinite population. You cannot justify any conclusion based on that info
I have no idea what you're talking about here. There are not an infinite number of humans of the planet, so ipso facto any experiment that uses participants (or monkeys or anything else, really) is not drawing them from an infinite pool.
From these criticisms, it sounds like you're saying any experimenting to begin with is impossible. So basically you don't believe we should be able to prove anything scientifically?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @01:47PM
http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/130723/hypothesis-testing-and-the-scientific-method/ [stackexchange.com]