Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

inews.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 210 posts

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#101

Post by katbyte »

leroy-is-here wrote: post #94
katbyte wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bodies are quite different, different metabolic rate, different fitness, different in many ways. I can go an entire day without eating to little ill effect. I knows people who must eat three times a day and if they miss one meal get super cranky. It’s not dismissing it to point out data vs datum or that people’s bodies vary wildly.

What I’m saying is that perhaps the “cranky” eater doesn’t even know their body’s voice. Or is angry by simply hearing it. Another way of putting it: you say you have tried but are you even sure that others have tried? People will say they have experienced but in reality have not.

Or perhaps they have a much faster metabolism and are hypo-glycemic?

I accidentally go all day without food. They must carry snacks.

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#102

Post by leroy-is-here »

katbyte wrote: post #101
leroy-is-here wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I’m saying is that perhaps the “cranky” eater doesn’t even know their body’s voice. Or is angry by simply hearing it. Another way of putting it: you say you have tried but are you even sure that others have tried? People will say they have experienced but in reality have not.

Or perhaps they have a much faster metabolism and are hypo-glycemic? I accidentally go all day without food. They must carry snacks.

Or perhaps you’re just a better listener. Do you _know_ they _must_ carry snacks or are you imagining that’s how they must be?

The real trick of this is realizing people do the same “imagining” with their own body and their own selves. They do not know.

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#103

Post by beagle3 »

sdfghswe wrote: post #84

May I ask to the people talking about fasting on this thread: Normally, when people talk about fasting do they literally mean to spend a long period of time not eating, or do they mean reducing the calorie intake, or both? You can decouple them, right? You can take 12 hours a day to not eat, but make up for it afterwards. And which one is the interesting one?

Unfortunately, "fasting" is not specific enough. For some people, it means not eating for 6 hours or so ("breakfast" breaks the fast even if you've eaten late last night). For some people, it means >24 hours. Some people add the qualifier "intermittent" to signify that it is less than 24 hours (but done repeatedly).

You can make up for it afterwards, but usually don't. Most of the people eat way more than they need in general, and thus there is no need to "make up" for a few missed meals. If you've gotten used to it, after a fast - whether 18 hours or 240 hours - you just (slowly) resume regular eating.

You do need to be aware of refeeding syndrome, which may be triggered by jumping back to regular amounts of food after a prolonged fast though; If you haven't eaten for a few days, you shouldn't just resume your regular feeding schedule and food - you need to start with small, easily digestible (preferably, liquid/pouridge) and build up back to normal over a few days.

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#104

Post by Yajirobe »

chaosbolt wrote: post #46
arunix wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. My hunger plateaued after two days, but didn't go away, just became a bit more bearable. 12 days was the longest fast I've done.

12 days with no food? Like just water and electrolytes etc.? This is some spartan discipline.

Why would you do this to yourself?

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#105

Post by zeroonetwothree »

franciscop wrote: post #16

Interesting bias on the bias: the author of this article seems not to have experienced a prolonged fast themselves, otherwise they'd know this is not true at all: > "longer fasts – and thus, presumably, greater hunger" As anyone who has fasted for probably any reason can tell you, the longer the fast the less hungry you are overall AFTER an initial peak. Meaning, miss a meal and you are hungry, miss two and you becom…

That hasn’t been my experience. Recently I didn’t eat for a week (for medical reasons) and I felt awful the whole time.

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#106

Post by wincy »

throwaway290 wrote: post #33
jraby3 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve gone on multiple 3-5 day fasts and disagree (or at least haven’t gotten to this point). My hunger seems to stabilize at very hungry after about two days.

Haven't gone 3-5 days but done more than 1 day, hunger paradoxically goes from high to low/none in 24 hours. I can feel weaker but not hungry the way I feel at first. After adjusting to rare meals I 100% feel better after 8 hours of not eating than when I eat often. Do you spend physical effort during that time? Eg. exercise, move heavy stuff, intensely walk. (I don't) Also what do you eat/drink before you fast. If I…

At day three I was fine until I told myself I was going to get some food. Then I felt like I got hit by a truck in my stomach and nearly threw up I was shaking and so hungry. So I ended up breaking a three day fast at a Taco Bell instead of the grass fed steak I had waiting at home. Best Chalupa I’ve ever eaten in my life.

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#107

Post by jiggywiggy »

azan_ wrote: post #88
Jolter wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it’s the absence of a control because there is no control group. You can’t study whether it’s a religiously affiliated behavior unless you have a non-religious fasting control group. It’s called a confounding variable.

It's not confounding variable because this "variable" is actually constant in the entire group; the comparison is not fasting muslims vs non-fasting non-religious judges, but muslim judges with longer vs shorter fast or fasting at different hours

It ads a lot more variables making it unsuitable, day time is not strongly associated with hunger. For instance its possible that the 5 prayers during the day have effect. And also the feeling of hunger is not constant, it might be stronger around normal eating times etc. There are just too many variables to conclude anything.

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#108

Post by amelius »

arunix wrote: post #31
jraby3 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve gone on multiple 3-5 day fasts and disagree (or at least haven’t gotten to this point). My hunger seems to stabilize at very hungry after about two days.

Same here. My hunger plateaued after two days, but didn't go away, just became a bit more bearable. 12 days was the longest fast I've done.

Perhaps it depends on the intellectual load, and only doable if watching TV.

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#109

Post by [deleted] »

walnutclosefarm wrote: post #76

So many comments here claiming to understand the effect of fasting on humans generally through personal experience. Come on, people - your experience is a datum, it's not data, and your entirely subjective conclusions drawn from that datum are not analysis. People's response to fasting varies widely. Hunger is both a physiological and a psychological phenomenon - and like any phenomenon with a psychological component…

[deleted]

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#110

Post by dota_fanatic »

spion wrote: post #35
franciscop wrote: post #16

Interesting bias on the bias: the author of this article seems not to have experienced a prolonged fast themselves, otherwise they'd know this is not true at all: > "longer fasts – and thus, presumably, greater hunger" As anyone who has fasted for probably any reason can tell you, the longer the fast the less hungry you are overall AFTER an initial peak. Meaning, miss a meal and you are hungry, miss two and you becom…

If you look at the replies you'll see the huge variety of responses people have to this, which is absolutely fascinating. I think this might actually be different for different people.

If you hook a hose up to someone’s mouth and nose and measure the ratio of O2 absorbed vs Co2 they expel, the so-called respiratory quotient (RQ), you have a measure of the types of metabolic processing they’re doing, anaerobic vs aerobic.

If someone is in a state of metabolic dysfunction, commonly due to unfit mitochondria, they’ll be unable to utilize energy from fat as well as a young, fit person. Their body is adapted to having access to carbs at all times. Some people call the opposite being “fat adapted”. During a fast, after they’ve burned through all their glycogen, fit mitochondria can still dependably access stores of energy from fat, of which we normally have plenty.

I would bet the people who never stop being hungry during a long fast are experiencing the effects of metabolic dysfunction due to a phenotype acquired from living in the high carbohydrate, frequent access to food environment that is modern living in a first world country, especially if America. I would bet money on measuring a different RQ for the two groups, both normally and during a fast.

Post reply on HN