|
|
|
|
|
by darawk
3673 days ago
|
|
There is a somewhat interesting philosophical question here. What does it mean for this result to be the 'placebo effect'? That is, supposing it is in some sense caused by the psyche, and fasting reliably produces that effect...is there a sense in which fasting is not its cause? Clearly for sugar pill vs drug we can measure the component which is 'placebo'. But here, since it is immeasurable...is it possible to call it a placebo effect? Or should we refer to effects derived psychologically from unique subjective experiences in another way. |
|
First, one study doesn't tell us that fasting "reliably" produces this effect. Secondly, if it was a placebo effect then fasting would not reliably produce it. You would likely be able to produce no placebo effect by telling patients that there will very likely be no effect whatsoever on their symptoms.
>But here, since it is immeasurable...is it possible to call it a placebo effect?
If it is a placebo effect, you would probably be able to measure it by testing various other non-fasting diets. The difficulty lies in the inability to have a sham fasting diet, but you could likely mitigate that by telling patients there will likely be no effect on their symptoms from fasting.