[bobthepanda]

I don't think this is totally unreasonable, nor unique to judges.

For example, the developed world rolled out school lunch programs as a way to improve academic performance, which at the time of implementation was controversial.

[lupusreal]

Skipping lunch is bad for school performance, but judges aren't skipping lunch. Judges eat their lunch at a regular scheduled time and so they can naturally adjust their eating habits to get them through the day without experiencing discomforting hunger.

[xeromal]

Wouldn't that argue that having eaten, judges would perform better rather than fasting?

[bobthepanda]

that's exactly what the original study was proposing as an effect:

> They found that the probability of a favorable decision drops from about 65% to almost 0% from the first ruling to the last ruling within each session and that the rate of favorable rulings returns to 65% in a session following a food break.

it's not unreasonable as an original hypothesis; and it's good that we're testing it and finding out later that it's wrong. but the base hypothesis is not particularly egregious.