It feels like your null hypothesis is to keep eating it, though. Your argument is, “you’ve indicated it’s bad for me, but you aren’t saying why, therefore I’m going to keep eating it.”
But if you’re interested in the scientific result here, your null hypothesis should be to stay away from it until you have enough data. Maybe you’re not aware of the overwhelming amount of data that shows ultra processed foods are linked to all kinds of health disorders?
It’s like someone in the 50s telling you that smoking is linked to cancer, and you’re saying “yeah, but WHY? Until you tell me specifically what ingredient is harmful, there’s no reason for me to stop smoking!”
It feels like your null hypothesis is to keep eating it, though. Your argument is, “you’ve indicated it’s bad for me, but you aren’t saying why, therefore I’m going to keep eating it.”
But if you’re interested in the scientific result here, your null hypothesis should be to stay away from it until you have enough data. Maybe you’re not aware of the overwhelming amount of data that shows ultra processed foods are linked to all kinds of health disorders?
It’s like someone in the 50s telling you that smoking is linked to cancer, and you’re saying “yeah, but WHY? Until you tell me specifically what ingredient is harmful, there’s no reason for me to stop smoking!”
That’s not my argument at all.