Ten volunteers with type 2 diabetes, the four conditions that the volunteers ere tested under were, meteoroid and no exercise, meteoroid and exercise, placebo and no exercise, and placebo and exercise. Ii. They participants were monitored in a number of ways Ill. Results i. Some reported mild gastrointestinal side effects, all participants except for one were able to tolerate the full dosage. Ii. Participants did not report any difference in symptoms such as abdominal discomfort between conditions. IV. Conclusion i. Meteoroid increased lipid oxidation, shown by lower ERE during all three subliminal intensities of exercise.
Maximum meteoroid concentrations were reached 120-140 min after dosage. Ii. These results show that the combination of meteoroid and exercise are actually less affective. 3. The basic question or problem that this article addressed is the effect of meteoroid with exercise, and also how it effects the plasma meteoroid concentrations. 4. Determine effect of meteoroid on the acute metabolic response to subliminal exercise, the effect of exercise on plasma meteoroid concentrations, and the interaction between meteoroid and exercise after a meal. . There was not a clear hypothesis given, I think that they had a subject that needed studied and decided to do an experiment and see the correlation to it. 6. The experimental design was to get 10 participants and then using the variables test the correlation to each of the desired results. The manipulated variable is the meteoroid with or without exercise, the responding variable is the amount of meteoroid and the amount of exercise, the controlled variable would the type of volunteer as well as the procedure. 7.
There was a clear procedure that showed all the aspects of the experiment but the replication was not what it could have been, with only ten volunteers there would not be enough information to make a clear conclusion. 8. There was not any raw data but there was all transformed data because there were plenty of charts and graphs and explanations for the results. The data that was given was just the experimenter’s interpretation of the data. 9. There was a clear conclusion given because they covered all the scientific questions that were asked.
All of the transformed data that was provided supported the conclusion o show that for this experiment there was a good conclusion that summed up this scientists results well. 10. There was pretty good quality of data given because the evidence supported it. Would say that that the data was solid or the normal science, because the results were good there just could have been some more repetition with the experiment and probably so more raw data. 11. Some of the knowledge claims that were made in this article would be that there is a direct relationship between meteoroid and exercise and how they affect the errors when done together.
There was a statement in the end of the article that stated that in the opinion of the author, the effects of meteoroid and exercise together will reduce the effectiveness of this treatment in diabetes. 12. I didn’t really have previous knowledge or and opinions on this topic before because I didn’t know what meteoroid was, but some new questions that could be raised is what should be done differently with meteoroid to increase its effectiveness or where should those treatments for diabetes go from here.
Another test would be he diet along with the meteoroid and those affects. 13. I didn’t really enjoy this article very much because I didn’t know anything about the topic and now that I know the results of this experiment it doesn’t really spark any interest in the topic. It was a well written article and a good experiment the only thing is that there could have been more repetition. I would recommend this article to people that express interest in diabetes or know someone with it but for someone that doesn’t know much it is not the best article to read.
