Seven a day ‘is not an April Fool’s joke’, say scientists

The clearly laughable call from health professionals for Britons to eat at least seven portions of fruit and veg a day is not a hilarious April Fool’s joke, it has been revealed.

The new advice, building on the optimistic ‘five a day’ guidelines which have been widely circulated and widely ignored for a number of years, comes after scientists discovered a link between good health and the consumption of things that grow in the ground and aren’t necessarily fried in sugar.

“No, we are serious”, stressed a scientist at the Centre for Research into Well-Timed Press Releases, “It has to be seven. We found that people who ate seven bits of fruit or veg in a day lived longer, and they probably had very similar lifestyles to our hard-drinking, sedentary, pizza-loving control group. It can only be the fruit and veg. So we’re rolling this advice out nationwide.

“No, I don’t think this is a strange day to release this report.”

"All you have to do is eat all of this. Every day."

“All you have to do is eat all of this. Every day.”

The response from the public has alternated between chortling and confusion:

Chortling – “Good joke”

Confusion – “What do you mean it isn’t a joke, it’ April Fool’s Day and this is ridiculous”

Chortling – “I average three vegetables a week, three of which are potato-based”

Confusion – “Can I even name seven?”

Chortling – “Fuck it, I’ll just drink wine instead”

Confusion – “Does wine count? Surely it does? It’s grapes no?”

Chortling – “Seven wines! Ace”

Quite how well people will respond to these new guidelines is yet to be seen, although given that roughly 100% of us get nowhere near five a day it seems unlikely that the push to seven will unleash a tidal wave of vegetable consumption in which rabid shoppers attack market stalls, gorging themselves on marrows and various legumes, the fleshy pulp dripping from their gaping maws.

It might, obviously, but it does seem unlikely.

What’s more likely is that maybe, occasionally, a very small slice of the population might allow an extra carrot to invade their dinner.

What’s even more likely, so likely in fact that it is probably already happening, is that everyone will laugh, actively pretend it was all an April Fool’s joke, and continue refusing to eat healthily until the government relent and allows crisps, chocolate and cheese to count towards the total.

Then we’ll smash seven a day.

“It’s amazing!”, shout physicists to blank-faced simpletons

A groundbreaking discovery in physics has been widely discredited after claims that it isn’t simple enough to describe in a picture or analogy.

The discovery of primordial gravitational waves, as they’re snappily named, has been greeted in the non-academic world by a groundswell of nonplussed nodding and feigned interest, followed by a long, awkward silence and an abrupt change of subject.

Physicists are at a loss to explain the lack of worldwide acclaim – CERN has allegedly looked like a cross between a rave and an orgy for the past few days while its Large Hadron Collider has been transformed into the ultimate conga line destination in celebration of a new era of physics. When it was explained that the rest of the world cannot even begin to pretend to understand what the hell they’re talking about, one of the researchers attempted to explain the discovery in layman’s terms:

“It’s really very simple……..<some long words>…….inflation…..<more long words>…..cosmic microwave background…….polarised….<even more longwords>….and it’s really that easy.”

"Ah yes, it's perfectly clear now"

“Ah yes, it’s perfectly clear now”

Even with this apparently simplified explanation, many normal people have still not grasped the finer points of this discovery, or indeed any points of this discovery. Psychologists believe that the average Briton has given the subject around 9 seconds of really concerted thought before growing disheartened and flicking to the football pages or snaffling for crisps.

Spokesperson for regular people, Harold Wallace, released a statement:

“We have some questions:

1) Is there a picture which explains this discovery, maybe using arrows or cats?

2) If not, can you explain it in sporting terms or in relation to simple household objects like wine?

If the answer to both of those is ‘no’ then I think we’re done here, but we do have a couple of others:

3) You mentioned the word ‘polarised’. What do polar bears have to do with this?

4) Will this discovery break my microwave?”

The researchers, who have spent over three years analysing their data, have put their findings out for peer review, hoping that at least one of them can make people understand it without spending several years at university and several more under Switzerland:

“We’re confident that by September our peers will have independently verified our work and, more importantly, created a way of explaining it that doesn’t start with ‘imagine you are infinitely small, now imagine you instantly expand to the size of a marble’. And when that happens, it’s going to be fucking mental.

“Probably.”

World vents anger at lack of lab-grown chips

Scientists have today faced the wrath of the western world by announcing that they are yet to grow chips in a lab.

Attempting to mollify an outraged public with a burger grown from the stem cells of a dead cow backfired spectacularly when it was pointed out that there are live cows literally everywhere. There remain, however, a critically low number of live, wild chips in the world.

Food critics were visibly disappointed when they were presented with the chip-free pseudo-meat, with one heard to audibly remark: “Well this is fucking pointless”.

"What a rare sight! Oh wait no it's just a cow."

“What a rare sight! Oh wait no it’s just some cows.”

With an estimated 1.3 billion cows in the world, and stacks of vegetarians who don’t really want to eat them anyway, it seems unlikely that the globe will be running short of the beatific, flatulent, delicious meat-vessels any time soon. Which begs the question as to why on earth anybody thought it was a good idea to produce an inferior copy when the world is in such desperate need of real synthetic essentials like chips, cookie dough and gin.

Everybody loves gin.

The time, intellectual effort and money taken to produce the singular, uninspiring burger have lead prominent thinkers to question whether science ought to be concentrating on other areas instead of spunking £215,000 and many years of research up the wall to make a shit Big Mac.

Like a cure for cancer.

Or a working jet pack. That’d be ace.

Or, as previously stated, some delicious chips. Mmm, chips.

Gah! Kill it!

With the news that scientists in the US (where else, seriously.) have created not one but THREE harbingers of death  ‘chimera monkeys’ which show no signs of dying any time soon, many of the world’s inhabitants have reacted entirely appropriately by grabbing the nearest pitchfork and flaming torch.

The beasts have been described as "extraordinarily evil" by their creators

EVEN THE MONKEY LOOKS SHOCKED AT HOW EVIL IT IS.

Nobody would be surprised if they escaped and wreaked havoc upon the lab which made them, sporadically releasing grainy youtube videos of themselves feasting on the cleaners’ entrails whilst listening to Chris deBurgh and doing that weird wheezing laugh that all evil creatures do in the films.

You would have thought that somewhere along the line somebody in the scientific community would have said something along the lines of “No” or “Get out of here you psychopaths”, but apparently it’s now cool to build animals out of bits of other animals like giant furry Lego.

“Look, professor, I know your sceptical about the ethical and scientific implications of this type of thing, but I have two words for you: eagle panther.”

“Yes, I take cheques.”

I feel it would be wrong to write off the practice of monkey-making entirely, as I have just done, so I have prepared the following list of pros and cons so you can come to your own conclusions:

Pros

Zoos would be more interesting – “Mummy, I want to see the flying shark-lion”.

Nature would be more interesting – Flying shark lion. Proficient on land, sea and in the air. Death in three mediums. Your move, gazelle.

Dinner would be more interesting – Two words. Steak bacon. Mmm, steacon. That’s the kind of meat I’d tamper with the natural order of things for.

Cons

Inevitable destruction of the human race by intelligent, psychotic and unfathomably deadly Franken-pets – See above

It’s a crazy tough call.

Happy Sunday!

Fun linked to cancer

Scientists have today confirmed that anything you could conceivably enjoy will eventually kill you. With the prized addition of alcohol, the medical world has now ‘collected the set’ of all the good things in the world and confirmed that each and every one of them will give you big nasty cancer.

This picture is highly carcinogenic

Booze, smoking, sex and sugar are being renamed “tumourfests” in homage to their supposed deadliness, as the scientific community rejoices in taking almost all the fun out of every aspect of life. A leading cancer research scientist was surprisingly frank in a recent interview:

“We’ll link anything to cancer. Doesn’t have to be true, mind, but if we say link then nobody can sue us, no matter how flimsy the evidence or misleading the statement. My personal favourite is “Doubles the risk of”, which is great because we know full well that the ‘risk’ of a particular cancer is only 0.0000001%, so if we double it there’s still fuck all chance of you getting it, but it makes a great story and I’ve got a career to further. I could say anything! Prolonged exposure to carrots is linked to cancer. Stroking this puppy is linked to cancer. I’m linked to cancer. Anything! Isn’t science great?”

When quizzed on the questionable morality of trumpeting tenuous connections between certain substances or behaviours and a life-threatening disease, the scientist was somewhat more pragmatic:

“Basically we need the money. Well, not need the money, but want it. And the only way to get the money is to do a very preliminary study and then make wildly bold claims about everything giving you cancer. Then they start giving you research funding to further research the bold claim and find that the claim was exactly as dodgy as when you first made it. At which point, you don’t really give a toss because all that research money has kept you in fine burgundy for a couple of years.”

“Look, I don’t make the rules.”

In realistic terms, if everything that was ever linked to cancer gave you cancer then you wouldn’t be able to get out of bed in the morning without a dirty great lump springing up on your arm. As to the question of why it’s only ever the fun stuff, the official answer is that the fun stuff sells more newspapers. The news that each drink is sending you closer to an early grave is much more likely to grab attention than, say, each time you mow the lawn sending you to an early grave. Ambiguous science, sensationalist journalism and slow news days combine to cause mass panic about what’s going to kill us all next.

Don’t worry about it. Or you’ll get cancer.