To maximize the possibility of producing a positive result for the hypothesis. And it's understandable that this is done given academia's incentive structure, and you could justify this study's existence as a foundation for further studies, but real damage is done to the discourse around these topics when people pick up on these results and generalize them across both input size and species lines. This study alone tells us virtually nothing useful about whether or not "High-sucrose diets contribute to brain angiopathy and higher brain dysfunctions" in humans, as the post's title implies.
>To maximize the possibility of producing a positive result for the hypothesis.
No. The reason is to approximate long-term exposure. There are obviously (big!) problems with that, but we don't have a better way of "speeding up time".
You really should try to understand things before you attack them with tired caricatures of legitimate arguments.
