We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
methodologically also genetics advanced faster nutrition has been stuck mostly in the era of using p-values of 0.05 thresholds and using those thresholds in mostly post-hoc research research that is not registered that is selectively presented
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
even research that is not fraudulent in nutrition has some standards of methods that are pretty suboptimal compared to what genetics has adopted that they decided that we have such a huge multiplicity that we need to account for that so you know we're not going to claim success for a p-value of 0.05 we will claim success for a p-value of 10 to the minus 8.