• Gsus4@mander.xyzOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Fair enough, I’m not an expert, but agree that you’d need far more evidence before making the bold claim.

      • Gsus4@mander.xyzOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        But how do you know that? I don’t know what the reputable and predatory nutrition journals are.

        • Hirom@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          It’s not always obvious. Science journalists should know.

          Science Daily, which is linked here, is well rated. cf https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/science-daily/ So you can hardly be blamed here. But this article appears to be bad reporting.

          This article makes or repeat bold claims about treating a medical condition from an in-vitro experiment, without any measurement of the effect on actual humans. Not an expert, but my understanding is a clinical trial is necessary to draw conclusion about the effect on a medical condition in human.

          Although additional studies in animals and humans are needed to confirm these effects, this work provides a clearer explanation of how everyday foods and natural compounds may help regulate chronic inflammation. Over time, this could play an important role in supporting long-term health.

          Hopefully what they saw with a few cells in vitro can help prepare a medical trial with proprer controls. If and when such trial occurs, then maybe it’ll be possible to draw early conclusions about a (probable) effect on medical conditions.