Go right to the actual scientific article. It doesn’t seem to include this sort of nonsense. It’s a seemingly well put together but herculean effort to try to study this. They do a nice job controlling for known covariables, but it’s very possible they are missing a linked factor. Using this as a basis for a randomized study with these chemicals would be truly interesting.
Despite food additive ascorbic acid and alpha-tocopherol having identical structures to their naturally occurring forms,[3]() their effects can differ based on factors such as food matrix (composition, structure, etc.), dosage, and interactions with other food compounds affecting bioavailability.[52]
This is probably where the science writer derived this from. This is so much clearer though that it’s not the origin of the compound that matters so much as the environment it is in.
Entirely because people try to sensationalize it to make it interesting and exciting, and usually jump on it before theres even been other studies to confirm the results or not.
Which results in a lot of fatigue… Like how people are, to this day, still confused about if eggs or good or bad because the flood of studies in the 90s, each contradicting eachother about eggs being good, eggs being bad, this part of the egg being good, that part being bad, etc etc.
Go right to the actual scientific article. It doesn’t seem to include this sort of nonsense. It’s a seemingly well put together but herculean effort to try to study this. They do a nice job controlling for known covariables, but it’s very possible they are missing a linked factor. Using this as a basis for a randomized study with these chemicals would be truly interesting.
I beg to differ. From the manuscript:
This is probably where the science writer derived this from. This is so much clearer though that it’s not the origin of the compound that matters so much as the environment it is in.
Yes but they still say that:
Vs
And that
So it’s not like the part the writer talked about wasn’t almost literally mentioned in the paper.
They are also just quoting the senior author, since the part of the article the guy you replied to omitted was:
Scientific papers will always be dumbed down a bit and information will be omitted when writing an article for the general public.
The guy you replied to simply doesn’t know what he is talking about and thinks he knows better than the senior author.
Aye - the article is hot garbage. Science reporting is a complete mess.
Yep.
Entirely because people try to sensationalize it to make it interesting and exciting, and usually jump on it before theres even been other studies to confirm the results or not.
Which results in a lot of fatigue… Like how people are, to this day, still confused about if eggs or good or bad because the flood of studies in the 90s, each contradicting eachother about eggs being good, eggs being bad, this part of the egg being good, that part being bad, etc etc.