I bet this doesn’t actually stand up to scrutiny.
This article was in the Times today and when I first read it about an hour and a half ago there were already a lot of good comments from the sceptics.
It would be good to know what Zoe thinks of the underlying data, but I suspect same old same old – have an hypothesis and try to make the data support it – type of non-science reported as science.
The “scientific paper” behind the article does seem to assert that this is a randomised controlled trial. I do not think it can be. Unless they put their subjects in purdah and only allowed them to eat specific foods. As the subjects continued their normal lives with the intervention group being “coached” to make some dietary changes and probably to fill in food intake diary sheets I really do not think it should be described as an RCT.