[Someone1234]

> I don't mean to be negative but this is another useless nutrition paper. It shows effects we already know about

So I'm going to put you in the "nay" camp regarding the importance of reproducibility[0] in science? Kind of funny that half the time nutritional science gets criticized because it isn't reproduced/reproducible enough and the other half because it is "useless" to reproduce the same findings. Cannot win.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility#Reproducible_r...

[wdewind]

Did you read my entire comment? Feel like I addressed this here:

> We already have small pilot studies showing this stuff that have the same problems. Repeated science is often underrated, but these results are uncontroversial, they are just over interpreted and old.

In general I am strongly in favor of reproducing science, this study doesn't really test anything helpful for either outcome though.

[kbutler]

The more important part of the introductory comment was "then it misinterprets the relevance of these results for a headline."

The effect is known, and known to be insignificant. Generating headlines for reproducing a known insignificant effect is not helpful.

[BurningFrog]

You're right about the importance of reproduction!

But that doesn't mean a study simply confirming established science should be presented as dramatic news.

[balfirevic]

If they skipped the "misinterpret the relevance of results for a headline" maybe they would have gotten a friendlier reception.