|
|
|
|
|
by remixff2400
657 days ago
|
|
Isn't that the whole point of the article? Microbiome research is hard? In this case, we're just left with trying to extrapolate loosely based off of trends. There's nothing to suggest that these things are bad for your health (as far as I'm aware) and there's a hypothesis (not a theory) that these might've contributed to gut microbiomes in the past. But, rather than conclusive proof, it might just be something low-stakes that people can try until more hard research or data is found that has a more conclusive direction, even if it disproves previous hypotheses. Until then, we're left making best-guess efforts with no conclusive proof. But, suggesting that these have no benefit is also incorrect until we have conclusive data to suggest otherwise. Hence, the point of the article: figuring out stuff about the microbiome is hard. |
|