So by that definition, any new and untested-en-masse "thing" is "pseudoscience", with all the implied quackery baggage that term applies.
That is not a useful definition.
That is not a useful definition.
Sounds like scientific fact to me. We know it works, it's just a matter of establishing effects on specific tasks.
When scientists study these effects, they study them over groups of people. For some individuals, it hurts where it should help. For others, they get a larger-than-average boost. At the same time, research seems to suggest that some abilities are increased while others decrease, for a given protocol.
It's not pseudoscience that a lot of people are trying a new, untested thing. It's pseudoscience if they claim benefits based on subjective perception or claim that the same protocol will help everyone, without documenting objective, replicable proof.