If it's clearly not worth HN readers' time, how did it get published in "The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition"? Or am I just naive in thinking published in a Journal still means something? Why did it pass peer review?
This comment is extremely funny.
I heard a rumour that the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition might be aimed at scientists working on clinical nutrition, who could make meaningful use of this result - and not the readers of Hacker News.
What I'm saying is, if some rando on HN can see see that the trial size is too small to be statistically significant how did it pass peer review?
However, it is too small and insignificant for Hacker News readers to make meaningful use of, and it would be incorrect for them to read anything into the results presented. That is the difference.
This is a lay forum - a place more suited to the discussion of decided science.