Link to actual study: https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuac086/6827512?login=false https://academic.oup.com/nutritio

Link to actual study: https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuac086/6827512?login=false https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/advance-article/do... Some things I noticed: This is a meta-analysis, not a direct study by the authors. This is looking for an effect in other people's data. There are 18 studies with a total of 1105 individuals. This is very very low for a meta-analysis. They identified 81 studies that they 'wanted' to use, but they had to exclude all but 18. They have a nice chart: https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/381075699/nuac086f2.tif https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/381075699/nuac086... Look at the rightmost 2 columns. The only 'good' outcome with a large effect has low certainty. (Bottom Row, NAFLD) The only outcome with at least moderate effect and certainty has a bad outcome (Inflammation markers) In summary, the press release is truly garbage. The study is not bad, it shows the state of knowledge and research in this area, which shows that honey is food, not magic.