> not really a good source for scientific information Probably so, but - while remaining of course based on academical articles - the perspective was that of a

> not really a good source for scientific information Probably so, but - while remaining of course based on academical articles - the perspective was that of a therapist - spendable information, not full caution. As said, it seemed to be the only work for the general public at the time. > a scientific sounding explanation before they’ll make any diet or lifestyle changes In a good basic commonsensical framework it's different: from e.g. "it seems that exercise also promotes some regeneration in the nervous system" follows "we have hints to value exercise even more". We most frequently work on hints, as that's what we most often only have. I need to match this with e.g. some recent HN submission about the toxicity of some vitamines in the B group, making the abuse of supplement quite dangerous. Similarly, a prominent actress once declared her stroke an effect of extreme fitness regimes. So, you know, good commonsense... An extremist mentality applied to lifestyle (e.g. "Only/never eat butter, articles suggest") makes of science another miracles shop.