I’m looking for answers less like “this thing made me feel better/worse” and more like “these RCTs with a reasonable methodology showed on average a long-term X-point IQ increase/Y-point HAM-D reduction in the intervention groups, and these analogous animal studies found a similar effect,” in which X and Y are numbers generally agreed to be “very large” in each context.
This also seems to be the kind of question that variance component analyses would help elucidate.
I do take a creatine supplement, despite expecting it to not to help cognition/mood/productivity that much.
Those studies could not falsify the thesis of Jim Babcock’s given that he doesn’t assume that the same nutritional intervention has the same effect on different people.
I’m looking for answers less like “this thing made me feel better/worse” and more like “these RCTs with a reasonable methodology showed on average a long-term X-point IQ increase/Y-point HAM-D reduction in the intervention groups, and these analogous animal studies found a similar effect,” in which X and Y are numbers generally agreed to be “very large” in each context.
This also seems to be the kind of question that variance component analyses would help elucidate.
I do take a creatine supplement, despite expecting it to not to help cognition/mood/productivity that much.
Those studies could not falsify the thesis of Jim Babcock’s given that he doesn’t assume that the same nutritional intervention has the same effect on different people.
Those studies could elucidate evidence in favor of his thesis, though, which is why I’m looking for them.