> If it's clearly not worth HN readers' time, how did it get published in "The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition"?

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.

That would be a strange rumour hear.

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?

The trial size is not too small to be statistically significant. It may warrant further investigation by scientists in the field of clinical nutrition.

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.

So it's a practically baseless conjecture within the field of clinical nutrition, clinical nutritionists now publish such in peer reviewed journals, and the wider scientifically literate public have no business ease dropping on all this. Got it.

It's a scientific journal - a place for the researchers to discuss and discover science.

This is a lay forum - a place more suited to the discussion of decided science.