I’m a healthygamergg proponent atm, but we all have to admit that there’s some overlap between interpreting results from science into actionable points and needing to use personal morals/philosophy to get there. Also, that there’s plenty of areas for improvement in terms of data supporting conclusions, although it’s also valid to use the best we’ve got so far until more results come along.

With that in mind I do find myself being a little skeptical of some of his jumps to assertions, as in sometimes maybe overly simplistic, yet still valid ways of interpreting, imo.

Do you have an example or two of what might be the more egregious ass-talking, or what chaps you the most? I’m not looking to attack the criticism, just curious at this point. Maybe there’s something I need to pay more attention to.