One technical point of interest for research nerds.

When I conducted research, I had to choose between "correlational" and "causation" designs. In psychology it's VERY hard to get enough subjects to do a strong causation-designed study.

However, one point that may be very difficult to get at first - in a sense, there is no such thing as pure "causation."

If I take a hammer and slam it down on a nail repeatedly, and drive the nail deep into a piece of wood, the slamming of the hammer "caused' the nail to go down, right?

This is indisputable, right?

Well, what caused my hand to take the hammer and move it?

If you go into this in any depth, it may unravel virtually all your assumptions about, not only science, but everything in your life.

So you may not want to go there.

To come back to science, if you want to claim that correlational studies are worthless, you might want to spend some time examining the philosophy of science first.

Or even better, leave your studies and actually DO some research!

Meanwhile I'll say it again - Dr. Walston (sorry, I think I referred to you as Dr. Watson in a previous comment:>)) - thank you for being a sane food writer on Medium.