Uh, this was ridiculously inconclusive, yet has a headline & conclusion that seem to tout the SEAD as helping with depression. The data shared pointed out that most of the SEAD adherents were well-off, with better life circumstances that would make one less likely to develop depression (thanks for that honesty, at least). If anything, THAT would be more of a factor to their supposed lower risk of depression more than the food itself (or at most, they'd go hand-in-hand).

But even then, the better prospects of several of those foods were only better when compared directly with those who consumed more dairy (according to the text)! So that really doesn't say much about the overall help they give compared to the metrics that actually matter, like comparison to those who DON'T eat those (although, that balance IS helpful to note, so still thank you for that).

"When analyzed individually, consuming small amounts of wine was the only dietary product associated with a lower risk of depression." In other words... only the wine significantly may have helped?! Nothing else?! LOL! So yeah, that's an absolutely inconclusive study if that's the result! There's way more to the diet than just the wine.

I was hoping for better news (I'm struggling with depression myself) & finding out which foods to consider increasing/decreasing in my diet. But all this found was "Have a little wine!" LOL!

The headline & conclusion need changed. Those are blatant lies, & what most readers would skim if they're short on time. While the diet certainly doesn't seem harmful, it's not right to declare it a conclusive help.

If you're just parroting those conducting the study, it's irresponsible to agree with them when the data clearly disagrees with said conclusion. But if that's your honest take from that data, then either you left out absolutely vital information that would justify that conclusion... or, you're misrepresenting the study. Which is even worse than irresponsible; downright manipulative.

Please fix this article so it properly displays WHY the headline/conclusion are assumed, or change the headline & conclusion so it conveys the proper skepticism... or take it down altogether, with a redaction report.

I've been trusting the articles on this website deeply, but this now makes me question the validity of ALL of them! Not sure if that trust can be regained or not...