Well, just re-read the article, and I realize that it did present the conclusions as a strong correlation in most places. I blame daylight savings time in the states.

That said, I wish there was more of a breakdown regarding which conditions had the strongest correlations, etc. though I realize that would probably result in sample sizes that were too small to be statistically significant. It just feels like they are going to reach a dangerous conclusion, because those dietary changes have been shown to be beneficial for individuals with certain conditions, and avoiding them would potentially lead to a worsening of symptoms...