Sentences with phrase «science backing up the claim»

We know that yoga can help, but what is the science backing up the claim that yoga can help fight illness?

Not exact matches

Byrne isn't worried, given the Fatigue Science's track record with clients and the fact it has data to back up its claims.

Look at what science offers you with no source for any of them, or proof to back up the claims:

This non-sense of claiming that the Hebrew calendar is irrelevant to science and the «theory» of evolution is just another pig - rear false statement with no quantifiable evidence to back that up.

Religion has no evidence to back up its claims and yet science REQUIRES evidence to take an idea seriously.

nature vs. nurture etc. there's really no science or evidence to back up any claims that a person is born this way, or has a genetic predisposition to same gender attraction.

Rain, when you make a claim like «even science agrees that a Supreme being exist», and you are asked to back that up — posting a link to yet another inane fundiot creationist website doesn't cut it.

There is absolutely no science to back this claim up, there is however a bunch of science that does support the fact that social conditioning is the single most contributing factor..

because you don't have a single fact to back up your claims whereas science is demonstrably getting closer to the answer with verifiable, objective and independent facts.

If they had the science on their side that «s what they'd be using to back up their claims way before «faith».

Turmeric contains a well - studied, powerful anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant compound called curcumin — the claims of its health benefits backed up by good science.

One of Beach Body's lines of protein powder was found to have lead in it and Isagenix claims lots of science but I've never seen the studies anywhere on their website to back it up.

If there is science that backs up any of these claims it should be cited.

These claims need to be backed up by science instead of being more about marketing.

I like how there's no science to back up your claim, yet Brittany has science to back up hers.

Finally, science has backed up this long - held claim.

Look, a cult of keeping a child at the breast until advanced age has become a trend among primarily white, educated, affluent women, the blogger is simply making a point that there is no concrete science to back - up the claims being made for the benefits.

In another passage, the Prophet said that there were 360 joints in the body, and other Islamic researchers claim that medical science backs up the figure.

There are many claims about the miraculous healing properties of ACV, but very little science to back them up.

Many people in online forums and discussion boards claim that they have seen a noticeable increase in energy levels from taking Moringa, though I found relatively little science to back this up and «energy levels» are one of the most difficult factors to measure objectively.

Science backs up garlic's claims to fame!

Here are some of the food ingredients (and my own favorite recipes) that have been major players in aphrodisiac history and lore — and also have modern - day science to help back up their claims.

Luckily advances in exercise science have helped us add scientific data to back up claims made by both parties.

Today, however, we have science to back up such claims.

While the book is a very interesting read (and totally worth checking out) there is little science backing up Hefenkler's claims.

And now the science can back up that claim.

While everyone claims to have the best sleep supplement on the market, we believe we can actually back up this claim with real science and real numbers.

They might sound good, but there's little science to back up their claims of these foods being beneficial for skin health (and before you suggest it — chia seeds and almonds are high in the omega - 3 ALA, not EPA or DHA, which are the omegas beneficial for skin, brain and heart health).

The 7 - Minute Workout may sound like it's too good to be true, but health and fitness experts who support the time - friendly fitness plan have something that backs up their claims: science.

I agree there are holes in the science of FOK, but this article (with it's shoddy resources to back up it's claims) & it's commenters just proves how backward minded 99 % of the population is.

While everyone claims to have the best pre-workout supplement on the market, I can actually back up such claim with real science, and real numbers.

Bro Science can't back up any of its claims.

The problem with this particular article is there is no context to what is too much and zero science backing any of these claims up.

Gundry, while quick to point how stupid we are compared to those clever Asians who mill their rice, lacks the peer reviewed science to back up his fantastic claims.

Can you provide any non psudo - science sources to back up your claim that something gets «burned out» from to much sugar or carbs?

While everyone claims to have the best pre-workout supplement on the market, we can actually back it up with real science and real numbers.

As a Psychology PhD candidate it is always appreciated when people like you Ben use science to back up your claims.

However, there hasn't been significant science to back up these claims.

But the science doesn't necessarily back all of these claims up, with just as many studies showing limited benefits as the ones that do.

Dr Perlmutter IS right and years of science and research back up his claims along with true testimonials from real people - have you even read the book??? like I said before people like you who are not willing to give up gluten carbs and sugars are going to be the first ones to come on here with skepticism and claims that this is just another «fad diet - «newsflash Will this is a lifestyle and the followers are not in a cult they are real people who want to take charge of their health and live to see their great grandchildren and still be sound in their minds its fine to have questions but to come on here and insult this fine doctor who has helped so many people throughout his career and has written a New York times best seller to educate and help so many more people just makes you sound absurd and immature - he is speaking the truth everything we've been told about nutrition is a lie to profit the wheat industry, doctors and pharmaceutical companies because as long as people keep eating the wrong foods and getting sicker and fatter they will all profit.

You speak of science and «clinical experience» then don't back up those claims with actual data.

Unlike Chemistry, most dating sites have very little science that has been published to back up the claims of their service and matchmaking system.

A research professor says that there is not much science to back up the claims of most dating sites.

In summary, some claims by pet food companies are just marketing, without real science to back up their advertisements.

The truth is that this is just «good marketing» not «good science» as there is no science to back up those claims, and as we all know it's hard to prove a negative.

He references this AMEG nonsense, presents it as valid science (although it is the furthest thing from), grossly exaggerates articles to make a point, and claims utter nonsense (6 °C by 2050, more than 100 % more than any credible institution predicts under any scenario) and never backs up his claims with numbers (especially his feedbacks, apart from the AMEG / methane stuff).

We have the science to back up the claims.

[TD] Nearly every claim on Skeptical Science is backed up with references to, and often links to, scientifically peer reviewed publications.

Or is this something that will be forced on us by some who have faith / vested / financial interests, and no science to back up the claims about the effects of carbon dioxide?

Where is all the science to back up this claim?