The article discusses half a dozen things that "improve" or "increase" brain function, without ever reporting on the amount of the improvement. Rather than with numbers, a finding of improvement is followed by a quote from the researcher making the finding, who shockingly thinks the results are important.

NewScientist and hard evidence are like cats and water. Every issue is filled with breathtaking discoveries that will revolutionize the way we do X.

I guess it's quantity not quality with NewScientist. They write a bunch of articles in the hopes that one of them will break.

It takes all kinds. Without things like this, there would be less interest in some of the new stuff, and more might fail to be investigated further. And "improvement" in a brain is a pretty difficult thing to measure; at the most objective, you can do an FMRI and check overall bloodflow, but that's not conclusive either.

I would really like them to have more concrete information more often though, I wholly agree there. It'd go a long way towards capturing people who are more skeptical :)