I thought that etics committees had made it impossible to run studies where subjects had no choice but to accept a randomised diet, but I see one counterexample to this theory - I just wish I knew of more. The article at https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/16/nasa_boosts_cognition_with_fishy/ points to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21927-5
What do you mean specifically by “had no choice?” Because I’m sure the subjects could’ve said no and/or backed out if they got sick or really wanted to. It’s not as if they were prisoners. Since it was only 16 people it’s not some otherworldly possibility that they all stuck around (also since they weren’t randos off the street who decided to sign up for a trial - it was a biased sample of people in the first place since they were all astronauts).
Randomized trials happen all the time lol. But it’s standard practice to explain the enrollment/allocation/follow up steps and how many people got through each step and end up finishing the trial.