General relativity I much easier to test in simple systems, like planets traveling in the vacuum, or to get more precision you can test it in the lab <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tests_of_general_relativity" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tests_of_general_relativity</a> . I&#x27;m not sure if this is the more accurate current test but from <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment</a> :<p>&gt; <i>The result confirmed that the predictions of general relativity were borne out at the 10% level. This was later improved to better than the 1% level by Pound and Snider. Another test involving a space-borne hydrogen maser increased the accuracy of the measurement to about 10^−4 (0.01%).</i><p>Nutrition and diets are more difficult to measure (you can&#x27;t enclose a few thousand persons in the lab for 20 years) and it&#x27;s full of side effects and interactions. IIRC a low fat diet is still recommended. I think that a better example of the changes in nutrition is the butter vs margarine recommendations, see for example <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.telegraph.co.uk&#x2F;news&#x2F;science&#x2F;science-news&#x2F;11796834&#x2F;Butter-unlikely-to-harm-health-but-margarine-could-be-deadly.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.telegraph.co.uk&#x2F;news&#x2F;science&#x2F;science-news&#x2F;1179683...</a>