Except most of those studies are bullshit bad science done with fundamentally flawed methodology. It got a throwaway line in the article, but just about the only honest way to make scientific conclusions about nutrition would be to take a human population of statistically significant size and diversity, move them underground to a controlled environment, and control and monitor their food intake for some period of years. That would be a data set that might not be spurious (although I bet even within that, people would find ways to eat stuff the researchers can&#x27;t record). That&#x27;s not going to happen, so nutrition will continue to mostly be junk science that utilizes crappy methods and statistical manipulations to create sensationalist headlines and keep selling books.