I came into this article with skepticism: it’s a newspaper, they aren’t going to write anything too radically introspective. Instead, the article proves to be an excellent criticism of the current state of the nutritional science and dietary conclusions and recommendations (that I so often criticize as well.) The best lines:
As it is, we have a field of sort-of-science in which hypotheses are treated as facts because they’re too hard or expensive to test, and there are so many hypotheses that what journalists like to call “leading authorities” disagree with one another daily.
It’s an unacceptable situation. Obesity and diabetes are epidemic, and yet the only relevant fact on which relatively unambiguous data exist to support a consensus is that most of us are surely eating too much of something. (My vote is sugars and refined grains; we all have our biases.)
Point is, always remember that the science behind this stuff is probably not concrete. Take your health recommendations with a grain of salt.