It kind of boils down to who do you believe?

You believe in traditional sources of information that you trust. You side with the studies they promote. Some of us have found sources we trust more than traditional sources. They also quote studies by reputable sources (look up some of the research papers by the Virta Health staff). We can go back and forth but neither of us is likely to change our minds or the sources we find dependable.

But that does not mean the discussion is not valuable. Even though you nor I are likely to change each others minds, others on this forum will read what you say and read what I say, look at the sources we provide, and decide for themselves what information is worthwhile to them. We may bring up information that is completely new to them that they have not considered before.

Some of it wrong? Absolutely. Like the doctor telling the first year med students half of what they learn in medical school will be wrong. They just don't know at the time which half. The knowledge in all of this stuff is evolving. Look at saturated fats being vilified for 50 years and now it is just quietly being dropped out of the picture. No "we screwed up". No "we were wrong". Just a little whisper that is is no longer a "food of concern". How long is it going to take for the whole cholesterol debacle to be eradicated? We have been chasing cholesterol lowering drugs and pushed low cholesterol foods (never mind that our body produces the majority of our cholesterol, not the food we eat) for how many years to eradicate heart disease? And have we eradicated heart disease?

No doubt a lot of what I have been learning is wrong. But the traditional sources of dietary information have got a bunch horribly wrong and they don't want to fess up to any of it. So how are we supposed to trust what they tell us now?