It seems like given the enormous amounts of blood, sweat and treasure that have been expended in the investigation of long and short-term effects of particular diets, probably the most consistent result is that the null hypothesis prevails for almost all dietary interventions that don’t modify caloric intake.
This is most dramatically illustrated by the Women’s Health Initiative study, a very large-scale RCT of low-fat diets. A couple of representative results are at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16467234/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16467232/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16391215/; they did not, in general, find any meaningful differences between the low-fat and control groups in terms of cardiovascular disease risk or breast cancer risk, which were their primary endpoints. (The small and mostly non-statistically-significant results they did observe are difficult to untangle from the average 2 kg of weight lost by the experimental group.)
All told, it seems like the only two clearly-demonstrated-important aspects of nutrition are:
You get calories at a rate that puts you in the healthy BMI range; and
You don’t suffer any specific nutrient deficiencies.
Everything else is clouded in layers of controversy fueled by observational studies with varyingly-dodgy attempts at controlling for confounders.
As such I tend to view pretty much anything I’m eating in a given day as normal and healthy based on whether it allows me to stay within my desired caloric intake. Most of the time it’s quasadillas with low-carb tortillas, Catalina Crunch cereal, eggs, milk, and frequently McDonald’s breakfasts (I’m actually very fond of their biscuits.) And carrots. Lots of carrots.
About the carrots: I have seen warnings that excessive carrot consumption can show on the skin but I have a friend who also snacks a lot of carrots and it is not showing. I think the risk is very low and easy to fix.
It seems like given the enormous amounts of blood, sweat and treasure that have been expended in the investigation of long and short-term effects of particular diets, probably the most consistent result is that the null hypothesis prevails for almost all dietary interventions that don’t modify caloric intake.
This is most dramatically illustrated by the Women’s Health Initiative study, a very large-scale RCT of low-fat diets. A couple of representative results are at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16467234/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16467232/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16391215/; they did not, in general, find any meaningful differences between the low-fat and control groups in terms of cardiovascular disease risk or breast cancer risk, which were their primary endpoints. (The small and mostly non-statistically-significant results they did observe are difficult to untangle from the average 2 kg of weight lost by the experimental group.)
All told, it seems like the only two clearly-demonstrated-important aspects of nutrition are:
You get calories at a rate that puts you in the healthy BMI range; and
You don’t suffer any specific nutrient deficiencies.
Everything else is clouded in layers of controversy fueled by observational studies with varyingly-dodgy attempts at controlling for confounders.
As such I tend to view pretty much anything I’m eating in a given day as normal and healthy based on whether it allows me to stay within my desired caloric intake. Most of the time it’s quasadillas with low-carb tortillas, Catalina Crunch cereal, eggs, milk, and frequently McDonald’s breakfasts (I’m actually very fond of their biscuits.) And carrots. Lots of carrots.
How frequently do you eat sweets?
About the carrots: I have seen warnings that excessive carrot consumption can show on the skin but I have a friend who also snacks a lot of carrots and it is not showing. I think the risk is very low and easy to fix.