[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ [1] https://nutritionfacts.org/book/
What we know is that:
- the common dietary pattern isn't working
- many more "primitive" diets show better results
What we don't know is exactly which aspects of a primitive diet are so beneficial relative to modern diets. A general pattern is that foods which are digested quickly tend to be overrepresented in modern diets. Foods which are easy to digest tend to be more pleasurable than foods which are slow to digest because our bodies like to save energy whenever possible, but our body is also configured "with the expectation" that food will be sort of hard to digest. I bring this up not to propose my own dietary remedy but to suggest that there is likely to be a trade-off between pleasure and health, and while careful study of nutrition can help us reduce the hedonic cost of healthy eating, it is not likely to disappear.
In fact, the neural pathways associated with hunger and satiety are implicated in the pathophysiology of diseases associated with overeating; this is discussed in one of my favorite reviews of the subject -- "Limitations in anti-obesity drug development: the critical role of hunger-promoting neurons"
http://faculty.vet.upenn.edu/ngg/user_docs/DietrichandHirvat...
[0] https://nutritionfacts.org/video/dr-gregers-daily-dozen-chec...
>This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view, and explaining the responses to the fringe theories.
SBM does a good job:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/385/
>I'm not appealing to his authority—you should review the scientific literature he cites.
This is still an appeal to authority -- different researchers will cite different literature, etc. I've devoted many hours of my life to reading scores of scientific articles on nutrition, and one thing I've learned is that anyone who thinks they've discovered the one easy trick to eating healthy is trying to sell you something. There's always contradictory evidence.
For example, one central claim of "The China Study" -- it's been cited at me at least a dozen times in the last ten years -- is that IGF-1 is, like, totally evil. However, there are also problems associated with low IGF-1:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4702316/
It seems unlikely to me that such oversimplified explanations of how metabolic signalling works are going to promote understanding that leads to better eating.
I do appreciate your well-reasoned response, and respect the amount of nutritional research you have done. I merely recommend trying Dr. Greger's nutritional advice for yourself for a month, to see if it personally works for you. Following it plus reintroducing exercise to my life each played a large part in breaking out of a major depressive episode.
In the end, what matters is finding what works for us personally. I have no vested interest in convincing anybody to follow my nutritional advice, other than wanting them to flourish. I'm sorry for accidentally butting heads, I seem to have rubbed you the wrong way. Hope you have a wonderful day.