>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.