Perhaps that's why there is a lot of sketchy results, hyperbole in communication, and a cycle of debunking (of the debunking) around.
My own metabolism and body is so different than when I started 40 years ago.
Current nutrition "science" is basically studying ensembles of weakly nonstationary processes and arriving at meaningless averages.
The whole method is completely stupid. It is why it feels like we have basically learned nothing in my lifetime in this field because I honestly don't think we have.
And it makes sense. We are omnivores, the entire point of being omnivores is to be able to fuel our body with whatever food is available, and it probably played an important role in the development of the human species. It means our body is very tolerant regarding what we eat, and while some types of food may be healthier than others, the effect will be small compared to other factors like generics, lifestyle, exposure to harm, etc...
What I think is important though is that we should have a diet as varied as possible. It is not necessary, but the less varied your diet is (it includes veganism), the more you need to pay attention. With a varied diet, you are very unlikely to miss something, and if you eat too much of the same thing, you may exceed the ability for your body to deal with a particular substance, making it toxic. Another problem is the psychological aspect. Essentially, the abundance of food that we have now messes with our brain, causing addictive behavior. And I think this is the focus of most serious nutrition science today, and that's also what Ozempic is all about.
I've also found that particle sizes are also important: keeping things in their natural sizes and chewing them yourself does a couple of important things such as mixing them with enzymes, sending signalling about what's coming into the digestive tract, and making food the right size, instead of ultra fine, which provides a different mix of nutrients to the lower parts of the gi tract (and lowers absorbed calories from nuts).
We’re good survivors for sure, but try eating only deep fried donuts for a year and let me know how omnivorous you feel.
If it was the case, we wouldn't have an article like this. We would have very obvious results, and we don't. Some claim we do, but if you look closer, it is not obvious at all.
Note that by "it doesn't matter", I don't mean that anything goes. Only eating deep fried donuts is not good, for the same reason eating only apples is not good, you won't get everything you need from a single food source. If you do that, you will get what are now very obvious and easily identified diseases, like scurvy, anemia, etc... Also, eating too little or too many calories is also not good, especially too little, but the effect (starving to death) is even more obvious.
What I meant by "it doesn't matter" is that with a varied diet and the right number of calories, the details don't matter. And I am convinced that a base diet of fried donuts to the appropriate amount of calories, with supplementation (vitamins, ...) to compensate for deficiencies is fine, or at least, not terrible.
And I also believe that "the appropriate number of calories" is the tricky part. Hunger mechanisms are supposed to regulate this, but they are not adapted to modern society, where rich food is plentiful. Hence the psychological aspect, which Ozempic targets.
1. Eat whole foods—prioritize nutrient-dense vegetables and some fruit in moderation.
2. If you can, vary your whole foods
3. Try not to eat too much sugar, especially with high triglycerides
4. Try not to eat too much salt, especially with high blood pressure
Everything else does seem quite overcomplicated. Nutrition has always been an area rife for capture by grifters, health gurus, and everything in-between.