>>21452999
Nutrition science is actually based on chemistry and looking at cells and chemical interactions. So actual hard science. But you won't really see papers on this, it's usually in textbooks and crap, as it's old established science (think carbs, protein, sugars, etc). The new stuff is for protein models and mechanisms, and the news is too braindead to understand a lick of that stuff to turn it into fearmongering.
Dietary "science" are "observational studies" and are generally bunk science due to unrepresentative samples, small N, non-repeatability, lack of controls, and of course MASSIVE, MASSIVE corporate interference. Media loves this shit because it drives the OH NO YOU ARE EATING POISON headlines and PLS EAT MORE SUPERFOOD headlines. Which mysteriously have funding from BIG FOOD to make happen. And that is if you could ever deconvolve all the pollution effects from all the chem shit we dump into water/air from food effects. That little 1% cancer bump could be from pollutants, not food, but no one would know because that's a fuck ton of shit to control, and people don't track (and kinda can't track) pollutant intake. They at least track smoking/drinking, but that can be measured by subjects. Pollutants are much harder to track.
Hot dogs aren't killing you, it's just a tube of meat bits (proteins and fat, plus all the chem shit BIG FOOD injects in it). The complete lack of exercise and 1lb of HFCS consumption per day is really what is killing you and turning you into a lardass. But people don't want to hear that, and Big Sugar kicked Big Fat's ass in the diet game, so sugar is good for you while fat is bad for you (despite the reverse being true).
