How much conflicting information can people handle?

Read much of this book, for example: https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/d...

I'd recommend the book "How to not Die".

Here are some takeaways: "Which foods contain the most cholesterol? Eggs, fish, chicken, and red meat all earn the red light..."

"As for saturated fat, desserts, dairy, and snack foods are all designated as red light, with eggs, chicken, fish, and red meat getting the yellow light. Most of the saturated fat in the American diet comes from cheese (8.5%), pizza (5.9%), grain-based desserts (5.8%), dairy desserts (5.6%), and chicken (5.5%)."

"Salt levels are highest in lunch meat and snack foods, which both get a red light."

"...The more plant-based we get, apparently, the better."

Conclusion: Meat is bad, ultra processed foods are bad, and plant based diets are healthiest. Based on your comment alone, sounds like both Dr. Klurfeld and the WHO scientists are biased, whereas that book provides references to each and every claim that has science backing it. It's not rocket science, it's no surprise at all to find cholesterol, sodium, saturated fats, etc. are in meat and processed foods.

Book: https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/d...

https://nutritionfacts.org/2018/02/15/what-are-the-best-and-...

There's growing research to say that eating any meat (specifically red meat) increases inflammation. Among other things, it elevates levels of C-Reactive protein, which the liver makes when there is inflammation in the body.[1]

Another studied suggests that meat intake increases levels of arachidonic acid, which is another mediator in inflammation and aging.[2]

Those are just a couple of studies. There are plenty more where they came from. I highly suggest reading 'How Not to Die' by Dr. Michael Greger, to all those that are interested in way of reducing inflammation in the body. The book is incredibly well referenced, and a joy to read. [3]

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24284436

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28146136

[3] https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/d...

If you're looking to make dietary choices based on the results of high-quality dietary studies, my goto is "How Not to Die"[1] and the author's non-profit website at, http://nutritionfacts.org

[1] https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/d...

The answer is most definitely a whole food plant-based diet.

See the book How Not to Die for more here: https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/d...

Some good starting point:

- The classic "Samson Wright's Applied Physiology, Thirteenth Edition". It's very broad, but a strong base is always nice : https://www.amazon.com/Wrights-Physiology-Thirteenth-Medicin...

- How not to die. A good balanced between scientific references and averge joe explanations: https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/d...

- The China Study. Live study on millions of people to correlate quality of food and health instead of just quantity : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study)

- "Constitution des organismes animaux et végétaux Causes des maladies qui les atteignent" is a fantastic complement but I don't know if it exists in english. Careful though, it has a controversial point of view on vaccines. Still worth it: https://www.amazon.fr/Constitution-organismes-bact%C3%A9rien...

If you like nutritionfacts.org, you may be interested to know Greger wrote a book which is well referenced:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/dp...

Also, there was a recent article on Vox talking about why nutrition research is so hard to do:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10760622/nutrition-science-comp...

Not explicitly about paleo, but with lots of anti-paleo evidence: http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically-eb...