Also calling BS on this study, even though my dietary "beliefs" are in accordance with its conclusions. Still, it's an unscientific study, as are almost all nutritional epidemiological studies. There's an excellent article about this problem with dietary studies in JAMA. Here's a link if you can access it.
The Challenge of Reforming Nutritional Epidemiologic Research
:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...tm_term=082318
Some nutrition scientists and much of the public often consider epidemiologic associations of nutritional factors to represent causal effects that can inform public health policy and guidelines. However, the emerging picture of nutritional epidemiology is difficult to reconcile with good scientific principles. The field needs radical reform.
In recent updated meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies, almost all foods revealed statistically significant associations with mortality risk.
1 Substantial deficiencies of key nutrients (eg, vitamins), extreme overconsumption of food, and obesity from excessive calories may indeed increase mortality risk. However, can small intake differences of specific nutrients, foods, or diet patterns with similar calories causally, markedly, and almost ubiquitously affect survival?
The article's conclusion is that these studies do not answer that question. I agree.