system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Most Nutrition claims are bs/pseudoscientific

I realized I might be biased in this, as someone who has serious medical issues. I’ve been unbelievably irritated by diet and nutrition advice over the years, and have always felt it could be potentially dangerous — so I just wanted to get that out in the open.

I’ve heard eating healthier can improve overall energy, but I don’t understand how it’s measured or how science can determine this. 

Now, I generally believe eating healthy is good and can possibly help prevent issues like obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart issues, and very specific diagnoses focused on food (like celiac disease) but I have heard it can influence specific illnesses that have nothing to do with diet too and I disagree with that aspect. And it’s been hard to find solid evidence about the correct diet for everyone, I’ve found too much variation among advice and between individuals to get a solid idea of how the field can apply their advice or science to the population as a whole. So, I guess I’m just convinced almost none of it is helpful unless a person suffers from a very specific food related issue, or consumes mostly processed/junk food long term. And personally, I have never noticed feeling worse or any ill effects when eating super unhealthy, and I haven’t noticed anything when I’ve tried to eat healthier either. 

Whenever I’ve looked into it, I’ve found the field is rapidly changing and contradicting which foods cause inflammation or prevent it, and even experts seem to disagree about what specific ingredients and vitamins are doing. I know some food items used in medication at higher amounts or altered have had great healing properties and that many pills can be derived from natural resources, but I don’t see how nutrition does much else on its own. 

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the field of nutrition and what it’s used for, so honestly any insight would be appreciated.

Edit: I realized my view is more against alternative medicine and the constant flood of inaccurate health advice than real nutrition — it had blurred some of the lines for me knowing where one began and the other ended. Also edited to differentiate between type 2 diabetes in my original post.
gpt
I would shift your view to a more nuanced position.

There are big issues with nutritional studies, which are mostly epidemiological. They look at what people report eating, and what their reported outcomes are. This is a very poor way of doing science, as there is no hope of proving causality to any degree. These studies can at best find correlations. You would need a properly designed experiment for showing probable causality.

Now, the issue arises when non-scientifically minded people stumble upon these studies and think they prove something they do not, e.g. that eating eggs makes you fat. (Also some people may be dishonestly representing the studies to get views.) **So then you get click-baity news and social media posts making bs/pseudoscientific claims which the scientists never made.**