The main aspect of the article I found frustrating, was the fact that no one really knows what foods are good (or bad) for you, and why. Yet tons of scientists and their studies claim that they do. The fact that what we're being told is greatly compromised by which companies are funding these studies, is even more infuriating. Also, since they're only studying one specific nutrient at a time, they aren't looking at the whole picture - how that nutrient works in the food that contains it, and in what context or lifestyle the nutrient is being consumed in. Not to mention many of the long-term studies done, are based off of the statements of others; many of which lie about how much and what they're eating. It all started out with food disappearing from supermarkets, to be replaced by "nutrients." Which then got divided into macronutrients and micronutrients, and from there, nonessential and essential. Once these were established, scientists began studying them, trying to figure out which nutrients do what once consumed. When they found a nutrient to be harmful, or just not healthy for us, we were told to consume less of it. But instead of just eating less of a certain food that contained it, companies began making products that were "low-fat" or "low-carb." Which didn't really do anything, since people were still eating the same foods, just with less of what is supposedly harmful. Without looking at the food as a whole, you can't really tell what in it is unhealthy for you. Just because one nutrient may seem unhealthy in studies, doesn't mean another nutrient in the food doesn't counteract it; sometimes even making the food good for you in moderation. Even foods that are stated as being good for you can have unwanted effects. It all depends on how your body is made up, and how it can process certain food. What foods we should eat also depends greatly on our lifestyle. If you aren't already at risk, or putting yourself at risk for a