GMO free is anti-scientific. At least a ton of overlap between those who pursue it and also have a whole lot of other woo-woo food related eccentricities. A rounding error of people against it when you talk to them will bring up "big ag" monopolies/etc. which are legitimate concerns vs. various vague health concerns from eating it.

Organic I suppose is borderline. My parents were in this space as farmers, and the commercial scale operations putting the "certified organic" labels on mass produced food would be largely indistinguishable from the farm or large ag business next door. It devolved into a near-meaningless label to me seeing how it's been completely gamed to the point of being meaningless.

I put all this stuff - including the fad diets - somewhere on the "started from a kernel of truth and descended into crazy" spectrum.

Yeah, a "natural" or "clean" diet sounds precisely as well-reasoned and effective as a "paleo" diet.

The dietary equivalent of syncretism nonsense.

Your link references a single study of 18 research participants who were male, exercised exactly once or twice per week, and were between the ages of 18 and 40.

It's an interesting result, but it hardly "refutes" the hundreds of larger studies that show the opposite result.

The most likely thing is that this paper is just a complete anomaly though. It'll be interesting to see if anyone else ever replicates this result, or does so in a more representative participant population.

Yes most people in the US would be healthier if they started eating 10% less, even if that 10% came entirely from their protein intake. We just eat too much period.