No need to be combative, we can have different opinions.
It seems to me that by the time I'm looking at diseases of old age, it will be ten thousand times more effective to take a pill, or have the HDUltraSound treatment, or get the robots put in me or whatever, than changing what kind of bread I eat. I don't even know what kind of studies you're looking at or how diet is supposed to help me, but I wouldn't count on any diet to beat your serious diseases. Feel free to show me how diet is relevant to my life in the year 2030, when I'll be going in for my early prostate detection exam and we'll all be eating SynthoMeat.
I wouldn't follow some diet anyway -- who the hell wants to keep track of all that information every time they eat, and limit what they eat for decades on end? No thanks. Just the fact that you could compare, however tangentially, your approach to health and disease with the approach of a Chinese peasant, tells me all I want to know. Who cares if you don't get prostate cancer if you're a Chinese peasant?
Maybe Campbell or your low-carb doctor is right, maybe they're wrong. Anyway, you can find a doctor specialized in nutrition who agrees with any point of view, so why not just pick the one you like?
But seriously, I haven't seen anything that shows me conclusively that one specific diet approach has proven benefits or proven risks (other than an overall moderation and balance), and even if that exists I don't believe it will mean a thing compared to what tiny robots can do by the time I need it (hey, maybe we'll
be the tiny robots), and even if that's just a nerdy fantasy that never comes true then I'd still rather enjoy tasty food for decades on end followed by disease, compared to painfully watching and limiting everything I eat for my whole life.
Does that clear things up at all?
Sorry if this was a little random, I was busy doing other stuff while trying to write this....