> I feel like during my lifetime overall nutritional guidance has swung on plenty of things. One example would be eggs - "those are good for you, no wait they're bad and drive up your cholesterol, no wait, the cholesterol in eggs doesn't seem to raise cholesterol in humans who consume eggs".

I feel like the major trend is acknowledging that there aren't many singular things which are bad enough for you to materially move the needle. Health (especially as you age) has a lot luck involved.

Sure, you're not going to fare very well if you're constantly stressed, never exercise, eat terribly, do a ton of drugs, and have an awful sleep schedule.

But whether or not you put kale or romaine in your green smoothie is not going to move the needle in a way that matters. Just like whether or not you have some eggs for breakfast most days or not is not going to materially move the needle.

It seemed like the "health craze" really started somewhere around the early 90s, when people started thinking about all these different vitamins they should be taking and foods they should be eating. I'm guessing this is just when people really started to market and push these products. It probably took 30 years to undo that and convince people they can settle down and there's way more important health decisions one can make than whether or not you eat eggs.