Which, just in case it isn’t obvious, is a timeless classic. Even if you disagree with the advice itself, the argument he makes and the brief survey of the history of nutritional science make it a worthwhile read.

As this article shows, the mode of his argument has also been influential: it is a perfect case study of skepticism without cynicism; or considering competing arguments while avoiding the trap of “bothsiderism”. Matt Levine, another writer held in high regard in this community, is very similar in this regard.

There is also a book expanding on the article.

This is the first time I'm reading (and "hearing") the phrase "bothsiderism" :) I love it! Definitely bothsidering to use it from now on!

bothsiderism is essentially the outcome of what is in my mind the most infamous vendor lock-in move of all: the FCC's equal time rule. By requiring broadcasters give equal time to both sides, the ruling American parties (Democrat and Republican) effectively granted themselves a duopolony on mass media in the US and excluded all competing views. This is also the kernel of truth at the origin of the highly manipulable term "mainstream media".

I'm just reading the wiki, but it sounds like the equal time rule applies to any candidate who wants to buy air time, not just a major party one. Am I misreading it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

What you describe doesn't sound like "bothsiderism", just a two-party system. I don't see how the equal-time rule would be connected to bothsiderism.

As I understand it "bothsiderism" is the practice of not taking a stance for either side of an argument and saying "both sides have valid arguments"/"both sides are equaly wrong", and in the process ignoring that one side is much more right/wrong than the other.

> I think there's blame on both sides, you look at, you look at both sides, I think there's blame on both side, and I have no doubt about it, and you don't have any doubt about it either.

- Donald Trump after violence at the Charlottesville rally

Does this have a name? Like the overuse of "X considered harmful" after Dijkstra, or the annoying increase of "X Y and where/how to Z them" after JK Rowling?

Snowclone is a popular term for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowclone

I don't think it's on the same level with "considered harmful" quite yet but definitely heading there. BTW, two more for your list:

  - Everything you always wanted to know about X (but were afraid to ask)
  - X, or how I learned to stop worrying and love the Y

Was hoping the article would reference it, clearly a nod to Pollan!

With intermittent fasting concepts, now it is more like "Eat food. Not too frequently. Mostly plants."