[toast0]

> I’ve read tons of scientific papers and there are too many contradictions.

Dietary science is full of contradictions, and sometimes contra-indications.

There seems to be a lot of focus on some sort of mythical one size fits all diet for everyone. As if everyone's body systems would react in the same way to any given diet and with an assumption that you can rigidly control the ingredients in your food while still getting food from the grocery store and possibly restaurants.

When evaluating diets for conditions, I would suggest trying to figure out:

a) is it grossly unhealthy / what signs could I use to see if it is affecting my health negatively? b) does it seem to work for some people? c) is it something I could feel satisfied with for a long time? d) how will I know if it's working or not? / how will I be able to confirm?

This is generally a smaller burden of proof than is there scientific consensus that it's a good idea. For many things that might have a connection to food, there isn't consensus on the mechanisms involved, and there may be multiple. It's plausible thst some mechanisms would be affected by diet, and others wouldn't, so some people would see good results by eliminating things, others would see no change, and others may have bad results.