[kekebo]

It's good you point that out. Two studies should almost never sufficient for a conclusive argument, especially not in a field where physiological variability may be more decisive than probability distributions derived from group studies (On average peanuts don't kill people but that's not a useful metric if you happen to be allergic).

In terms of informational frameworks regarding nutrition I have to say the landscape is quite bleak. Understanding broccoli or its effects on the human body make big pharma no money, publications are only slowly picking up speed with new (crowd-) funding options. Even worse, the lack of funding and publishing set a rather low barrier for food industry players to manipulate the field in their favor, which makes for even less solid ground (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in... ).

But there are exceptions, Rhonda Patrick comes to mind, she's mostly or fully crowdfunded, including her papers iirc. She can go very deep but is usually aimed at non specialists: https://www.youtube.com/c/FoundMyFitness/videos

And Andrew Huberman who finances his podcast through sponsors, quite dense but always trying to explain medical terms and concepts he brings up: https://www.youtube.com/c/AndrewHubermanLab

As for "how are we to live" I think a good starting point nutritionally is to try and watch/feel the body reacting to different foods and maybe reading up after something feels really good or bad to maybe gain some theoretical insights. There are no studies for your body in particular but you have full production test access pretty much all of the time (I would try to prevent restarts though).