I’d take any nutritional ‘guidelines’ with more than a huge grain of salt. The entire field of for-humans nutritional ‘science’ is the reverse of science: instead of discarding a hypothesis if it can’t explain results, cherry pick your results so you can continue to supoport that hypothesis. Call it a ‘paradox’ when you are asked about it. (e.g. ‘French paradox’). IMO a ‘paradox’ means your hypothesis is wrong.

Then when you see a small result in your data that favors your hypothesis, blow up that small result into something huge. Foe instance, if you had a study with adverse results happening to .01% in your study group, but .015% in your control, you announce “50% reduction in risk!”.

The problem is that medical professionals aren’t statistically sophisticated. and may evaluate that trumpeted 50% (which is really .005%) alongside medications that have a greater than .005% chance of adverse reaction — and recommend the medication — even though their patients are worse off than not being medicated at all.