The continuous use of "tautology" and painting everything as circular kind of fell flat for me. "Earthquakes are bad because they shake your house, and they sh

The continuous use of "tautology" and painting everything as circular kind of fell flat for me. "Earthquakes are bad because they shake your house, and they shake your house because they are earthquakes." It's not much different than "processed foods are bad because they make you fat, and they make you fat because they are processed" Not that it's true necessarily, but there's nothing wrong with idea, just the tortured phrasing. A implies B, B is bad, therefore A is to be avoided. So I'm confused by a big chunk of the article dismissing dietary trends (which are likely ridiculous!) based just on a weird way of describing them. And saying "tautology" . If the issue is that A and B reinforce each other (e.g. insulin resistance and obesity) then just say that - just say it's an indicator or symptom not a root cause.