From the perspective of a non-biologist reader only seeing popular articles, the past ten years have been completely bewildering. Nutrition has seemingly been boiled down to a couple of magic totems that are always simplistically either good or bad. Antioxidants are good. Inflammation is bad. Telomeres are good. Carbs are bad. All the "bad" things get associated with each other and anti-associated with the good thing…
The good versus bad narrative is also determined by the source/reader's orientation: Western medicine is corrupt and bad; natural solutions are wholesome and good. Natural medicine is anti-science and bad; western medicine = science and good. Each side is engaged in a turf war with the other. IMO, there are pros and cons to each, but the dogmatism clouds adherents to the potential of the enemy's understanding and sol…
Natural Medicine does seem to get people to change various behaviors. Several friends went through a bizarre homeopathic stage. I kept quiet because they where told the ‘magic pills’ only worked if they took care of their general heath better such as getting more sleep, and so they would comply.
I don’t think the placebo effect + lifestyle changes warrants calling these things an alternative, but it does explain why they can stick around. Sadly, some people are willing to just sell the magic pills without the advice that makes them useful.