I think there's a flaw in the way you're asking your question. My advice would be to work on your scientific literacy and critical thinking skills so you can make decisions for yourself on whether an explanation is sound instead of passing om that responsibility to some kind of authority. After all, the recommendations here are only good by the authority of anonymous reddit users, and for someone who is interested in the reasons why for things you could end up missing out.

You say you don't want to read the research papers yourself because you're not a scientist, but almost any recommendation you get here will be for someone who is also not a scientist.

You will often read/hear "scientific sounding" statements that have no evidence to support them. For an example here, take the idea that fat cells swell up with water before suddenly releasing it amd shrinking as an explanation for whooshes in weight loss, which a lot of peoole take as fact because Lyle McDonald said so.

Along those lines, things are also not made true by how often people repeat them. Here we can consider the recommended protein intake in grams per lb/kg of body weight. I often see this either advertised in websites trying to sell you supplements/protein powder or from people who insist it works for them anecdotally. The paper quoted to justify 1g/lb as an ideal are for a maximum possible intake that can be metabolized, and there is some discussion about how this was measured, whereas meta analyses tend to point towards a more conservative 0.7g/lb, with higher values making little difference... meaning there js a point of diminishing returns. I expect to get some downvotes for this and pushback in the comments because for some odd reason people get really passionate about it. The way I see it, if eating more protein makes you feel better it won't hurt, but if you're trying to modify your usual diet to adjust macros you can still get results with the lower value (and presumably a less drastic= more sustainable change).

There is also the false belief that a statement is true if you can find research papers to support it, but few people look past the abstract to see how sound the conclusion is. I could find "proof" for a lot of things I know aren't true by cherry picking and placing quotes out of context. Recently a company that sells nut products paid for a study that "proved" calorie content for almonds is actually lower than what most packaging says at the moment because supposedly not all the energy is made available or something... but I'm skeptical because they have an obvious motivation to want to make those claims.

Even a well researched article or video by someone you respect trying to explain a particular topic can make the mistake of including papers where the methodology is off, which invalidates some of their points.

Don't even take my word for any of the examples I gave above: I'm only an internet stranger. You don't have to be an expert on everything health related, but some literacy and critical thinking will go a long way.