In general I think the size of the controversy tends to be inversely proportional to the size of the effect.
This seems to apply to a lot of things, from how many reps you do in the gym to how you apply thermal paste to a CPU to how best to cook a steak. It's not that you can't mess these things up, but there does seem to be a rather large number of methods that work pretty well, and the difference in effect between "pretty well" and "optimal" seems overall to be small enough to allow for controversy.
This is especially true in cooking. There is like one method for macron because if you mess it up it won't work. But there are loads of debates about 'real Carbonara' because spaghetti with fatty pork (e.g. guanciale, bacon), egg, and cheese (and maybe cream depending on who you ask), maybe black pepper - you can't fail.
I think it's pretty generally applicable. If you think about it, there couldn't be a controversy if one of the options was clearly and demonstrably better than the other.
Even manufactured controversies like 5G crackpots or snake oil cures seems to often revolve around these nebulous long term effects that hover like a mirage right on the precipice of what's testable, hinted at with a generous interpretation of the scientific literature, but never quite rigorously demonstrated.
This seems to apply to a lot of things, from how many reps you do in the gym to how you apply thermal paste to a CPU to how best to cook a steak. It's not that you can't mess these things up, but there does seem to be a rather large number of methods that work pretty well, and the difference in effect between "pretty well" and "optimal" seems overall to be small enough to allow for controversy.