[sudowhodoido]

How's your heart?

No their problems weren't just the lard. It was derision pointed at the unfounded basis of your analysis and the complexity of the human diet, metabolism and relatively limited knowledge of nutrition we have.

/r/keto isn't a valid citation, well no more than /r/spacedicks (NSFW) or the pope. Neither is you losing weight.

[Chevalier]

My health has never been better. I'm not sure why you think I've earned your derison... but okay.

Eat sugar, dude. I'm not here to save your life. But if some of the awesome nerds who read HN decide to get healthy, I'd really recommend eliminating sugar from your diet. Life is so much better without it.

Recommended introductory reading would be Gary Taubes, Robert Lustig, and Peter Attia. The history of nutrition over the past fifty years is absolutely shocking.

[sudowhodoido]

I eat a shit ton of straight sugars, fat and carbs and am technically obese if you consider the rather non-scientific BMI system.

However, I rode 59 miles from London to Brighton on my nice Dawes Ultra Galaxy a couple of months back without any trouble. Last month I had a medical and am, according to doctor "in wonderful shape". Go figure.

Oh right, everything in moderation. That's the win. I eat that stuff when I need it.

I wouldn't cite a bunch of random popular reading health authors and an endocrinologist incapable of using the scientific method in his work. Go read some Feynman and apply some critical thinking and get back to me.

[gotrecruit]

this sounds like a very typical (and incredibly flawed) HAES (health at every size) argument - "so what if i eat all that bad crap and am obese? i can run more miles than you so that means i must be fitter and healthier than you!"

i'm not sure if i'm interpreting this correctly, but it sounds like you essentially admitted that you're really fat, despite being active. while i agree that the BMI system is very flawed especially when it comes to measuring the health and fitness level of active people, but for the typical non-active keyboard warrior (which statistically HN would probably have a very high percentage of relative to the whole userbase), the BMI is a decent gauge of health.

simply put, what i'm saying is, unless you're telling me you're in fact a massive 250-lb muscle-bound beast, the BMI reading is probably quite accurate that you're overweight and not healthy at all.

you can convolute the argument as much as you want, dropping names and terms like "critical thinking" and "Feynman" etc, but ultimately there is no denying the reality that is your body.

[sudowhodoido]

You're not interpreting it correctly. Go read it again and my other comments. In summary, perhaps a little more concisely:

I'm an outlier. I'm well built but thanks to BMI, I'm classified as obese. I eat a lot of crap as well, probably more than most. That doesn't affect my general health at all.

I'm referring to scientific integrity and application of the scientific method which this entire thread is devoid of. One poster posted with citations from known crackpots and a reddit group of obsessive religious dieters.

Nutrition is complicated. Everyone has an answer. I'm saying there isn't one. Life is a race to the finish line. Whoever gets there last with the most bits still attached wins.

[Chevalier]

Feynman the physicist?

Dude, your antagonism has no place here. You're not helping your argument, you're just making HN worse.

[sudowhodoido]

It's spot on: http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

I'm calling up hokum and bad science, nothing more.