Given the inconsistent, even capricious prescriptions coming from nutritional science and medicine, here's three reasons I don't worry too much about nutritiona

Given the inconsistent, even capricious prescriptions coming from nutritional science and medicine, here's three reasons I don't worry too much about nutritional "science." First, n anecdote: 1.) One year I decided to run a marathon, and joined a running group including some elite runners. One was a former state champion. In that particular year he'd run an Iron Man, a marathon, and the Goofy Challenge. That is a big deal. He was carved out of stone. At running clubs, women would surround him. They'd paw at him, giggle as they pointed and touched this man body of steel. After witnessing this for months, once at a pub I saw him order, IIRC: 2 hotdogs, a hamburger meal (with its own sides), and sweet potato fries, which he washed down with several beers. I was shocked. I asked if he always ate that way. He said he just eats what he feels like eating, with one exception: added sugar. So that's what I do. I eat what I feel like, with (3) exceptions. Small portions, no added sugar, and limits on artificial flavours. I've seen great results in energy, mind and physique. It appears my body is actually really well tuned to tell me what it needs without me having to do anything at all--as long as I follow those three rules. 2.) We need to be careful what we call actual science. If you can't rigidly follow the scientific method and test your theory to see if it matches with nature, it's not science. 3.) Nutrition is ridiculously important to our well being. It's more important than sex, shelter, and ego. Our bodies have been evolving for millions of years to learn how to tell us what they require. It's arrogant to declare yourself to know better here without having hard scientific evidence of it. That's what we're seeing now in the "scientific" literature. Butter is no longer a heart risk. Eggs are now healthy. All of the sudden sugar is the devil. Etc.