That's as true for your body as it is for a nuclear reactor.

I try hard to watch what I eat now.

> Gatorade, chewable energy cubes, organic peanut butter and power bars.

All of those are junk food. Drinking a large bottle of Gatorade is exactly equivalent in sugar content to drinking a can of pop, energy and power bars are also basically crap and sugar with some "vitamins" or "soy protein" added.

So yeah... this study found that eating one form of junk food is no different than eating another form of (cleverly marketed) junk food.

> Eleven males completed two experimental trials in a randomized, counterbalanced order. Each trial included a 90-min glycogen depletion ride followed by a 4-hr recovery period.

Wow, such thorough and newsworthy research: eleven males worked out twice for 90 minutes and ate two different types of crap.

This is just another example of the sorry state of modern clickbait research.

An alarming number of studies out there are nothing but noise, especially in the medical fields, where it does actual damage. Here's a good talk on this issue: https://youtu.be/GPYzY9I78CI "Reproducible Research: True or False?"

This is peer-reviewed research that appeared in the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism. Perhaps, as an esteemed expert in sport nutrition yourself, you could approach the journal and offer your services as a reviewer, given how strongly you feel about this.

Either way, I resent such an empty appeal to authority on your end. As intelligent, educated adults I'd like to think we're capable of arriving at our own conclusions. One can be critical of someone's methods without sharing their domain-specific expertise. Science is not meant to be an old boy's club, it's a communal activity; it belongs to everyone and it's up to everyone to scrutinize.

That's not how science works no matter who reviewed what. It doesn't matter if Francis Crick himself was brought back from the dead to review this paper: until this line of research is investigated further, experiments are reproduced, modified, and analyzed from every reasonable angle, the data is meaningless.

Perfect example, straight from the article:

> “We found that the published literature bears little imprint of an ongoing controversy, but rather contains two almost distinct and disparate lines of scholarship.”

> This finding arose from their review of ten "systematic reviews" of the evidence that have been conducted. In systematic reviews, scientists collect all of the primary research on a topic and, in effect, weight it on the whole. But there appears to have been widespread disagreement about what research papers ought to be included in a systematic review. If a research paper was selected for one systematic review, it was more than likely not selected for another, the researchers found.

Thd researchers choose a narrative and stick to it. i.e: Domain expertise is the problem. If it's not up to outsiders to point this out, then who?

The current trend of careerism and domain myopia, this pressure to churn out original research sausage factory style (again, presented in great detail in the talk I linked to) is not science, it's actively hurtful to science, and actively hurtful to people whose health, even lives, depends on this research.

I personally have gone through the medical system for reasons I won't go into, and have seen first hand the very real consequences of good and bad science, which is why I feel so passionate about these matters.

I also know a number of bright individuals who have left the world of academic research due to their disillusionment with the system. There is a very real brain drain going on, and God bless those who stick it out. But if more outsiders (and disgruntled insiders and ex-insiders) don't speak out more, people will continue to get hurt (many already have been -- it's not difficult to find articles and books on this subject). This isn't pure maths or theoretical physics, this is medicine; and we must hold it to the highest levels of scrutiny.

Actually that is not true, it does effect my poop. I strongly perfer pooping on a veggie rich diet!

Thankfully getting married has helped my diet. My spouse leaves for work for extended periods sometimes which is when my diet usually slips.

Yes, the breakfast of morbidly obese champions.

In this case, he's fucking Mr Fusion.

You probably mean something like... train for muscle growth or something or to run (not win) a marathon.

As an example I don't think good quality non-factory-farmed red meat is bad for a person, despite a fair amount of research on both sides of the topic. But since switching from couch me to exercise-a-holic me.. My relationship with red meat has changed. Had a grass fed burger Monday for the first time in a while, was up all night. Did not agree with me so much.

On the other hand, 1 beer or whatever amount of salt I consume seems to have no impact on me the next morning - happy to hope out of bed at 7 and go run.

Humans are not racecars so not sure I buy the analogy as given.. I wonder what the real reason for this is? Maybe a better broscience guess is that so much of your energy is devoted to repairing "damage" you did the to body during the day, your body has less spare energy to devote to processing crap.

And there are studies that show walking is just as good, and it certainly wears down the body less than your alternative.

I'm not sure I've ever actually seen one of these studies that show walking is as good for overall health as strenuous exercise. It's hard for me to believe, mostly because I do a ton of walking and find personally that the benefits are nowhere close. But also, "walking is just as good" seems mostly to be the rallying cry of out of shape people who don't want to exercise because it's hard.

> and it certainly wears down the body less than your alternative.

That's an odd way to put it. Exercise doesn't "wear down the body". It builds it up, quite literally if we're talking about resistance training. But even aerobic exercise builds up the cardiovascular system measurably.

Running puts tremendous stress on knees and feet. I've not been able to run since I was in my 30's due to my knees just not being able to take it anymore. (I'm not overweight.)

In fact, I walk 4+ miles a day, much up and down hills, and just that has pushed my feet pretty hard. About 5 years ago I had to switch to MBT's because I was essentially unable to walk in regular shoes. And it was a complete fluke that I found those shoes.

Of course it does. That doesn't mean it "wears down" the body in a meaningful sense. The body heals. Bones get stronger with use. So do muscles. Even connective tissue gets stronger with use. Cartilage might not (I'm not sure) but heals. It doesn't just grind down from use, or professional runners would all have severe arthritis at 25. Sedentary people still get arthritis.

> About 5 years ago I had to switch to MBT's because I was essentially unable to walk in regular shoes

I'm not sure you're a representative sample. It's not normal to be unable to walk in regular shoes unless you're elderly.

I have seen those studies and I tend to agree with them. My own personal experience supports the notion that walking is extremely healthful and provides almost all of the benefits you have in mind.

That is, if you're using measures like "do I feel good" "do I look good" "have I kept off those 20 pounds".

I however believe that there are more important measures: "can I run a few miles for help" "can I perform CPR for 10 minutes continuously" "can I lift and manipulate this charged hoseline".

I owe it to you and your family to be able to do these things. I measure your worth, to some degree, on your ability to do these things for me and my family. I don't care about what you look like or how many steps you did today.

I think in this case the charitable reading would be to not caveat it with ceteris paribus