From the article, the opening premise:
I think that the dietary stresses we are supposed to indulge in that might be good for you sometimes include things like whiskey and wine, possibly sugar (or honey in large quantities or binges on sweet fruit even if that fruit has been cooked down to a sweet syrupy delight), vegetables that are toxic in large doses (very bitter things, for example), over-eating and under-eating for sure possibly a little smoking of one thing or another on an irregular basis and possibly also certain alkaloid, mind-altering substances on rare occasion.
So then, is it really so far fetched to think that the stress of eating sugar, or easily oxidized polyunsaturated fats, or processed garbage (“toxins”), or over-eating, might be good for you sometimes? So long as you supplement it with the dietary version of rest – healthful, nutrient-rich foods with the occasional abstinence from food? Why would these forms of stress and rest be any different?
The author says his grandmother is 80 now. My grandmother was 80 in 1985. So this means the author of that blog post is not very old right now. He should theorize about the value of regular crap processed food consumption when he's well into his 40s or 50s and let us know if it really was so beneficial after all.
Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
I can squat 180lbs, press 72.5lbs and deadlift 185lbs