Second, generally Buddha's teachings are not about the health of the body. Also, there aren't many details about household life, it doesn't teach carpentry, agriculture, masonry, etc.
Finally, the diet of those times was composed mostly of cereals, vegetables and herbs, fruits, and some meat. By the way, all that was organic.
Not sure in those times, but today there are quite a few fat monks out there.
We are not saying thatso it seems to me kind of ridiculous to say added sugar will make you fat but eating 5 times your weight in fruit would not.
But if you are implying that your first hand information tells you that sugar is equally healthy as fruits, my first hand information will disagree
Studies are much less conflicting than first hand information. Peer reviewed studies grow around nuclei of consensus.I'm not interested in studies either because conflicting information is far too prevelant and I will trust my first hand experience much sooner.
But if you ask random people about their personal first hand information you'll find much more conflicts than in studies.
That being said, first hand information is valuable and personally, I am using it alot. But it's very important to train oneself to be unbiased (as much as possible).
But to trust first hand impression above everything else seems risky. Some people get it right, but I know few people who got it wrong.
It would be interesting to know what you have tried in more detail and over what period of time.From personal trials the "healthiness" of a food probably doesn't even determine how quick one would be to get sick but rather the amount of food one puts into his body.