What garbage.
Too much garbage to even go through it all, and I see others have done that already.

I will, though, take the time to pick apart my one favorite pet peeve: when they take impoverished starving populations eating anything to stay alive (i.e. cheap abundant carbohydrate food), and extrapolate from their diets what is IDEAL to eat for healthy weight maintenance. LOL.

"Oh look at these starving, low BMI grain-eaters... see, I've just proven that to be thin you should eat a high percentage of calories from grain! Atkins was wrong!"

I mean it's stupid for so many reasons...

There's the fact their thinness has more in common with the lack of calories due to being UNABLE to obtain more food (meaning, if they had access to more food it is likely they would be a good deal heavier... so we have no idea how well the food they are able to eat does or does not promote obesity).

There's the fact that, based on the truth of the above statement, it's IRRATIONAL to conclude what they DO eat as a part of their starvation diet has any positive effect on weight (because it's impossible to tell without first controlling for availability of food)...

There's also the fact that because their thinness is the result of emaciation by lack of enough food (and therefore not a sign that they're "doing something right"), who's to say how healthy they are? Cancer patients also tend to have real low BMI's too... are they healthy? You can get a low BMI by puking up everything you eat or starving yourself, too... or through heroin addiction.
So it's really a fallacy to unequivocally equate low BMI, or low body fat even, with healthier. When all conditions are equal (lifestyle, types of food consumed, etc) then those who are thinner probably tend to be healthier than those who are bigger, true. But all conditions are NOT equal. They live hard lives and barely get enough nutrients to thrive. I bet the average american, fat as he/she is, is a LOT healthier than a peasant barely surviving on a sustenance diet of grain and beans.