No, I've said clearly that good nutrition is objectively a better choice than eating cake for every meal because there is a cause and effect relationship between good nutrition and good health.
And the general and yourself seem to be afraid of admitting that this is a simple, objective truth. I know you both know it to be an objective truth, and you apply this knowledge as best you can in your own lives.
Then again, I see in your conversation with others you're trying to claim A isn't always A, so forgive me if I don't necessarily spend a lot of time conversing with you on this topic.
What you've stated is not objectively true.
The preponderance of evidence suggestst it, but the fact is that there are healthy people with wretched diets, and sick people with good diets. While I agree that the preponderance of the evidence points to a corellation, it is also clear that diet is not the sole basis of good health.
Also, it is a fact that what is a good diet for person A, may be deadly for person B. So you're left having to define "good diet" on an individual basis -- which rather inhibits your ability to define for us an objectively "good" diet.
I'd say that your "objective" basis, isn't.
Much like the rest of objectivism.
You're being dishonest. The question is not whether or not "A is A," but whether we can accept it as an axiom. Unless you're prepared to give us a means of knowing what A is, then you can't accept it as an axiom, either.