4 ms·

Hashimoto's here. The problem with all of these diets is that its not known if they actually do anything and the source is usually a mommy blogger who's making

Hashimoto's here. The problem with all of these diets is that its not known if they actually do anything and the source is usually a mommy blogger who's making money from selling supplements. I tried to talk to a few doctors and the only one(yes, one) who didn't dismiss the whole thing mentioned that there's nothing conclusive about any of these diets besides some well known diseases such as celiac and gluten. He told me to try it out if I wanted to and see how i feel but don't go to drastic measures because you could be depriving your body of nutrients it needs. I guess that's why the recommendation is always a varied diet; nobody knows what the body needs exactly so eating everything in moderation is likely to give your body anything it could need. Not really scientific though, is it? So my question is, how do you know what fad diet actually works? Searching for peer reviewed published work on anything nutrition related is a futile endeavor.

WillPostForFood 10y ago
Your comment on garbage info on on garbage blogs that seems to dominate google search results is on point. But there is plenty of good data and studies from legit sources if you sort through it. Here is one of the key papers that drove interesting in fasting and immune system repair: http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909(14)00151-9 http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909(14)00... BTW, if you only talked to a few doctors, and one of them supports it, that's actually a fairly high percentage: 20-33%.
- fao_ 10y ago
  > BTW, if you only talked to a few doctors, and one of them supports it, that's actually a fairly high percentage: 20-33%. This seems wrong, because it's not taking into account sampling bias
  - scorpioxy 10y ago
    Not only is it wrong, it's also incorrect. I used to work in healthcare IT so a "few doctors" to me is different than other people. But I got his point, I didn't see the need to get too technical.
    - WillPostForFood 10y ago
      A few generally is 2 or 3. If you are talking to scores of doctors, and calling it a few because you work at a hospital, then it is the usage of the word that is incorrect.

WillPostForFood 10y ago

Your comment on garbage info on on garbage blogs that seems to dominate google search results is on point. But there is plenty of good data and studies from legit sources if you sort through it. Here is one of the key papers that drove interesting in fasting and immune system repair: http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909(14)00151-9 http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909(14)00... BTW, if you only talked to a few doctors, and one of them supports it, that's actually a fairly high percentage: 20-33%.

fao_ 10y ago
> BTW, if you only talked to a few doctors, and one of them supports it, that's actually a fairly high percentage: 20-33%. This seems wrong, because it's not taking into account sampling bias
- scorpioxy 10y ago
  Not only is it wrong, it's also incorrect. I used to work in healthcare IT so a "few doctors" to me is different than other people. But I got his point, I didn't see the need to get too technical.
  - WillPostForFood 10y ago
    A few generally is 2 or 3. If you are talking to scores of doctors, and calling it a few because you work at a hospital, then it is the usage of the word that is incorrect.