3 ms·

A juice fast isn't a fast, it's another stupid name like biohacking. The literal dictionary definition of "diet" is "the kind of food an animal eats" or maybe "

A juice fast isn't a fast, it's another stupid name like biohacking. The literal dictionary definition of "diet" is "the kind of food an animal eats" or maybe "the types of food someone is limited to for weight loss or medical reasons". A "juice fast" is a diet, not a fast. A water fast is just a normal fast, since water does not have any calories and is not a food. A diet is not a state of caloric reduction, it's a description of the foods you're able to eat. A fast is not a description of the foods you're able to eat, it's a description of the act of eating zero foods and zero calories. If you're dieting, you're eating food. If you're fasting, you're not. There is an infinite amount of difference between zero and anything-but-zero.

dpark 9y ago
> A diet is not a state of caloric reduction I'm pretty sure you know this is untrue. Your own definition references weight loss, which implies caloric restriction. In common use, "caloric restriction" is the most common intent of a diet. Outside select groups (e.g. bodybuilders), "dieting" is exclusively a weight loss exercise. > A fast is not a description of the foods you're able to eat, it's a description of the act of eating zero foods and zero calories. If you're going to refer to the dictionary to support your claims, you should do so consistently: "abstain from all or some kinds of food or drink, especially as a religious observance." Keyword there is "some kinds". A fast needn't be total to be a "fast".
- freehunter 9y ago
  >I'm pretty sure you know this is untrue. I do not. You're the one claiming that "fast" and "diet" mean the same thing according to your own definition not backed up by anyone else's definition. A diet is the food you're allowed to eat. Literally everyone agrees with this definition. A fast is abstaining from food. Literally everyone agrees with this definition. There is a big difference between the two. A weight loss diet defines the food you're allowing yourself to eat in order to lose weight. If someone tells you they are fasting, they mean they're eating nothing. If someone tells you they are dieting, it means they are restricting the foods they're allowed to eat, but are still eating food. At this point I'm pretty sure you're just trolling me. There is nothing incompatible with our definitions except you claim a fast is the same as a diet and a diet is the same as a fast, which I'm pretty sure you know this is untrue. There is a big difference.
  - dpark 9y ago
    > You're the one claiming that "fast" and "diet" mean the same thing according to your own definition not backed up by anyone else's definition. I absolutely did not say that. All I said is that your distinction is vacuous and incorrect: "Dieting is specially related to food you eat, while fasting is food you didn't eat." I don't eat oysters. Am I "fasting"? > A diet is the food you're allowed to eat. Literally everyone agrees with this definition. Many people go on X calorie diets. The FDA uses a "2000 calorie diet" as the reference. Nothing in this sort of "diet" restricts what foods you're allowed to eat. Your definition does not match a very common usage. You're asserting your own personal definition as if it is the only valid one, but it's not. > A fast is abstaining from food. Literally everyone agrees with this definition. I already gave an example where this is incorrect (juice fast). Medical fasting also often doesn't meet this definition (protein sparing modified fast). The dictionary doesn't even agree with your assertion of "zero food". > There is a big difference between the two. By your definitions, a fast is a diet. If a diet is a restriction of foods to certain types, and a fast is a complete restriction of foods, then a fast must be a diet. > At this point I'm pretty sure you're just trolling me. At this point you're making up straw man definitions and ascribing them to me. Accusing me of trolling for pointing out the errors in your pedantry is a little ridiculous. > There is nothing incompatible with our definitions except you claim a fast is the same as a diet and a diet is the same as a fast, which I'm pretty sure you know this is untrue. There is a big difference. There's nothing incompatible with our definitions (well, yours and the straw man you created for me) except that one is untrue and that there is a big difference? I'm not sure what to do with that. I fear there's little common ground at this point. Take care.

dpark 9y ago

> A diet is not a state of caloric reduction I'm pretty sure you know this is untrue. Your own definition references weight loss, which implies caloric restriction. In common use, "caloric restriction" is the most common intent of a diet. Outside select groups (e.g. bodybuilders), "dieting" is exclusively a weight loss exercise. > A fast is not a description of the foods you're able to eat, it's a description of the act of eating zero foods and zero calories. If you're going to refer to the dictionary to support your claims, you should do so consistently: "abstain from all or some kinds of food or drink, especially as a religious observance." Keyword there is "some kinds". A fast needn't be total to be a "fast".

freehunter 9y ago
>I'm pretty sure you know this is untrue. I do not. You're the one claiming that "fast" and "diet" mean the same thing according to your own definition not backed up by anyone else's definition. A diet is the food you're allowed to eat. Literally everyone agrees with this definition. A fast is abstaining from food. Literally everyone agrees with this definition. There is a big difference between the two. A weight loss diet defines the food you're allowing yourself to eat in order to lose weight. If someone tells you they are fasting, they mean they're eating nothing. If someone tells you they are dieting, it means they are restricting the foods they're allowed to eat, but are still eating food. At this point I'm pretty sure you're just trolling me. There is nothing incompatible with our definitions except you claim a fast is the same as a diet and a diet is the same as a fast, which I'm pretty sure you know this is untrue. There is a big difference.
- dpark 9y ago
  > You're the one claiming that "fast" and "diet" mean the same thing according to your own definition not backed up by anyone else's definition. I absolutely did not say that. All I said is that your distinction is vacuous and incorrect: "Dieting is specially related to food you eat, while fasting is food you didn't eat." I don't eat oysters. Am I "fasting"? > A diet is the food you're allowed to eat. Literally everyone agrees with this definition. Many people go on X calorie diets. The FDA uses a "2000 calorie diet" as the reference. Nothing in this sort of "diet" restricts what foods you're allowed to eat. Your definition does not match a very common usage. You're asserting your own personal definition as if it is the only valid one, but it's not. > A fast is abstaining from food. Literally everyone agrees with this definition. I already gave an example where this is incorrect (juice fast). Medical fasting also often doesn't meet this definition (protein sparing modified fast). The dictionary doesn't even agree with your assertion of "zero food". > There is a big difference between the two. By your definitions, a fast is a diet. If a diet is a restriction of foods to certain types, and a fast is a complete restriction of foods, then a fast must be a diet. > At this point I'm pretty sure you're just trolling me. At this point you're making up straw man definitions and ascribing them to me. Accusing me of trolling for pointing out the errors in your pedantry is a little ridiculous. > There is nothing incompatible with our definitions except you claim a fast is the same as a diet and a diet is the same as a fast, which I'm pretty sure you know this is untrue. There is a big difference. There's nothing incompatible with our definitions (well, yours and the straw man you created for me) except that one is untrue and that there is a big difference? I'm not sure what to do with that. I fear there's little common ground at this point. Take care.