4 ms·

There's nothing inherently unhealthy about being in a temporary state of negative energy flux (unless you are already underweight or deficient in an essential m

by kuhewa 4y ago

There's nothing inherently unhealthy about being in a temporary state of negative energy flux (unless you are already underweight or deficient in an essential mineral or something)

Mordisquitos 4y ago
That being true, it could well be that a "Potato Only Diet" is effective for weight loss not because of the reduced energy intake, nor because of some subtlety in how our gut or our metabolism deals with an only starch diet for a while, but instead because potatoes lack micronutrient X or inhibit its absorption and a symptom of X deficiency is losing weight. That could be unhealthy. I don't have an opinion either way and I don't think this is a likely reason, but it is a possibility.
- BizarroLand 4y ago
  I wonder if it is useful for flushing PFAS and other forever chemicals from the body? They found that indigestible oils like Olestra served to flush out the chemicals that bonded with oils, so maybe the high fiber potato diet is good for flushing out something else?
- kuhewa 4y ago
  pretty remote possibility, unless you have a deficiency in mind that manifests pretty quickly and causes rapid weight loss and doesn't cause systemic disease.
  - cheese_goddess 4y ago
    If you eat only potatoes you will only ingest the nutrients found in potatoes so you will risk becoming deficient in all other nutrients, not found in potatoes. I don't know what those are, but for example you'd risk running out of all the stuff that vegans have to take supplements to replenish, like B12, iron, zinc, etc. Anyway the diet described in the article doesn't make any assumption about calories. If you're taking enough calories to maintain your weight but losing weight, then it's very likely there's something else you're not getting enough of.
    - kuhewa 4y ago
      At that point you are just kinda throwing spaghetti at the wall in an 'anything is possible' kind of sense, neither of those are very parsimonious explanations. Besides the fact the diet isn't asking suggesting anyone not supplement, a vegan diet won't lead to a severe B-12 deficiency in a matter months. But hey there is a non-0% chance you are bang on and the people losing weight when trying to eat 20 potatoes a day to meet their caloric demands are actually just noticing the weight loss once they also get pellagra and anemia, they just figured it was a coincidence.
      - cheese_goddess 4y ago
        I don't understand what you're trying to say because the derision in your comment is taking up all the space that would normally be dedicated to clarity.
        kuhewa 4y ago
        To be fair, your reply wasn't very helpful when I was asking about specific causes of rapid weight loss induced by micronutrient deficiency that wouldn't manifest as other disease states that could make this scenario remotely plausible. But no derision intended, I was noting the possibility that you could well be correct.
        cheese_goddess 4y ago
        Fair enough. Sorry for overreacting.
arghwhat 4y ago
This will very quickly devolve into a definition of an unhealthy diet, or healthy vs unhealthy in general, none of which is well defined. From the perspective I took where a healthy diet is a sustainable one with sufficient nutrients and long lifetime expectancy, a weight loss diet is unhealthy and unsustainable, but there to negate a different issue and improve long-term health.
- kuhewa 4y ago
  At first approximation, sure, a diet that can be sustained and keep you alive indefinitely is better than one that would eventually lead to your demise due to insufficient calories or essential nutrients. However, a diet that varies in how 'fed' you are over time is very likely healthier than one where you are constantly taking in nutrients. During that post-prandial state, insulin and growth factors are elevated, and autophagy and other important pathways for 'tidying up' sick cells are turned off. That is why I don't think it is fair to say that fasts or restrictive diets are inherently unhealthy, I reckon 'whether this can be sustained steadily forever' should not be the bar. Similarly, the 200% of normal diet consumed after marathon is healthy that day and probably more healthy than eating normally since it is going to allow for repair and replenishment of depleted substrates, but would not be healthy if eaten every day. For someone with health issues stemming from obesity, a potato-crash diet could immediately improve health, and continue to for a good while.

by kuhewa 4y ago

There's nothing inherently unhealthy about being in a temporary state of negative energy flux (unless you are already underweight or deficient in an essential mineral or something)

Mordisquitos 4y ago

That being true, it could well be that a "Potato Only Diet" is effective for weight loss not because of the reduced energy intake, nor because of some subtlety in how our gut or our metabolism deals with an only starch diet for a while, but instead because potatoes lack micronutrient X or inhibit its absorption and a symptom of X deficiency is losing weight. That could be unhealthy. I don't have an opinion either way and I don't think this is a likely reason, but it is a possibility.

BizarroLand 4y ago
I wonder if it is useful for flushing PFAS and other forever chemicals from the body? They found that indigestible oils like Olestra served to flush out the chemicals that bonded with oils, so maybe the high fiber potato diet is good for flushing out something else?
kuhewa 4y ago
pretty remote possibility, unless you have a deficiency in mind that manifests pretty quickly and causes rapid weight loss and doesn't cause systemic disease.
- cheese_goddess 4y ago
  If you eat only potatoes you will only ingest the nutrients found in potatoes so you will risk becoming deficient in all other nutrients, not found in potatoes. I don't know what those are, but for example you'd risk running out of all the stuff that vegans have to take supplements to replenish, like B12, iron, zinc, etc. Anyway the diet described in the article doesn't make any assumption about calories. If you're taking enough calories to maintain your weight but losing weight, then it's very likely there's something else you're not getting enough of.
  - kuhewa 4y ago
    At that point you are just kinda throwing spaghetti at the wall in an 'anything is possible' kind of sense, neither of those are very parsimonious explanations. Besides the fact the diet isn't asking suggesting anyone not supplement, a vegan diet won't lead to a severe B-12 deficiency in a matter months. But hey there is a non-0% chance you are bang on and the people losing weight when trying to eat 20 potatoes a day to meet their caloric demands are actually just noticing the weight loss once they also get pellagra and anemia, they just figured it was a coincidence.
    - cheese_goddess 4y ago
      I don't understand what you're trying to say because the derision in your comment is taking up all the space that would normally be dedicated to clarity.
      - kuhewa 4y ago
        To be fair, your reply wasn't very helpful when I was asking about specific causes of rapid weight loss induced by micronutrient deficiency that wouldn't manifest as other disease states that could make this scenario remotely plausible. But no derision intended, I was noting the possibility that you could well be correct.
        cheese_goddess 4y ago
        Fair enough. Sorry for overreacting.

arghwhat 4y ago

This will very quickly devolve into a definition of an unhealthy diet, or healthy vs unhealthy in general, none of which is well defined. From the perspective I took where a healthy diet is a sustainable one with sufficient nutrients and long lifetime expectancy, a weight loss diet is unhealthy and unsustainable, but there to negate a different issue and improve long-term health.

kuhewa 4y ago
At first approximation, sure, a diet that can be sustained and keep you alive indefinitely is better than one that would eventually lead to your demise due to insufficient calories or essential nutrients. However, a diet that varies in how 'fed' you are over time is very likely healthier than one where you are constantly taking in nutrients. During that post-prandial state, insulin and growth factors are elevated, and autophagy and other important pathways for 'tidying up' sick cells are turned off. That is why I don't think it is fair to say that fasts or restrictive diets are inherently unhealthy, I reckon 'whether this can be sustained steadily forever' should not be the bar. Similarly, the 200% of normal diet consumed after marathon is healthy that day and probably more healthy than eating normally since it is going to allow for repair and replenishment of depleted substrates, but would not be healthy if eaten every day. For someone with health issues stemming from obesity, a potato-crash diet could immediately improve health, and continue to for a good while.