6 ms·

the best diet is the one that works for you. for some it’s low carb, for others it’s vegan. what’s key is to focus on what you eat, that’s probably 80% of the

the best diet is the one that works for you. for some it’s low carb, for others it’s vegan. what’s key is to focus on what you eat, that’s probably 80% of the battle.

TeeMassive 4y ago
Euh no, while diets must be adapted to individuals, there are objective and well established principles about what works or not.
- lghh 4y ago
  A prerequisite for "works for you" is "works at all". A less efficient diet that you stick with is better than a more efficient one that you don't stick with.
- andreareina 4y ago
  The problem isn't finding a diet that works: anything that reduces calories below maintenance does it. The problem is what a person will stick to. Different people find different diets to be easier to stick to. If they're luck they find one that leads to a spontaneous reduction of calories consumed and don't need to count.
  - recyclelater 4y ago
    Not anything, you could run a five hundred calorie deficit and only eat table sugar. You’d lose weight and gain serious metabolic disease. This is an extreme, but obviously there’s better and worse things. Maybe it’s pretty comparable in the reasonable middle, but let’s not kid ourselves and say anything can work if we are talking whole body health not just weight loss.
    - andreareina 4y ago
      Given Professor Twinkie's experience I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't. We're finding more and more that for overweight people losing weight (and keeping it off, hence "what works for you") is the single best intervention they can do for better health. ETA: obviously I'm not advocating eating only sugar or twinkies. The point is that adherence is an crucial factor, more so than is often given credit.
      - recyclelater 4y ago
        Taking off my pedantic hat, I think we agree. Meaning in the pragmatic real world, if you can keep weight off it’s better than having the weight on, and no one is doing that in the real world with an all sugar diet. With that being said, metabolic disease produces lots of skinny diabetics, and that will definitely shorten your life span.
        andreareina 4y ago
        Definitely getting OT and deep into the weeds here, I wonder how many of those skinny diabetics are due to LADA and not insulin resistance.
        gumby 4y ago
        When you present with DM as an adult the immediate presumption is DM II not LADA and the insurance companies (and their actuaries) are uninterested in investigating otherwise. Thus endocrinologists are disincented to look as the hospital admin gets very upset when insurance companies deny reimbursement. The ADA training the insurance companies recommend is weird too. It says, for example, that it’s fine to have a slice of cake, just have half. I assume this is because too large a change will lead to negligible compliance. I was at first shocked, but then wondered what kind of baseline recommendation would actually be effective.
    - 411111111111111 4y ago
      And yet there was that girl which went on a chocolate diet and lived just fine. It was a publicity stunt, but does kinda show that depending on your body, it might not matter anyway.
      - cycomanic 4y ago
        > And yet there was that girl which went on a chocolate diet and lived just fine. It was a publicity stunt, but does kinda show that depending on your body, it might not matter anyway. How long did she stay on it? I imagine serious metabolic complications will take some time to develop. Moreover, she'd be missing out on some essential minerals and vitamins so I suspect she was using supplements? In that case the diet is not really chocolate, but chocolate + supplements
    - akakacase 4y ago
      Dr. Kempner would disagree with that conclusion if he were alive:https://www.drmcdougall.com/newsletters/walter-kempner-md-founder-of-the-rice-diet/ https://www.drmcdougall.com/newsletters/walter-kempner-md-fo...
      - recyclelater 4y ago
        So what? So does my diabetic aunt who has had half her intestines removed because she can’t respect her dietary needs. Doesn’t make it true.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - bandrami 4y ago
    The "calories-in" approach sets minima and maxima, nothing else. For one thing we still are very bad at determining how much energy an individual will actually extract from a given food. We still get calorie counts from setting food on fire.
    - andreareina 4y ago
      That's mostly only an issue with an open cycle approach. If intake is titrated according to how the scale moves[1] individual variation in digestive efficiency, activity levels etc is handled. [1] on an appropriate timeframe to reduce noise
      - bandrami 4y ago
        Granted, with the caveat that "noise" includes most of what people intend as weight loss
themitigating 4y ago
"The best treatment for cancer is the one that works for you" "The best way to change your oil is the one that works for your car" Come on.
- andreareina 4y ago
  The difference is that for weight loss they basically all work (to the extent that they reduce calories). So "what works for you" translates to "what lets you consume X calories with less mental effort".
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  Both of the above statements are true, which anyone who is an expert in the field of cancer treatment or automotives will be happy to explain. Cancers, like automobiles (and most everything else), vary widely, and have different optimal courses of treatment for the ideal outcome.
- mhh__ 4y ago
  The best knife sharpening method is the one you actually do. This isn't about efficacy but rather sticking to it. A diet you hate is, just that, a diet not a change in lifestyle.
  - caminante 4y ago
    I don't think the parent would disagree with your qualification of "best." The point is that the GP left out the nuance you raised regarding "better [than nothing]" as "good enough".
- heywoodlh 4y ago
  Are you implying that there isn't nuance in diet from person to person? i.e. low-carb diets works for everyone? Oil in cars and cancer treatments you don't really have choices but there are many choices for diets. On top of that, in my experience some people's bodies have different affinities or intolerances (i.e. lactose intolerance). I feel like I agree with the original sentiment that diets can vary from person to person. Am I wrong, though?
diffeomorphism 4y ago
No, "ignore everything and do whatever you like" is terrible and dangerous advice.
- oifjsidjf 4y ago
  OP's point was that different people require different extreme diets (at least temporaril) to heal themselves. This is not dangerous advice: this is exprimentaion, beacuse modern medicine has obviously failed them.
  - derbOac 4y ago
    It's also consistent with personalized nutrition studies: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0256-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0256-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0256-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0256-8
  - diffeomorphism 4y ago
    Nope, it wasn't.
- bruce511 4y ago
  You are right, that would be terrible advice. On the other hand that's not what he posted (although you can certainly read it that way if you want to.) I read it more as "there's no one true diet" which seems to gel with my personal observation. The best exercise is any exercise you actually do - the best diet for you is one that is both healthy, and that you can adapt to. Small adjustments are more likely to "stick", and doing something small can be beneficial. For example, I'm not going to entertain "go vegan". That's too big a jump. But cutting down on meat is achievable. I'm not going carb free overnight, but I can start to reduce sugar (no sugar in coffee for example), eat more nuts for snacks, and less chips, and so on. I can do a "carb free month", I can reduce portion sizes. Ultimately my balance will be different to the next person's.
- xkbarkar 4y ago
  I disagree. When it comes to your eating habits listen to your body and ignore well meant but oftesn outright dangerous comments like this. Especially from anyone that has a “miracle” cure just for you. I have never eaten breakfast, always hated eating before lunch. Having had this exact comment thrown in my face for 30 years. Turns out ignoring everything and doing whatever fit me was not only healthy but has strong scientific basis. Aka intermittent fasting. Do not give bad advice or scold people for listening to their bodies and follow what works for them.
Semaphor 4y ago
> what’s key is to focus on what you eat, that’s probably 80% of the battle. As someone close to 10 years on keto, that’s something I’ve always been saying. Focus on what you eat, and find something you can stick with (well, and don’t eat crap :D)
stefantalpalaru 4y ago

the best diet is the one that works for you. for some it’s low carb, for others it’s vegan. what’s key is to focus on what you eat, that’s probably 80% of the battle.

TeeMassive 4y ago

Euh no, while diets must be adapted to individuals, there are objective and well established principles about what works or not.

lghh 4y ago
A prerequisite for "works for you" is "works at all". A less efficient diet that you stick with is better than a more efficient one that you don't stick with.
andreareina 4y ago
The problem isn't finding a diet that works: anything that reduces calories below maintenance does it. The problem is what a person will stick to. Different people find different diets to be easier to stick to. If they're luck they find one that leads to a spontaneous reduction of calories consumed and don't need to count.
- recyclelater 4y ago
  Not anything, you could run a five hundred calorie deficit and only eat table sugar. You’d lose weight and gain serious metabolic disease. This is an extreme, but obviously there’s better and worse things. Maybe it’s pretty comparable in the reasonable middle, but let’s not kid ourselves and say anything can work if we are talking whole body health not just weight loss.
  - andreareina 4y ago
    Given Professor Twinkie's experience I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't. We're finding more and more that for overweight people losing weight (and keeping it off, hence "what works for you") is the single best intervention they can do for better health. ETA: obviously I'm not advocating eating only sugar or twinkies. The point is that adherence is an crucial factor, more so than is often given credit.
    - recyclelater 4y ago
      Taking off my pedantic hat, I think we agree. Meaning in the pragmatic real world, if you can keep weight off it’s better than having the weight on, and no one is doing that in the real world with an all sugar diet. With that being said, metabolic disease produces lots of skinny diabetics, and that will definitely shorten your life span.
      - andreareina 4y ago
        Definitely getting OT and deep into the weeds here, I wonder how many of those skinny diabetics are due to LADA and not insulin resistance.
        gumby 4y ago
        When you present with DM as an adult the immediate presumption is DM II not LADA and the insurance companies (and their actuaries) are uninterested in investigating otherwise. Thus endocrinologists are disincented to look as the hospital admin gets very upset when insurance companies deny reimbursement. The ADA training the insurance companies recommend is weird too. It says, for example, that it’s fine to have a slice of cake, just have half. I assume this is because too large a change will lead to negligible compliance. I was at first shocked, but then wondered what kind of baseline recommendation would actually be effective.
  - 411111111111111 4y ago
    And yet there was that girl which went on a chocolate diet and lived just fine. It was a publicity stunt, but does kinda show that depending on your body, it might not matter anyway.
    - cycomanic 4y ago
      > And yet there was that girl which went on a chocolate diet and lived just fine. It was a publicity stunt, but does kinda show that depending on your body, it might not matter anyway. How long did she stay on it? I imagine serious metabolic complications will take some time to develop. Moreover, she'd be missing out on some essential minerals and vitamins so I suspect she was using supplements? In that case the diet is not really chocolate, but chocolate + supplements
  - akakacase 4y ago
    Dr. Kempner would disagree with that conclusion if he were alive:https://www.drmcdougall.com/newsletters/walter-kempner-md-founder-of-the-rice-diet/ https://www.drmcdougall.com/newsletters/walter-kempner-md-fo...
    - recyclelater 4y ago
      So what? So does my diabetic aunt who has had half her intestines removed because she can’t respect her dietary needs. Doesn’t make it true.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- bandrami 4y ago
  The "calories-in" approach sets minima and maxima, nothing else. For one thing we still are very bad at determining how much energy an individual will actually extract from a given food. We still get calorie counts from setting food on fire.
  - andreareina 4y ago
    That's mostly only an issue with an open cycle approach. If intake is titrated according to how the scale moves[1] individual variation in digestive efficiency, activity levels etc is handled. [1] on an appropriate timeframe to reduce noise
    - bandrami 4y ago
      Granted, with the caveat that "noise" includes most of what people intend as weight loss

themitigating 4y ago

"The best treatment for cancer is the one that works for you" "The best way to change your oil is the one that works for your car" Come on.

andreareina 4y ago
The difference is that for weight loss they basically all work (to the extent that they reduce calories). So "what works for you" translates to "what lets you consume X calories with less mental effort".
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
Both of the above statements are true, which anyone who is an expert in the field of cancer treatment or automotives will be happy to explain. Cancers, like automobiles (and most everything else), vary widely, and have different optimal courses of treatment for the ideal outcome.
mhh__ 4y ago
The best knife sharpening method is the one you actually do. This isn't about efficacy but rather sticking to it. A diet you hate is, just that, a diet not a change in lifestyle.
- caminante 4y ago
  I don't think the parent would disagree with your qualification of "best." The point is that the GP left out the nuance you raised regarding "better [than nothing]" as "good enough".
heywoodlh 4y ago
Are you implying that there isn't nuance in diet from person to person? i.e. low-carb diets works for everyone? Oil in cars and cancer treatments you don't really have choices but there are many choices for diets. On top of that, in my experience some people's bodies have different affinities or intolerances (i.e. lactose intolerance). I feel like I agree with the original sentiment that diets can vary from person to person. Am I wrong, though?

diffeomorphism 4y ago

No, "ignore everything and do whatever you like" is terrible and dangerous advice.

oifjsidjf 4y ago
OP's point was that different people require different extreme diets (at least temporaril) to heal themselves. This is not dangerous advice: this is exprimentaion, beacuse modern medicine has obviously failed them.
- derbOac 4y ago
  It's also consistent with personalized nutrition studies: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0256-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0256-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0256-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0256-8
- diffeomorphism 4y ago
  Nope, it wasn't.
bruce511 4y ago
You are right, that would be terrible advice. On the other hand that's not what he posted (although you can certainly read it that way if you want to.) I read it more as "there's no one true diet" which seems to gel with my personal observation. The best exercise is any exercise you actually do - the best diet for you is one that is both healthy, and that you can adapt to. Small adjustments are more likely to "stick", and doing something small can be beneficial. For example, I'm not going to entertain "go vegan". That's too big a jump. But cutting down on meat is achievable. I'm not going carb free overnight, but I can start to reduce sugar (no sugar in coffee for example), eat more nuts for snacks, and less chips, and so on. I can do a "carb free month", I can reduce portion sizes. Ultimately my balance will be different to the next person's.
xkbarkar 4y ago
I disagree. When it comes to your eating habits listen to your body and ignore well meant but oftesn outright dangerous comments like this. Especially from anyone that has a “miracle” cure just for you. I have never eaten breakfast, always hated eating before lunch. Having had this exact comment thrown in my face for 30 years. Turns out ignoring everything and doing whatever fit me was not only healthy but has strong scientific basis. Aka intermittent fasting. Do not give bad advice or scold people for listening to their bodies and follow what works for them.

Semaphor 4y ago

> what’s key is to focus on what you eat, that’s probably 80% of the battle. As someone close to 10 years on keto, that’s something I’ve always been saying. Focus on what you eat, and find something you can stick with (well, and don’t eat crap :D)

stefantalpalaru 4y ago