4 ms·

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

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