top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 49 points 8 months ago (32 children)

So, it works? I've been thinking of trying it since it's probably the only diet I could achieve.

  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 8 months ago

    It's not terrible after you get used to it. I just naturally started skipping breakfast when I moved out, read the meme, thought there might be something to this. Did a little reading and was on the daily type for about two years and have fallen into the weekly type in the last year or so naturally. I lost tons of weight, granted I started working out too. But I've been maintaining it just fine without being too strict with myself.

    It's not for everyone, but it was a good fit for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago

    I know a lot of people that have lost weight using that method. I don't have weight problems but it's the method I use when I'm cutting and it works as I expect it to. I think it's probably the best way to get used to eating less. The trick is not gorging yourself when you do eat.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Yup. Works. I'd suggest looking at the types, which are basically schedules:

    https://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/diet/types-intermittent-fasting-which-best-you/

    I'd also suggest looking into some charts that help you decide how much you can lose based on your height/weight/age/sex.

    https://simple.life/blog/intermittent-fasting-by-age-chart/

    Trial, error, stick to a schedule and it works; yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    There are a lot of reports of simple.life being a scam app. Charging people more than they agreed on and not honoring requests to cancel, being auto-subscribed to other 'offers', and the app not providing the info they claim it does. I filled out their questionnaire but did a bit of digging and stopped before giving them any payment. They still have my info though...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    I do it all the time. I eat around 7:30pm and don't eat until 1:00 p the next day. Usually have only 1 or 2 meals a day. Breakfast is bullshit. Most important meal my ass. I do just fine without it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    It's the most important meal of the day if you make a living selling breakfast food.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Or if you do heavy labor everyday. Or if you're a student trying to learn. Or anything else that requires activity or mental acuity.

    Sitting in a cubical being non-productive, yeah breakfast don't mean so much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago*

    So, it works?

    Yep. I've hard it all comes down to calories out minus calories in.

    Really anything that comfortably and sustainably controls calories in, for your individual lifestyle and metabolism, is going to work.

    For some people, I imagine that could be intermittent fasting.

    Personally, I just got out of the habit of eating breakfast, at some point, and I found it helped control my total daily calorie intake. (I don't know if that counts as intermittent fasting?)

    The key thing I had to internalize is that my "diet" can not just be something I do for awhile - it has to be my new normal, for any positive change to stick.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    One thing that isn't talked about enough with IF is that it's very easy to pick up an eating disorder. Once you learn how to be hungry, it's very easy to say "I can wait another 30 mins" and do that 5 times and then it's been 24 hours since you've eaten. Or to get obsessive about waiting so you lose just a little bit more. When it's time to eat, you need to eat. If you already have a bad relationship with food, this isn't going to make it better. Just be aware that it's not foolproof.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    It works for me. Been accidentally doing it since I was 13. Parents didn't give me an allowance, but they did give me lunch money, so if I wanted to buy games I had to skip lunch. Never went back and I've always been a healthy weight without much exercise.

    Coffee for breakfast, water all day, and a double serving size of dinner. Lately, with the rising cost of food, I have been doing a lighter dinner and supplementing with a protein shake for lunch.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago*

    I've been doing something OMAD-like for about 4 or 5 months now. Went from 210lbs to 190lbs today. Here's what I was doing:

    1. Each week, set a goal weight that is 1-2 lbs lower than your current weight/last week's goal. The leaner you get, the harder it is to lose, so having a goal of 1 or even 1/2 lbs can be good for lean people. I'm 6'4" and decently athletic. Right now at 190, I'm starting to show abs, so my goal rn is 1/2lb per week.
    2. Each morning, wake up and weigh yourself. If you are at or below this week's goal weight, great! Have a nice breakfast. If not, no breakfast. Then, skip lunch. Sometime in the evening, eat dinner. No need to beat yourself up if dinner isn't perfect, but obviously, eating tacos at home is better than ordering a pizza.
    3. Using a little text document on your phone or whatever, write down everything you eat every day. I hate estimating portion sizes, and instead just record for the sake of tracking food quality - typically if I eat pizza and beer and cake, I gain weight, lol.
    4. Each week, review your progress and your food log. Did you achieve your goal? If so, celebrate! If not, review your food journal. Ask yourself - did you cheat or eat unhealthy foods? If so, why? And do you regret it? I think it is fine to have a slice of cake at someone's party every once in a while, and I don'r regret that it might slow my progress a little. But if I go to McD's 5 nights a week, then I'll regret that. So then, you reflect on why you did the things you not regret, and ask yourself if there is some way you can make it easier to avoid these temptations in the future - like having dinner made already at home (crockpots ftw!), or finding a way to reduce stress in your life so you are less interested in binge eating.

    I will also note that I exercise quite a lot. I lift, I go rock climbing, I go hiking. Sometimes I play hacky sack or pickleball or ultimate frisbee. I recommend exercising as well - it isn't necessary according to CICO, but we all know it helps. Find some kind of fun, social exercise that you can keep coming back to and enjoying.

    Another note: many people will feel like the progress I've made is quite minimal and slow. In my defence, (1) I'm already pretty lean relative to most people with body comp goals (2) this has been an extremely painless and very sustainable process and (3) losing weight slowly is the way to go, as it preserves muscle mass and ensures your diet is sustainable long term.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    I’ve never been seriously overweight but sometimes my pants get a bit tight, combining intermittent fasting and keto is usually a pretty quick and ”easy” way to drop some weight. It works if you stick with it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Yes it works but I will say that any "diet" works in that the individual is conscientiously making good changes to their diet, exercise, or both.

    The other thing to note is that, even if you fast for 16hrs, if you go and binge eat crap and still exceed a caloric intake, you won't really see results.

    One of the great things with fasting is it gives you time to reflect on what you're going to eat and hopefully takes away time so you don't end up snacking all your gains (losses) away.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    If you don’t have improper dietary restrictions, try keto. I found it most effective because of how full the food you learn to eat keeps you. It has been the most effective diet I ever tried. Just stay away from the fad keto stuff talking about “loose 200 pounds overnight” nonsense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    wow, wtaf? is there an IF downvote brigade here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    I think it's because keto is not super healthy long term. You need fiber, friend. You. Need. Fiber.

    That being said I'm a big believer of you get to choose what you want to eat, so do what you want with your own body!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    I didn’t experience any health problems and fiber is explicitly encouraged as a way to get unavoidable carbs down. Like I said, you have to avoid the fad keto stuff that I luckily got in before it took off. Sounds like most people are only going off the dangerous/nonsensical fad keto stuff that all diets are subject to with enough popularity. Basic rule of thumb is if someone wants you to buy anything more than just food (supplement, pills, etc) stay away. Keto (the actual dietary principle) is just based on a different distribution of macronutrients when achieving your caloric deficit. I wasn’t trying to disparage IF, just offering the comment OP another option in his failed diet search.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Sure, but keto says it totally fine to eat a steak and a stick of butter and nothing else. That doesn't seem sustainable.

    Also I've never met anyone that does keto that allows any carbs. I'm glad that apparently that's not the only way though.

    To be clear, I do not care if all you eat is steaks and butter. Not my business. Just trying to offer insight into the down votes. I don't think it's the IF crew doing it. It's probably people who are anti-keto.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago

    Sure, but keto says it totally fine to eat a steak and a stick of butter and nothing else. That doesn’t seem sustainable.

    Yet it is, we only need to look at the documented human populations that only had access to animal food before westernization. They sustained, even thrived.

    Also I’ve never met anyone that does keto that allows any carbs.

    Keto is just metabolic ketosis, any biological state while the body is producing detectable levels of blood ketones. Anyone can achieve it <20g carbs per day, and many people have higher tolerances (age, muscle mass, resting metabolic rate etc).

    Just trying to offer insight into the down votes. I don’t think it’s the IF crew doing it. It’s probably people who are anti-keto.

    Which includes you.... https://lemvotes.org/comment/sh.itjust.works/comment/23819049

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Keto (the actual dietary principle) is just based on a different distribution of macronutrients when achieving your caloric deficit.

    Keto is any diet that maintains the metabolic state of ketosis. This can be done with overfeeding, underfeeding, fasting... and doesn't even require complete nutrition (though that is always a good idea).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    You need fiber, friend. You. Need. Fiber.

    Citation please. As far as I've read fibre does two things:

    1. Anti-nutrient, when people eat terrible food fibre blunts it so it isn't as terrible by preventing some of the bad food absorption

    2. Fibre is digested by the gut into short-chain fatty acids (SCA / BHB) which get absorbed through the gut, and has a boost to health in the area of absorption. However, in a ketogenic context the liver is making Ketones (BHB) all the time which gets deposited into the blood stream being available to the entire body including the gut... so this benefit is only seen in a carbohydrate metabolism, and not in keto.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 116 points 8 months ago (21 children)

    Of course, it's not better. There is no way around the laws of thermodynamics. Weight loss is a measure of taking in fewer calories than you burn. That's the formulae.

    That said, intermittent fasting can be a great way for some people to manage their caloric intake. Some people just find it easier to manage their calories by eating once or twice a day and restricting themselves at others.

    At the end of the day, though it's not meant to be a panacea, it's a tool to be used for those that prefer it to other options.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Except that's not what 99% of the punditorium espouses - for the last 15 years it's been a continuous litany of "intermittent fasting is THE answer", and anyone disagreeing is roundly condemned.

    Despite 80 years of diabetes research that contradicts much of the argument for fasting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    There’s also the crowd that claims intermittent fasting inherently makes the individual healthier, live longer, have more energy and mental clarity, …

    To get away from the idea that weight loss might be the only focus here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Although calories in, calories out is valid, people are not robots. Much of diet science is not on how many calories we should consume (we have that pretty much figured out), but on how we make sure we do it in a way that leaves us satiated and sane. So just commenting on any study about diets with "cico is all that counts" is ignoring a lot of nuance. What is interesting is to learn whether this method of achieving negative cico works for more or less people than other methods.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    The real benefit of fasting is feeding one's precious akkermansias. But it doesn't do any good if you then carpet bomb the poor things with sugar during your feeding window, which is possibly where a lot of folks are going wrong. Not all calories are equal because you aren't the only one eating.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (10 children)

    Which law of thermodynamics applies?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    The one that says you cannot burn more calories than your body uses and you have to burn more calories than food you eat. It’s just tongue in cheek that the amount of energy in a (closed) system is conserved.

    Of course one question is, does intermittent fasting somehow cause you to increase your base metabolic rate or cause you to digest your food less effectively per unit of food eaten, which could still satisfy thermodynamic constraints while still having an apparently larger effect. This study indicates that at a macro level, people do not have more success with this strategy vs traditional calorie restrictions, which do not support either hypothesis. They don’t disprove the hypotheses, but you don’t disprove such things, only support them. This doesn’t support them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (8 children)

    What you've stated is not a law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics, which is the one often misused to tell us that calories are the only thing that matter, states that within an isolated system, the total energy of a system is constant. It's well defined. The human body isn't an isolated system, and the laws of thermodynamics aren't tongue in cheek.

    Our bodies don't burn calories, and you are right in saying that we do indeed eat food, not calories.

    Fasting can, for example, deplete our liver's glycogen stores, and change the levels of various hormones in our body.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    Sort of. Thermodynamics still definitely plays a role. You cannot have more calories than you ingest, and over time, you cannot perform more work than electrochemically possible; this is true precisely because of the laws described by thermodynamic constraints.

    The laws of thermodynamics aren’t tongue in cheek. The poster saying you can’t escape the laws of thermodynamics I took to mean they’re making a tongue in cheek response; in other words, they’re sort of being witty and saying the reason this finding was observed is because of the fundamental laws governing energy consumption and use in the human body. That absolutely is rhetorically meeting the definition of tongue in cheek.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (6 children)

    A calorie is a unit of heat energy. We cannot ingest a calorie since it has no rest mass. It is a ridiculous simplification of our biology.

    We have to disagree on the wit of the poster.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Calorie is a unit of heat energy. The energetic yield of a gram of protein can be described by its ability to be burned to heat a gram of water, say. This is the definition of a calorie.

    That energy is still constant, there is not some magical world where protein suddenly has more energy density in a human body than it did when it was burned in a calorimeter. That would break the laws of thermodynamics.

    You can question whether there is metabolic advantage to consumption of certain types of food (that is, does the human body leverage certain foods in a metabolically more efficient fashion than others, such that consumption of the same calories but in a different composition results in differential weight gain or loss — this actually is studied in nutritional studies). But the laws of thermodynamics still apply there. The first that energy is conserved (kcal is fine for describing this as an upper bound) and the second concerning the free energy of a chemical system to perform “work”, which isn’t heating a gram of water (though it also sort of is, were warm blooded creatures) but rather describing the capacity of the substance to ultimately contribute to chemical processes in a cell, such as the generation or consumption of ATP.

    And yes, every gram of food has a specific amount it can contribute to those chemical processes, and it’s tied to the total amount of energy in a gram of that material, which is conveniently calculated in a calorimeter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    You can question whether there is metabolic advantage to consumption of certain types of food

    Yes, this is a much better question. Our bodies do not seek energy, but the substances that are required for our biological processes.

    were warm blooded creatures

    Yes, our body temperature is regulated by our biological processes and at the same time the converse is also true. It's much more complex than doing 'work'. That would again be an oversimplification. Thinking of the body as a thermodynamic system like a bomb calorimeter is silly.

    What is the error margin when measuring food? To save you the trouble, it's about 20-25%. Unless we compensate by considerably under-consuming the amount of food we eat, the sheer amount of noise alone caused by this error margin makes it meaningless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Sure but then what is your alternative for easily assessing in a reportable way what the energy density of a food is? Bomb calorimetry doesn’t say “you will get this amount of energy from a food”, it simply says “a gram of this material has about this much energy density.” Evolution has done a remarkable job of maximizing energetic recovery from compounds, and it’s simply true that eating more energy in the form of food than is used by the body will result in the body storing said excess energy. Kcal is a convenient relative metric that does correspond to this phenomena. That is objectively true. Is it exact? No. Does it claim to be exact? Again no, but you can calculate the yield by looking at digestive and metabolic processes within constraints and the relative amount is still useful as a gross measure.

    It’s fine to say that kcal aren’t what we eat. But then food isn’t really what we eat either. Food is simply compounds that our body can use to perform chemical work. You can quantify this work. And you can use a word other than work to describe chemical reactions, but the semantic point is conserved regardless.

    A good proxy for this general capacity in a human body from organic digestible material is kcal. If you have an alternative to this that is easily calculated and also easily understood, I’d recommend writing it up and submitting it to a nutrition or medical journal, where it can be peer reviewed, and if it holds merit, published, to be more broadly examined, and perhaps adopted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    A good proxy for this general capacity in a human body from organic digestible material is kcal.

    What I'm getting at is that measuring the 'energy' of food is meaningless. It's a waste of time at best, and when someone is mislead into thinking that they can eat 100 kcal of sugar (if we can even accurately determine that!) instead of nutrients then it can even be harmful.

    You can quantify this work

    In the human body? How do you propose to do this?

    food isn’t really what we eat either

    I'm pretty sure we generally eat food. We surely don't eat energy.

    If you have an alternative to this

    Let's start by not talking about energy at all. It's biology and chemistry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    The oxidation of sugar, which is accomplished in our bodies, can be directly measured. The end products are CO2 and H2O. If you fully combust sugar in a bomb calorimeter, the energy release is equivalent. So whether your body breaks apart something, or fire breaks apart something, they are calorimetrically equivalent, which is why people even bothered with kcals for food in the first place.

    Edit: I should note just to head it off at the pass, aerobic oxidation in the body is about 35% efficient. You can measure this by looking at the metabolites formed, and the remaining 65% of the theoretical energy can directly be measured as heat, so when I say that whether our bodies do it or a calorimeter does it, I mean that the total energy is conserved because the laws of thermodynamics apply. If you eat more sugar your body will oxidize it and yield the same stuff, or possibly store it as fat. If you eat protein you can do the same measures, it’s just a slightly different process to enter the metabolic pathways. Fire is just a chemical process and reaction, after all, it’s not special. Your body also does chemical reactions.

    Whether you see value in it or not, kcals observe a physical reality which has value within human cells and can be used to describe how human bodies interact with food in an energetic landscape. It does not purport to solve all of human nutrition, and nobody sane uses it for that. It is used as a gross representation of energetic equivalence, for which it serves its purpose reasonably well.

    So again, if you believe your interpretation of human nutrition and biology and chemistry is novel or more useful, then submit to a journal your recommendations. Journals even accept review papers which are simply syntheses of existing papers, you don’t even have to conduct experiments. You can literally just go on pubmed and synthesize a paper and submit it for publication.

    Don’t submit to a predatory journal though that uses a pay to publish format. Submit to an established, peer reviewed journal.

    Conversely, just publish it on bioarxiv or something and then post it here for people to go to and review, though this is not as good as getting it peer reviewed.

    If you do publish something, do post another comment here and I’ll review it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago

    All diets work.

    They all boil down to one thing. Consuming less calories than you burn. You cut out sugar? You’re eating less calories. Intermittent fasting? You’re eating less calories. Atkins? You’re eating less calories.

    They key isn’t about which works better than the other, it’s which works for you. What diet are you going to stick to?

    You love bread? Atkins isn’t going to work for you so maybe you try intermittent fasting.

    There are nuances, sure, but ultimately, they all do the same thing.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    Intermittent fasting no better at promoting weight loss than typical weight loss diets. FTFY

    Intermittent fasting for adults with overweight or obesity https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015610.pub2/full

    Systemic proteome adaptions to 7-day complete caloric restriction in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-024-01008-9

    Here are some article about IF induction of autophagy, not covered in the article or the citations above.

    The effect of prolonged intermittent fasting on autophagy, inflammasome and senescence genes expressions: An exploratory study in healthy young males https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666149723000063

    The Beneficial and Adverse Effects of Autophagic Response to Caloric Restriction and Fasting https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10509423/

    The Role of Intermittent Fasting in the Activation of Autophagy Processes in the Context of Cancer Diseases https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/10/4742

    A Narrative Review about Metabolic Pathways, Molecular Mechanisms and Clinical Implications of Intermittent Fasting as Autophagy Promotor https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40481380/

    Autophagy and intermittent fasting: the connection for cancer therapy? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6257056/

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] 22 points 8 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    Not everything is a conspiracy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    So corporations do have my best interest at heart? 🤔

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    The article is missing the point.

    It's easier to do. Duh.

    Of course the real way to lose weight is Calories In, Calories Out. Anyone who thinks there's some secret sauce special magic in South Beach, Paleo, Vegan, Low-Carb, Keto, Intermittent Fasting, Alternate Day Fasting is just reducing their caloric intake as a by-product of their "diet".

    It's always been Calories In, Calories Out. It's just easier to lower your intake by fasting sometimes. Trying to eat small, sensible meals suuuucks.

    Even GLP-1s work by turning off hunger so you don't want to cram food in your face all the time. So you eat less calories...

    It's not rocket surgery.

    If it works, then it works.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I don't do intermittent fasting because I think it's superior, I do it because I'm lazy.

    Eat normally 4 days a week, eat nothing 3 days a week, boom, calorie intake dropped by 40%. No counting meals, portioning broccoli, or cutting carbs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Hell yeah.

    Lost 30 lbs. by not eating on Mon, Wed, and Fri. Probably the easiest way I've ever lost weight.

    I find I can either eat, or not eat. I have no in-between. I have no moderation. If I try to eat 3 small sensible meals a day I spend the whole day thinking about food and I wind up "cheating".

    Easier to just not eat that day. If you usually eat 2,500 calories a day you just cut 7,500 calories out of your weekly Calories In without even really trying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Exactly the same for me. I just ate nothing mon, wes, Fri. I did light exercise on those days, and felt fine. It was easy to go a whole day without eating, but it was way harder to eat breakfast and then try to avoid lunch and dinner. Something in me just woke up when it got a little food and wouldn't stop until I ate.

    I did once fast for 7 days to see what it was like but I don't recommend that because it seemed to put my digestive system into hibernation and was hard to ressurect

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I think most people do if because of other effects than weight loss. Well, none of the people I know who have done it, have done it because of weight loss specifically.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Well, none of the people I know who have done it, have done it because of weight loss specifically.

    What have been their reasons?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    the title is saying “particular way of achieving X no different than simply achieving X.” agree, any way of achieving X achieves X - the question is how do you do it

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Right, but it's not special is all, or innately more effective.

    However one can control their intake, that's what works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    These article type is annoying. So its not better but no worse. Tell me one that is more effective than others or deficient not that its typical. BEIGE ALERT! BEIGE ALERT!

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Tell me one that is more effective than others or deficient not that its typical

    I mean, basically every reasonable idea works about the same. Eat real food, not too much, go exercise. As long as your diet does that, it is all about long term adherence - your diet only really works if you can stick to it the rest of your life.

    The desire for a silver bullet, though, is what drives the wackball solutions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    And I can go with that but then its not news to say. hey this diet is as good as other choices or no worse or such.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Idk, it seems like news to me since some areas of the internet have been very vocal in their hype.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    yeah maybe I don't see it as much. Feels to me like all diets become fads at some point but as you said they all have merit (well real ones im sure some cooky internet thing has no value.). Like my wife has to limit carbs or anything else she does seems to not work. Even complex ones to some degree. I don't seem to have that limitation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Not every news article is going to be about some ground breaking research. That researchers are putting these sorts of fad diets to the test is important and knowing the outcome of that is useful. Journalism is about informing people, not entertaining them. If you can't handle being informed without the sensationalism, you may need to seek professional help.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago

    This isn't information to me. One of many diet options does about as well as most other diet options. Really unnecessary. If you can't reading a critique comment without needing to infer the commentor needs professional help whelp then I would say I should write some sarcatic reply about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    You mean eating like I have clinical depression isn't healthy?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    what I wouldn't give for there to be a real "one weird trick" just something I don't care how dumb it makes you look is as long as it beats normal calorie restriction by a good margin

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    I bet there is one for you! The problem is that every person is in a different place with their diet, physical, and mental health, so the one weird trick that works for one person may not work for someone else. It might not even work for the same person later in their life!

    When I was younger my trick was to only eat when I’m hungry. I worked at a pizza place where I could make and eat food whenever it wasn’t busy, so I could eat earlier or later in the day depending on how hungry I was. That doesn’t work as well now that I’m in an office position and have to eat on a regular schedule.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago*

    Either a full-time personal coach or GLP-1 drugs would be pretty effective.

    Or you could join the military, go to prison, take up long-distance running, or get cancer or AIDS or something. Plenty of options.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I believe that's called "Ozempic."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Its so simple.

    That all consuming voice that says feed me, all day.

    It quiets it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Yup. It works. It just makes you not want to constantly cram food in your mouth.

    The only problem is if you stop it. Oh my god the hunger urges come back twice as strong. Unstoppable food rampage urges...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Change your physical and social environment. Move somewhere where everyone walks and rides bikes and plays sports. Hang out with people who eat healthy food and take care of themselves. Your brain will come to see these behaviors as normal and desireable, and the weight will naturally come off.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Intermittent fasting only works when paired with fiber heavy food that fills you up before to just destroy the calory limit because "it's my only dish of the day" sort of mentality

  • source