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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Both options are dangerous.
There's a third option: actual nutritional science.
A better approach is to conduct your own informal n=1 experiments. Try different diets or eliminating certain foods. Keep records of your athletic performance and of how you feel to find what works best for you.
This is terrible advice sir
https://www.livin3.com/obesity-statistics
https://www.tuwamari.com/blog/how-america-became-the-most-ob...
This is not dangerous advice: this is exprimentaion, beacuse modern medicine has obviously failed them.
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.
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.
With that being said, metabolic disease produces lots of skinny diabetics, and that will definitely shorten your life span.
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.
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
[1] on an appropriate timeframe to reduce noise
"The best way to change your oil is the one that works for your car"
Come on.
Which changes depending on your car, and standards have changed over time - in no small part because they wanted to sell more oil and filters (like selling diet food to folks) and you might not even need one if you have an electric and you might need more oil changes if you have a diesel engine. It doesn't mean that you should apply a one-size-fits-all to your car, it is just going to be off. Not only that, but a lot of folks go well past the recommendations and rarely change oil and they at least get by. Doing it sometimes is better than none at all.
Yeah, I can understand the analogy. It still is lacking a bit, but it works well enough. There is no one size fits all in diets, and you'll need to do the one that works for you and your situation, kinda like doing the oil change that is right for the car you have.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is the sort of analysis that you intended.
This isn't about efficacy but rather sticking to it. A diet you hate is, just that, a diet not a change in lifestyle.
The point is that the GP left out the nuance you raised regarding "better [than nothing]" as "good enough".
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?
Obviously they aren't "implying" any of that. But you know that and hence you made up this ridiculous straw man. So, yes, you are wrong and dishonest.