7 ms·
Pretty much. You could probably come up with a diet that says you're not allowed to eat anything starting with a letter in the first half of the alphabet, and a
by afafsd 12y ago
Pretty much. You could probably come up with a diet that says you're not allowed to eat anything starting with a letter in the first half of the alphabet, and anyone who stuck to it would lose weight, because all of a sudden they'd be thinking carefully about what they ate rather than eating whatever took their fancy at any given moment.
Sticking to these diets is the hardest thing. I spent a few months on a paleo diet and got a bunch healthier, but it was really hard to find things to eat, and pretty expensive as well. I don't think dietary changes are worth it unless you can reasonably stick to them for the rest of your life, and anything that says "no X ever again" is likely to fall into that category.
- joelrunyon 12y ago> I don't think dietary changes are worth it unless you can reasonably stick to them for the rest of your life Curious if you could name one food that was particularly difficult to cut out.
- latch 12y agoCan't speak for your parent, but cheese seems to be a major stumbling point for a lot of people.
- peteretep 12y agoAlcohol was a real pain to cut out, although it's been some years now. I've tried many times to cut out chocolate, and managed for up to 6 months at a time before coming crashing down. A few months ago I switched to "mindful eating", which says I can eat chocolate whenever I want, and life has been better.
- datashaman 12y agoAs long as you're eating dark chocolate when you do, you'll be fine.
- Semaphor 12y agoAnd becoming a bit snobby about chocolate helps as well. Single plantation chocolate is delicious (and for obvious reasons dark) and their prices make you want to eat less of it anyway ;)
- afafsd 12y agoSure. Bread. It's so convenient and easy, and it shows up in 90% of the things that you might be able to get for breakfast and lunch at the average food joint.
- tootie 12y agoThe study they are discussing set up test subject with two different diets. One low in fat, one low in carbs. Low in carbs had far better outcomes. I agree that cutting anything will implicitly cut calories, it seems low carb really is superior.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y agoThey didn't test low fat. It was just carb restricted versus 30% fat (not low fat). Feeding was ad libitum, so it just confirms what we already knew: fewer food choices leads to spontaneous calorie restriction.
- jerf 12y agoIf it just told us that "fewer food choices lead to spontaneous calorie restriction", then both groups should have roughly equal results. They didn't. Any putative explanation of the results really needs to, well, explain the results. Not explain results other than the ones obtained.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y agoWell, they did have roughly equal results if you look at the study. Both groups went from obese to slightly less obese. That said I don't follow your reasoning about equivalence. One diet was low carb. The other allowed for quite a bit of both fat and carbohydrate. Can't you see the difference?
- taurath 12y ago12 lb lost vs 4 lb lost is extremely significant especially given neither diet was calorie restrictive.
- wuliwong 12y agoThe one group had to watch their fat intake and the other group had to watch their carb intake. It isn't exact equivalence but you are incorrect to say that only one group was restricted. And you are also incorrect that both groups had equal results. There was an 8 pound weight loss difference on average. Did you even read the article?