Oh I get it now, there's a misconception here.
A caloric deficit DIET is detrimental to you. But you can still obtain calorie deficit process by simply increasing the output (i.e. exercise). Eating quality food helps too.
There is nothing detrimental about being on a caloric deficit diet if are overweight. It's not starving yourself, it's not bad for you, it's the ONLY way you can lose fat. Reducing intake is much more efficient than increasing output, as the article we are discussing elaborates on.
> There is nothing detrimental about being on a caloric deficit diet if are overweight.
Yes, there is. Sustained calorie deficit has a number of potential adverse effects. OTOH, if you are overweight, those detrimental effects may be justified by the expected long-term health benefits of weight loss.
Yes you do lose weight, I don't disagree. If you do have a weight problem, it might be an option. But I don't think it's not detrimental for you or that it's a viable long term solution.
You are making the claim that a caloric deficit is detrimental to health (although you choose to call it "starving yourself" for unknown reasons, even though starvation is something completely different), the onus is on you to show evidence for that.
And I gave you links explaining the downsides. A calorie deficit diet does not guarantee fat-loss, it's more likely that your muscles break down before your fat. Your metabolism slows, making it even harder to lose weight, you'll be stuck in a vicious cycle. And finally, a big enough deficit can trigger starvation (medically) which tells your body to store fat as much as it possibly can. Meaning that as soon as you stop the diet, the weight will come right back, as fat. The proper way to lose weight is to increase the output (i.e. exercise) and eating more quality food. Not eating less.
I'm not against obtaining a calorie deficit because of more exercising or eating less sugar, I'm against having a calorie deficit diet by eating less, as the article suggests.