Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jsmthrowaway 4015 days ago
Nope, still wrong. There is nothing detrimental about eating less than you need within reason.
1 comments

Agree to disagree. Starving yourself should never be an option.
This isn't "agree to disagree" territory, this is published and peer-reviewed science. You are wrong. There is no disagreement.
Fine then, show me. Show me some "science" that show how starving yourself is good for you.

Put up or shut up, this isn't productive.

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.

Hope I was more clear enough now.

Here's some more reading:

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat-without-losin... http://www.livestrong.com/article/518807-negative-side-effec... http://www.acaloriecounter.com/diet/daily-calorie-intake-cal...

None of the claims you just made are correct.

You did not link to scientific evidence, you linked to articles on the Internet.