Every gram of body weight needs energy to stay alive. If you are in a caloric deficit, you will lose weight until your energy expenditure matches the caloric intake.
If you stay in "caloric deficit" forever you will actually starve by definition.
Properly defining what you mean (comparatively low caloric intake without defining it via the current weight) is actually quite tricky, as your height, body composition and physical activities are all inputs to what counts as a "normal" caloric intake.
Yes, people have been trying this the "old fashioned way" since the 90s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRON-diet
Came here to say this. Also caloric deficits.
Probably you both really mean the same thing.
Every gram of body weight needs energy to stay alive. If you are in a caloric deficit, you will lose weight until your energy expenditure matches the caloric intake. If you stay in "caloric deficit" forever you will actually starve by definition.
Properly defining what you mean (comparatively low caloric intake without defining it via the current weight) is actually quite tricky, as your height, body composition and physical activities are all inputs to what counts as a "normal" caloric intake.
I saw reports on that before the GLP1 craze. Calorie reduced diets for lab animals generally increased their life span.
I thought caloric deficits lead to starvation.
[flagged]
Since when is it bad to create technology that gives people an easier way to solve their problems and live a better life?
When people don't bother learning basic skills.
Our society is fixated on reducing friction or increasing convenience. We trade away a lot of our capabilities for this.
Making things easier for everyone often has negative associations.
It is also harder to write paper letters by hand than e-mails on a keyboard.
Guess what we all here are doing. Using the magic keyboard.
Not me, my HN posts are all done by candlelight with a quill on parchment.
1 reply →