>For two weeks. Which is effectively nothing when you are talking about long-term issues like nutrition, health, weight, etc.
Yes, for two weeks, that's what the author is talking about. You are talking about something different. Can you point to the part of the article where this person recommends eating 500 calories of potatoes, as you say, "long-term"?
I find it hilarious that some innocuous article like this appears and people want long-term, double blind studies or it's trash. Meanwhile, any time air quality articles come up, half the same audience claims they can detect 100ppm changes in room CO2, it makes them sick, etc etc.
Famously, lots of people have successfully lived healthy lives with long periods where they ate mostly or exclusively potato, including multiple cases where people voluntarily ate only potatoes for a year. The safety of this diet is difficult to dispute, and I highly recommend potatoes much more than any other mono diet that can really mess you up due to nutrient imbalances
While this doesn't specifically say to only eat 500 calories, this is an explicit recommendation for eating only potatoes as a diet in an article proclaiming that eating 500 calories a day of only potatoes was an effective way to lose weight.
But at the end of day, I just don't see value in "I did some diet thing for 2 weeks!". Just like someone writing an article about trying out a new programming language for a couple weeks and labeling it amazing or terrible wouldn't be super interesting to me either.
Yes, for two weeks, that's what the author is talking about. You are talking about something different. Can you point to the part of the article where this person recommends eating 500 calories of potatoes, as you say, "long-term"?
I find it hilarious that some innocuous article like this appears and people want long-term, double blind studies or it's trash. Meanwhile, any time air quality articles come up, half the same audience claims they can detect 100ppm changes in room CO2, it makes them sick, etc etc.