a) Tell you not to do blatantly stupid things like eat six tonnes of sugar. b) Give you an arbitrary restriction to force you to think about what you eat.
I therefore suggest the 'o' free diet. In it, you are not allowed to eat blatantly stupid things, or anything with an 'o' in it. I'm curious to see how well it would work.
You forgot that it has to have a TechnoBabble? explanation in order to fool the user into thinking it works. Which serves the dual purpose of distracting the user from the arbitrariness and also forces them to take notice of whether it has worked or not. Anorexia suggests that a lot of people are very bad at this second bit. --Vitenka
Letters consist of black parts which are healthy, and white parts which are not. Most letters have spaces letting the white part drain out into the outside world. 'O's, on the other hand, do just the opposite, creating the minimum of healthy black part with a maximal part of nasty white part possible. The same is true, to a lesser extent of 'a', 'b', 'd', 'e', 'g', 'p' and 'q's, but these at least contain enough black part to counteract the white part a little.
The only solution to get balance back into our diet is to cut 'o's out completely. It's not a coincidence that Iva Bigtum, nutrition expert, claimed that "meals are good, while food isn't." She was referring to exactly this phenonemon... *continued page 13* --Angoel
'O's are round. In the same way that arranging your face into the configuration of a smile can actually trigger minor endocrinal changes and make you happier, eating things with 'o's in can actually trigger minor changes to your metabolism and make you fat. Conversely, the best foods for weight loss are those containing a high proportion of 'l's and 'i's. --Rachael
Diets in the 'healthy eating' sense, in the 'lose weight' sense or in the 'chimpanzees eat this, hummingbirds eat the other' sense?