OuksideBlog

Clear ideas and practical protocols — without endless, unworkable forms.

NEVER DIET Vincenzo NEVER DIET Vincenzo

Does the health/wellness package fit into your monthly budget?

How much does it really cost to "stay in shape"? Figures (Italy) on food, gym membership, and "extras" to help you build a budget that really works, without waste or anxiety.

I asked myself a rather unpleasant question.

After trying to fit the "health package" into 24 hours, I looked at my wallet and thought: OK... but can a normal person who trains and cares about their health really afford it month after month?

Spoiler alert: you don't have to "buy everything." You have to make the right things fit into the month.

Quick read (the verdict you need)

If you want an answer that won't waste your time, here it is:

  • In Italy, most of the money doesn't go to "health," it goes to life. The biggest expense is almost always food (which you would have anyway). The difference is how you manage it.

  • Private healthcare is a black hole if you use it as "emotional insurance." If you use it as a tool (a few targeted interventions), it becomes sustainable.

  • Your health budget only works if you decide first what NOT to buy. Otherwise, you'll end up in the "gadgets, tests, supplements, and motivation on sale" section.

In short (but useful)

Two definitions to clarify, then a rule that simplifies.

  • The budget is not just "how much you spend," it's how much waste you can afford without things getting out of hand.

  • “Tier” = the level of spending you choose (the ceiling). “Overhead” = fixed costs + friction (money, time, mental energy that takes away from you even when you are not improving).

  • Rule of thumb: first reduce overhead, then (if necessary) raise the tier.

First question: is this fitness/wellness... or is it healthcare?

It seems like a nitpicky distinction. In reality, it saves you money, because it changes what you need to buy.

  • Fitness/wellness: what helps you eat, move, recover, and manage yourself better (EAT, MOVE, FEEL, ENJOY). Training, habits, gym, routine, coaching.

  • Healthcare: managing symptoms, pain, real problems. Diagnosis when needed, prevention when indicated.

This distinction is not academic: it determines which money works and which makes you pay twice.

When you confuse them, you usually make one of these two mistakes:

  • You pursue a "health" problem with wellness purchases (supplements, gadgets, repeated treatments), and then you end up paying for visits/exams anyway because the problem remains.

  • You use private healthcare as a tranquilizer (check-ups and "panels" done to relieve anxiety), and accumulate low-value expenses without really changing your decision.

Numerical references (Italy): orders of magnitude, without confusion

Before talking about tiers, let's put four numbers on the table. They are not "the truth": they are orders of magnitude to help you understand whether you are paying for life, fitness, or wellness in disguise.

  • Food (basic): in 2024, the average monthly expenditure on food and non-alcoholic beverages is approximately $533/month (national average per household*).

  • Food (health/convenience upgrade): often it's not "doubling your spending," it's a +10–25% (~+€53–133/month) if you choose more convenient proteins/vegetables, reduce waste, and cut out some "friction food" (impulsive delivery, random snacks, products you buy "because they were there" but don't really help you).

  • Gym: a "normal" membership tends to cost between ~€30–70/month (plus any registration/activation fees).

  • 1-to-1 support (add-on): a session with a coach/PT often costs ~€40–90, a physiotherapy session ~€50–90, a session with a psychologist/psychotherapist ~€50–90.

*"Per family" = household living in the same house; in Italy, the average is ~2.2 people. Translated: €533/month is ~€240 per person as an order of magnitude, but those who live alone tend to spend more per person, and a family of four does not spend "twice as much" as a family of two.

To be clear: in the three scenarios below, I am referring to extras (i.e., excluding "basic" food).

  • Minimum "guidelines" (low spending, low friction): approximately €8–17/month.

  • Reasonable optimal (gym + a few sensible things): approximately $110–180/month.

  • Wellness enthusiast (second rental): approximately $470–$950/month.

Now choose a tier (which is not a judgment): it's just the ceiling that keeps you sharp.

Italy: where does the money really go?

Let's start with an uncomfortable fact: on average, Italian families' monthly spending is high, and food accounts for a significant portion of that. This means one simple thing: if you want to improve your "health package," you almost always have to work within existing budgets.

The second thing (less pleasant) is that private healthcare spending, when it comes in, does not come in "nicely": it is often a sum of visits, tests, and services performed to relieve anxiety, not to solve a problem.

And here's an important point: a significant portion of private spending can end up going toward low-value services (i.e., expensive, but with little or uncertain benefit). If you want a budget that lasts, you need to become good at recognizing them.

World: why "how much does health cost" is not the same question everywhere

A quick aside, just to put things in perspective.

In much of the world, the question is not "how much do I spend to get better," but whether healthcare spending puts me in difficulty.

This applies to you even if you live in Italy, because it reminds you of one thing: your health budget should be, first and foremost, a strategy to avoid waste and panic, not a competition to see who can buy the most "wellness."

Your monthly budget in 3 lines

You don't need Excel. All you need is this:

  1. Set a monthly limit (your tier, i.e., your spending level).

  2. Reduce overhead: eliminate what costs you a lot and gives you little (money + friction).

  3. Buy levers, not promises: things that make it easier to do what you already know works.

If you are interested in the same reasoning, but applied to time (rather than money), you can find the "24-hour" version here: Can the health/wellness package be covered in 24 hours?

Four practical tiers (with examples you can copy)

Below, you won't find "the truth." You'll find four configurations that you can adapt without going crazy.

Tier 0 — Zero expense (but not zero care) | ~$0–$30/month

This is the tier for those who want real results without buying anything new.

What is inside, in concrete terms:

  • Exercise without a gym membership: walking + two or three short bodyweight training sessions. If you want a starting point, begin here: Bodyweight training.

  • Sleep as a "free supplement": you don't win in the evening with willpower, you win with setup. If sleep is your black hole today, start by sleeping better (starting tonight).

  • Food: not "healthier," simpler. In practice: repeat 2–3 standard meals and reduce your choices. If you recognize yourself in diet boredom, see food monotony.

This tier works if you don't think of it as "I'm at the basic level," but as a period of overhead cleanup.

Tier 1 — Essential support | ~$30–120/month

Here you start buying comfort and reduced friction.

What makes sense to budget for:

  • Gym or class: choose an option that will actually make you go 2–3 times a week.

  • Minimum equipment (once only, not every month): elastic bands, a pair of adjustable dumbbells, a folding bench... only if you need it to remove excuses.

  • A micro-reserve: not for random tests, but to manage unexpected events (pain, targeted visits, physical therapy if needed).

If that seems like "not much," remember: the value here is consistency. It's the same idea behind " I don't have time for fitness": often, it's not that you don't have time, it's that you don't have a system that removes friction.

Tier 2 — Targeted support | ~$120–$350/month

This is where you start paying people (and this is where the real value-for-money ratio comes into play).

What to buy without wasting money:

  • 1 session/month with a coach (or 2 if you are in the "restart" phase). Objective: to correct technique, plan, and remove doubts.

  • A nutritional check-up only if you really need it (not just to be told to "eat better"). If you are stuck in your relationship with food, it is often more useful to work on hunger, appetite, and satiety than to collect plans.

  • Targeted recovery: physical therapy when there is a problem, not as a weekly ritual.

Rule: Pay for better decisions, not for "motivation."

Tier 3 — Concierge | $350+/month

This tier is for those who want to delegate important aspects (time and decisions), or have sports/health goals that require more support.

What can fit inside (in a sensible way):

  • Weekly PT/coach, or structured packages.

  • Psychotherapy/mental coaching, if it is a real lever for you.

  • Private services when they reduce waiting times and measurably improve quality.

Please note: this tier does not automatically make you "healthier." It just makes you more popular. You are still responsible for your health, from Monday morning to Sunday evening.

The "add-on" menu (when even a single session makes sense)

If you want to stay in a low tier but add something that really moves the needle, think about it this way: a single session is only useful if it gives you a decision or a plan.

  • Coach/PT (1 session): it makes sense if you leave with 1) correct technique for the fundamentals you are using, 2) a simple program for 4–6 weeks, 3) two "key" corrections to take away with you. If you just leave feeling "pumped," the effect will be short-lived.

  • Physical therapist (1 session): this makes sense if you get 1) a functional diagnosis (what you are doing that causes irritation), 2) a brief protocol (exercises + criteria: when to increase, when to stop), 3) a clear threshold for deciding whether further investigation is needed.

  • Nutritionist (1 session): makes sense if you come away with 1) two or three realistic default meals, 2) criteria for portion sizes and frequency, 3) a measurable change (not "eat better").

  • Psychologist/psychotherapist (1 session): this makes sense if it is a triage to understand what you are experiencing and what concrete steps to take (for example: yes/no to treatment, what type, what goal).

What do we do with it in practice?

If you want to escape the chaos, use these rules. One at a time.

Buy what lowers risk and anxiety (not what fuels it).

Prevention when indicated, targeted checks when needed, and above all: criteria.

The point is not to "do more tests." The point is to know which results would really change a decision. If you find yourself in a loop of "just to be safe" tests, start here: prioritize blood tests.

Pay to remove friction, not to add complexity

Here, the expenses that make your life easier win out: a nearby gym, a simple routine, a repeatable plan.

If you feel that "optimization" is becoming a second job, stop and simplify: often the key is to remove friction, not add tools. If you want an operational reminder, start by staying in shape (the easy way).

On food: make targeted upgrades, not "virtuous spending"

Here, the question is not "how much do I spend," but "what makes it easier for me to do the right thing?" Three concrete examples (choose one):

  • more practical proteins (eggs, Greek yogurt, legumes, high-quality canned fish)

  • more "easy" vegetables (good frozen vegetables, decent ready-made salads)

  • more "clean" carbohydrates to manage (rice, potatoes, plain bread)

It's not about "perfect eating." It's about establishing a default.

Supplements and stacks: latest (and with criteria)

If you want a pragmatic starting point, without myths or fetishes, there is the essential stack. But the rule remains: first take care of sleep, exercise, and meals.

Test the budget for 30 days, not "forever."

We don't need heroism here. We need an experiment.

  • choose the tier

  • set a ceiling

  • apply it for 30 days

  • At the end of the month, ask yourself: which expense reduced overhead the most? And which expense was the most "nice," but unnecessary?

Then you adjust.

Frequently Asked Questions

Should I include food in my health budget?
If you want to understand "how much it costs to live," then yes. If you want to understand "how much it costs to improve," separate your basic expenses (which you would have anyway) from targeted upgrades.

Does it make sense to spend money on comprehensive check-ups every year?
In general, "more tests" does not mean "more prevention." It makes sense when you have criteria (risk factors, family history, symptoms, doctor's recommendations) and when you know which results would really change a decision.

Gym or personal trainer: where should I invest my money first?
If you never go, pay for what motivates you to go (convenient gym, simple routine). If you already go and are stuck, pay for 1–2 sessions to unlock technique and programming.

What if I have a limited budget but want to lose weight?
Above all, you need a sustainable default: decent sleep, walking, two or three workouts, repeatable meals. Often the problem is not "lack of money," it's "lack of criteria."

Are supplements "worth it"?
Some are, but they are almost never the first line of defense. If you sleep poorly and your week is chaotic, supplements become cosmetic.

If I have a problem (pain, symptoms), does the tier change?
Yes: you're not providing wellness here, you're providing healthcare. A clinical assessment is needed and the budget needs to be reallocated.

Learn more
EAT Vincenzo EAT Vincenzo

Plant-based diet vs. omnivorous diet: who really wins (when you stop rooting for one side)

The useful question is not "who wins," but how much of your diet consists of real food, adequate protein, and vegetables. From there, you can be healthy whether you eat mostly vegetables or are omnivorous, without ideology.

If you're wondering "plant-based or omnivorous diet?", you're usually looking for the one and only answer.

The one that gives you peace of mind, because "you made the right choice."

But in real life, it's not the label that wins: it's the quality of the pattern you manage to maintain on normal days (not just when you're motivated).

Here we remove the hype, keep the useful science, and arrive at a simple map: real food, adequate protein, vegetables present, ultra-processed foods under control.

If this is okay, you can be perfectly fine with either a very plant-based diet or a "clean" omnivorous diet.

In short (3 things that really matter)

  1. Plant-based diets, on average, are associated with better cardiometabolic outcomes... but the benefit depends greatly on quality ("whole" plant-based vs. "junk vegan").

  2. Processed meats are the easiest to cut back on if you care about long-term health. Unprocessed meat is a more nuanced issue; it's all about context and frequency.

  3. Humans are flexible omnivores: we can thrive on different patterns, but not on just any pattern. Some nutrients and habits are non-negotiable.

Why this discussion becomes toxic

Because an ethical/environmental/identity choice is being confused with a clinical choice.

  • If you choose plant-based for ethical reasons: it's a respectable choice, and you can do it well.

  • If you choose to be omnivorous because it works best for you, that's just as valid, and you can do it well.

What almost never works is turning the dish into a courtroom.

What science says (without clever simplifications)

1) “Plant-based” does not automatically mean “healthy.”

The real difference is between:

  • high-quality plant-based foods (vegetables, fruit, legumes, whole grains, nuts, seeds),

  • low-quality plant-based foods (refined foods, sugars, industrial "vegan" snacks).

If you want a rule of thumb: when your diet is plant-based but becomes too focused on "products," you have often strayed to the wrong side of the map.

2) The "meat" issue: processed vs. unprocessed

If you want to make a single high-impact change (without becoming extreme): reduce your consumption of processed meats (cold cuts, sausages, bacon, etc.).

This immediately puts you on firmer ground without needing to demonize "the flesh" as a whole.

3) Anatomy and physiology: we are neither pure herbivores nor pure carnivores

We are adaptable animals: we have the tools to digest starches, fiber, and animal proteins. There is no "anatomical evidence" that settles the matter.

The practical consequence is not "then everything is fine." It is this:

  • If you are an omnivore, you cannot treat vegetables as decoration.

  • If you are vegan, you cannot treat planning (e.g., B12) as a minor detail.

The 95% that unites those who are well off (regardless of label)

If we remove the hype, something interesting happens: those who are truly healthy (and remain so over time) are neither "vegan" nor "omnivore."
They are people who have put four fundamentals in order.

These are not moral rules. They are practical pillars: when they are in place, the diet works. When they are missing, even the "right" diet fails.

1) Real food as a basis

Before we even talk about meat or vegetables: how much of your week consists of simple, recognizable, minimally processed food?
If you want to clarify the distinction without extremism: What is "real food," really?

2) Adequate protein (not "excessive," but adequate)

Not for the gym. For satiety, recovery, muscle mass, and days that don't lead you to snack "randomly."
If you need a clear map of categories (without religion): Meat, fruit, and food categories.

3) Vegetables almost always present (without turning them into penance)

Not because you "have to," but because they help: fiber, micronutrients, volume, balance of the dish.
And if you think "vegetables = obligation," here's a useful reframe: Are vegetables always a good idea?

4) Ultra-processed and hyper-palatable foods under control

This is the part that makes you stray from the theory more than anything else: snacks, "easy" desserts, things that don't fill you up but constantly call to you.
There's no need to ban them. You just need to make sure they don't become the basis of your diet.

This is the core.
The rest (vegan, vegetarian, omnivore, "very plant-based") is a choice of taste, context, ethics, and preferences—but it only works if these four pieces are in order.

How to choose between "mostly plant-based" and "omnivorous" without getting bogged down

Option A — “Pragmatic plant-based”

It works well if you want to:

  • a lighter and more voluminous pattern,

  • easier to keep calories low without counting,

  • a choice consistent with ethical motivations.

Key move (practical): every meal has a protein source + "two handfuls" of vegetables + a serious carbohydrate only if needed.

If you need a simple guide to legumes (often demonized at random): Legumes: are they good or bad for you?

Option B — “Real-life omnivore”

It works well if you want to:

  • a pattern with "easier" proteins,

  • less risk of shortcomings if you don't like planning,

  • more simplicity in everyday life.

Key move (practical): protein as the basis of the meal + plenty of vegetables + carbohydrates and fats adjusted according to the context.

If you want a useful guide on the topic of fats/health (without scaremongering): Saturated fats: demon or detail?

Common mistakes (on both sides)

  • Vegan junk food: a diet that is formally plant-based, but in fact ultra-processed.

  • Influencer-style carnivores: total elimination of vegetables as if it were a universal shortcut.

  • Confusing "improving markers" with "improving life": if a diet makes you socially unmanageable, it's not an upgrade. It's a cage.

Mini-protocol (14 days) to understand what works for you

Choose a single lever and make it measurable. Example:

  1. Vegetable frequency: vegetables present in 2 meals per day.

  2. Stable proteins: a clear source of protein in every meal.

  3. Processed: only one "window" per week for more explicit content (not spread out over every day).

After 14 days, don't just look at the scale. Look at:

  • hunger and cravings,

  • energy and sleep,

  • digestion,

  • recovery and performance.

If something deteriorates significantly, it is not the fault of the vegetable or the meat: it is a sign that your implementation needs to be adjusted.

Signals & stops

  • If you often feel tired, hungry, and "always on the hunt" for snacks, you are probably lacking stable protein and/or not getting enough sleep.

  • If digestion is constantly a mess: it is often quality + quantity + preparation (legumes not cooked properly, too much fiber all at once, too many industrial substitutes).

  • If the pattern isolates you socially, you are paying a high price for a small benefit.

Frequently Asked Questions

So, do I have to become vegan to be healthy?
No. Evidence shows that diets rich in plant-based foods and low in ultra-processed foods are beneficial; this can be achieved with either a well-planned vegan diet or a well-constructed omnivorous diet.

Does meat 'rot' in the intestines?
No: that's a myth. Protein digestion mainly takes place in the stomach and small intestine. If you want to improve your intestinal health, the key is not to demonize 'meat', but to focus on overall quality and fiber content.

If I eat more vegetables, am I at risk of deficiencies?
It depends on how you eat them. In a vegan diet, B12 must be managed seriously. In a very plant-based (but not vegan) diet, the typical focus is on iron, iodine, and omega-3: nothing impossible, but don't leave it to chance.

What about red meat?
The most important thing is to moderate your intake and pay attention to the context (more real food, more vegetables, less processed food). If you want a useful guide on health and markers: Cholesterol: what really matters

Do vegetables help you lose weight better?
They often help because they increase volume and reduce energy density, making it easier to create a deficit without counting calories. But it's not magic: if they become ultra-processed vegetables, they can have the opposite effect.

Which version is the most practical?
The one that allows you to do well 80% of the time without feeling like you're at war with food: real food, adequate protein, vegetables, and controlled processing.

Learn more
EAT Vincenzo EAT Vincenzo

Food pyramid: why it's not enough (and how to build your own)

Beyond the classic pyramid: a priority order for choosing what to eat, building solid meals, and managing carbohydrates without counting everything.

The classic food pyramid was created for a useful purpose: to give the public a simple rule about what to eat more often and what to eat less often. The problem is that when you use it as a "guide to life," two things happen.

The first: it becomes too generic. It doesn't take into account how much you move, how you sleep, how hungry you really are, how you respond to carbohydrates, or how much stress you are carrying.

The second: it shifts your focus to the wrong place. It makes you argue for hours about whether a food is "lower" or "higher," when often the real determining factor is how you are eating: portions, density, timing, context, automatic behaviors.

This guide serves to transform the idea of a "pyramid" into something that works in the real world: a pyramid of decisions, where the base is what gives you the most results with the least friction, and the tip is what only matters when the rest is already solid.

 

UPDATE (US DGA 2025–2030): “new pyramid” and American dietary guidelines

At the beginning of 2026, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) 2025–2030 were published, and the "new pyramid" associated with these guidelines began circulating online.

The central message is simple: eat real food. Translated into real life: less real food "disguised" as everyday food (snacks, soft drinks, ultra-processed products as default), more meals based on protein, fruit and vegetables, fats used judiciously, and better-chosen carbohydrates.

Important note: this is not a "moral scale" (nor a competition between foods). It is a way to shift the focus to what to move first in real life.

And that is precisely why you will find a pyramid of decisions below: first the foundation (structure, protein anchor, real food), then the details.

 

Who it is for / Who it is not for

Who is it for?

  • You want to eat well without turning nutrition into a full-time project.

  • Are you interested in a practical criterion for choosing what to put on your plate, without spending your life counting?

  • You've already tried "rules" (low carb, low fat, fasting, etc.) and want a roadmap that tells you when they make sense and when they don't.

Not for those who

  • Look for a "perfect" pyramid that works for everyone, always.

  • You are experiencing a period of severe restriction, fear of food, or dysfunctional eating behaviors: dedicated work with your reference team is needed here.

  • You have medical conditions that require close supervision (blood sugar treatments, pregnancy, complex diseases): this guide can help you get organized, but decisions must be made with your healthcare provider.

In short

If you want a useful, non-ideological version, think of it this way: first you build the foundation, then you work on the details.

The decision pyramid in Oukside follows this order:

  • Structure and repeatability of meals (without rigidity).

  • Proteins as the "anchor" of the dish.

  • Energy density and quality: more real food, less ultra-processed food.

  • Carbohydrates as a control: quantity and distribution based on lifestyle and training.

  • Optional tools (fasting windows, highest/lowest days, etc.) only if they improve adherence.

  • Common "traps" (liquid calories, snacking, highly palatable snacks) to manage because they create noise.

Principles

1) The classic pyramid is not "stupid": it is just generic.

Dietary guidelines are intended to address entire populations. They necessarily describe average patterns, not your specific case. Using them as if they were a personalized program is the quickest way to feel "wrong" when they don't work.

2) The "what" matters, but the "how" determines whether you will actually do it.

To say that only the "how" matters and not the "what" is an exaggeration. But so is the opposite. In real life, people don't fail because they chose the "wrong food": they fail because the system is not repeatable.

That's why the decision pyramid starts with what allows you to repeat:

  • meals with a simple structure;

  • manageable portions;

  • choices that do not drain you physically or mentally.

3) Protein as a base: not for fashion, but for stability

An adequate protein intake tends to make the system more robust: satiety, preservation of lean mass in deficit, better meal quality.

If you want a practical reference, you can use the "protein anchor" logic at every meal: first choose your protein source, then build around it.

4) Energy density and ultra-processed foods: the most underestimated shortcut

Many people look for the solution in macros, but ignore the variable that changes everything: how easy it is to overeat.

Highly ultra-processed foods, calorie-dense liquids, and hyperpalatable combinations (carbohydrates + fats + flavor) tend to make it easier to overeat without realizing it. Conversely, less processed and more voluminous foods (with the same energy content) tend to make it easier to regulate intake naturally.

If you want to align your choices without obsessions: what we mean by "real food."

5) Carbohydrates: not a religion, a knob

Carbohydrates are neither "good" nor "bad": they are a nutrient that should be included judiciously, especially if you want to combine weight loss, performance, and peace of mind.

A useful rule: the more demanding the day (training, physical work, stress), the more carbohydrates can help; the more relaxed the day, the more you can reduce them for simplicity's sake.

For the complete guide (without derby): low carb or low fat.

6) "Extra" tools must reduce friction, not increase it.

Fasting windows, lower or higher days, specific timing: these only make sense if they help you eat better without increasing control and anxiety.

If you are interested in the "fasting" option with the necessary nuances: intermittent fasting.

What the evidence says

  • When energy and protein are comparable, the idea that one macro universally "wins" is more fragile than it is sold. Often, the winner is whoever manages to maintain a pattern.

  • A higher protein intake, within a sensible context, tends to support satiety and preservation of lean body mass during a deficit.

  • The energy per gram (energy density) has a powerful influence on how easy it is to eat too much or too little.

  • Patterns rich in ultra-processed foods make it easier to consume more calories almost automatically.

Translated: the pyramid that works is not the one that tells you "the bread is here," but the one that tells you which decisions to make first.

In real life: the Oukside decision pyramid

Below you will find the food "decision" pyramid, which will help you understand what to focus on in order to eat better and, above all, in a way that will last.

Level 1 — Structure (repeatability)

  • 2–4 meals per day that you can replicate.

  • No perfection: the goal is to reduce chaos and improvisation.

If you are interested in the topic of "routines that stick": fitness habits.

Level 2 — Protein anchor

  • A clear source of protein at every meal.

  • If you are aiming to lose weight and train seriously, this factor becomes even more important.

Level 3 — Real food and density (quality that simplifies)

  • More minimally processed foods and "whole" meals.

  • Fewer liquid calories and fewer hyperpalatable snacks by default.

For the selection criterion: real food.

Level 4 — Carbohydrates as a control (quantity and distribution)

  • "Hard" days (intense training, high volume): more carbohydrates.

  • "Flat" days: simpler carbohydrates and often lower in quantity.

Complete guide: low carb or low fat.

Level 5 — Optional tools (if they help you)

  • Fasting windows reduce decision-making noise and do not increase rigidity.

  • Weekly microcycles (higher/lower days) if they improve adherence.

Level 6 — Traps to manage (not demonize)

  • Liquid calories (juices, frequent alcohol consumption, "harmless" drinks that add up).

  • Continuous nibbling.

  • "Carbohydrate-only" snacks as a habit (not as an exception).

If you want to go into detail about snacks: snacks yes or no.

“If you must”: a pyramid by category (to choose what to put on your plate)

When you want a practical shortcut, you can use a category-based approach. You don't need to remember 300 foods: you just need to understand what function you are looking for in your meal.

From the most "easy to manage" to the most "risky"

  1. Protein (still from the meal): meat, fish, eggs, protein-rich dairy products, legumes, tofu/tempeh, whey.

  2. Protein + fat: fattier cuts of meat/fish, aged cheeses, salmon, dried fruit "as a side dish," not as a main course.

  3. Protein + carbohydrates: legumes + grains, yogurt + fruit, well-balanced mixed dishes.

  4. "Almost pure" carbohydrates: bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, cereals (to be managed in terms of portions and context).

  5. "Almost pure" fats: oils, butter, creams, condiments (useful, but easy to overuse).

  6. Hyperpalatable combinations (carbohydrates + fats + salt/sugar): sweets, industrial snacks, supermarket junk food.

This pyramid is not meant to tell you that "point 6 is forbidden." It is meant to tell you that if you want to lose weight or stabilize your weight, point 6 needs to be managed more intentionally.

If you want the complete guide to categories and selection criteria: foods and categories.

Signs to watch for (and when to stop)

Signs that you are using the guide well

  • More orderly hunger: it comes at mealtimes, it doesn't chase you around all day.

  • Energy and sleep do not worsen.

  • Your plan can also be replicated outside the home.

  • The trend (weight, circumference, clothing) moves without extremes.

Signs that you are getting stuck

  • Increasing rigidity ("if I slip up, I've ruined everything").

  • Cuts so aggressive that training collapses and cravings explode.

  • An obsession with control that replaces common sense.

If you recognize yourself in this, often there is no need to "tighten up" more. You need to go back to basics and, if necessary, seek help from those who support you.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the classic food pyramid wrong?
No: it is a general guide. The limitation is that it is not personalized and does not tell you which levers to pull first. The decision pyramid serves precisely this purpose.

So should I avoid carbohydrates?
No. You need to know how to use them. The useful question is not "carbs yes or no," but "how many and when, for me." If you want the complete map: low carb or low fat.

Is it true that snacks "trigger" hunger?
For many people, yes, especially when they are small, frequent, and hyperpalatable. Not because they are "bad," but because they make it easy to add calories without satisfaction. If you want to manage them without extremes: snacks yes or no.

Should liquid calories be eliminated?
Not necessarily. But if your goal is to lose weight or stabilize your weight, they are one of the variables with the worst "benefit/noise" ratio. It is worth making them intentional, not automatic.

Fasting windows: are they in the pyramid?
As an optional tool. If they help you simplify and feel more in control, great. If they increase rigidity or reactive hunger, they are not the right tool for you.

Learn more
EAT Richard EAT Richard

Fear of fats: why it holds you back (and how to use them in moderation)

If "removing all fat" seems like the safest option, it's not you: it's the low-fat mindset. Here are some practical reasons why removing fat can sabotage satiety and adherence, and how to reintroduce it judiciously (in moderation).

If you instinctively want to cut out all fat (0% yogurt, egg whites only, chicken + "sad" salad), it's not because you're "wrong." It's because for years we've been sold a simple image: lean = fat-free.

It's a shame that in real life it often works the other way around: you cut out fats "to be good," then you lack satiety, you lack flavor, and you end up looking for compensation elsewhere.

For those who

For you if:

  • you're afraid that "a drop of oil" will ruin everything

  • alternate "super clean" days with days of snacks and aggressive hunger

  • You feel like you're eating "light," but you don't feel stable.

Not for whom

This is not the right article if:

  • you have a medical condition that requires a specific plan (here we will stick to the general framework )

  • Are you looking for the "perfect" diet or a list of prohibitions?

In short

Fats are neither "magic" nor "poison." They are part of a meal.

  • Yes, they are denser in calories.

  • Yes, they can improve taste and satiety.

  • No, "eliminating" them does not automatically make you fitter.

The Oukside approach is this: don't demonize fats. Learn to use them in moderation.

 

Mini-rule: what does "fat to taste" really mean?

  • If the dish is already "fatty" (e.g., salmon, whole eggs, rich meat, cheese), there is often no need to add oil "for sport."

  • If the dish is lean and dry (chicken + vegetables), a "healthy" fat (oil, nuts, a full-fat dairy product) can give you satisfaction and stability.

  • The practical signal: if you feel "empty" after a meal and start looking for food, often the problem is not willpower. It's the structure of the meal.

 

Principles

1) “They have more calories” does not mean “they are the enemy.”

It's true: 1 g of fat provides more energy than 1 g of carbohydrates/proteins. But the point is not to win at Tetris with calories.

The point is to create meals that make your day manageable. And often fats (the right ones, in the right amounts) help with this.

2) If you remove taste and satiety, the body "recovers" elsewhere.

When the only strategy is to cut, this is what happens:

  • you start eating "proper" portions, but they are not enough for you

  • increase in random snacking (sweet or savory, unintentional)

  • Everything becomes more fragile: all it takes is one bad day and the whole thing falls apart.

3) “Lean” is not a nutritional strategy

It's a play on words: "lean" (physical) does not mean "fat-free" (on the plate).

Many people manage to be consistent not because they eliminate fats, but because they stop swinging between extremes.

Evidence (without study fetish)

  • Energy density matters: for the same volume, denser foods make it easier to "go up" in calories without noticing. This also applies to fats, so you need to use your judgment, not fear.

  • The relationship between fats and satiety is not a magic wand: it depends on context, combinations, and meal design. In practice: fats + proteins + vegetables tend to hold up better than "lean + fiber + anxiety."

  • When it comes to cardiovascular health, it's not a question of "fat yes/no": what matters is what kind of fat you eat and what you replace it with. In general, replacing some of your saturated fat intake with unsaturated fat is a sensible move, especially if you have high LDL.

If you want to learn more about these two pieces without taking sides:

In practice (2–4 "starter" moves)

1) Stop doing "light regardless"

For 14 days, try turning off autopilot on:

  • 0% yogurt always

  • egg whites only

  • light cheeses only

  • “banned oil”

You're not "breaking the rules": you're regaining realism.

2) Add a deliberate fat to your meal (when needed)

It's not about "filling up on fats." It's about choosing one thing that makes the meal stable.

Practical examples:

  • Breakfast: yogurt (not 0% fat) + dried fruit or whole eggs (not just egg whites)

  • Lunch: vegetables dressed with extra virgin olive oil or a portion of non-light cheese

  • Dinner: alternate lean proteins with richer proteins (e.g., salmon, chicken thighs) instead of always having "chicken/cod."

3) If the objection is "cholesterol," take the mature approach.

Don't change everything "on a whim": check things out carefully (and, if necessary, seek guidance).

4) Use feedback (not fear)

After 10–14 days, ask yourself:

  • Am I less hungry "unexpectedly"?

  • Do I snack less automatically?

  • Do I feel more satisfied after meals?

If so, you have just found a leverage point. And leverage is a multiplier.

Signals & stops

  • If increasing your fat intake causes significant discomfort (nausea, pain, persistent diarrhea), stop and consult a professional.

  • If you have a personal/family history of cardiovascular problems or critical lipid levels, there is no need to panic: what you need is good judgment and monitoring.

  • If you realize that "fat" for you only means sweets or junk food, then the issue isn't fat: it's the context (rhythm, stress, habits).

FAQs about fear of fats

Do fats make you fat?
No: weight gain is a balance over time. Fats are denser, so they can make it easier to "put on weight" if you add them indiscriminately. But avoiding them altogether often makes you less stable and less consistent.

Always use raw oil?
No. "Raw" is a good habit when taste and quality are required, but it is not a talisman. The point is: is it really needed in that dish? If yes, use it. If not, don't add it automatically.


If I have high cholesterol, should I eliminate fats?
No: often the best approach is to improve quality and substitutions (less saturated, more unsaturated) and look at the overall pattern. For guidance: Cholesterol.

Are eggs "fatty"? Should I avoid them?
Not by default. It depends on your circumstances and your test results, not on fear. Read here: How many eggs per week?

Learn more
EAT Deborah EAT Deborah

Eating out does not "interrupt your diet": choose wisely, not randomly

Eating out isn't the problem. The problem is getting there without criteria. Here you will find a replicable map to help you choose well when eating out without being too rigid.

There is a story that many people tell:

"If I have to eat out often, I can't eat healthily."

It is convenient because it absolves you.
And it is false because it confuses two different things:

  • dining out

  • choose at random

Real life includes bars, cafeterias, restaurants, hotels, and highway rest stops. It's not the place that makes the difference: it's your minimum standards.

 

Real-life diet

If you feel unable to eat well when you're out today, it's not a personal flaw. It's a problem with the environment: outside the home, the food on offer is designed to be convenient and hyper-appealing. If you don't have any criteria, the environment wins.

Below you will find small, replicable criteria that are not rigid.

 

For those who

For you if:

  • Do you often eat out for work, travel, shifts, socializing?

  • you get the impression that "outside = misbehavior" and then you lose track;

  • Do you want to lose weight or maintain your weight without turning into an accountant?

Not for whom

Not for you if:

  • you want a list of "allowed" and "forbidden" foods (it doesn't work in real life);

  • You have a very fragile relationship with food (control/guilt/binge eating): you need more guidance here.

In short

  • Eating out isn't the problem: the problem is getting there without criteria.

  • You only need four minimum criteria to make a good choice almost anywhere.

  • The most powerful move is not to "resist": it is to decide first what kind of choice you want to make.

Principles

1) When you're away from home, you don't have to "go on a diet." You have to avoid chaos.

When you're out, the goal isn't the perfect meal.
It's a meal that:

  • satisfies you,

  • doesn't open up the black hole afterwards,

  • does not force you to "make up" with penance.

2) Don't think in terms of foods. Think in terms of categories.

If you think about individual foods, eating out always seems like a jungle.

If you think in terms of categories, it becomes manageable.

If you want a simple and powerful lens: Why dieting is an illusion (category model).

3) The question isn't "What can I eat?" It's "What am I looking for today?"

Here are three legitimate goals (choose one):

  • stability (I'm at work/during the week: I want to leave the bar the same way I entered it)

  • performance (I exercise/I move: I want clean energy)

  • sociality (today I choose taste, but intentionally)

If it's socializing/extras, there's a dedicated article: Free meals: indulgences and holidays.

The 4 minimum (replicable) criteria

When you're out and about, before you even look at the menu, do this check:

  1. Proteins as anchors

  2. Vegetables or "volume" (vegetables, salad, simple side dish, minestrone soup)

  3. Modulated carbohydrates (if needed: bread/pasta/rice/potatoes in appropriate portions)

  4. Fat as needed (is there already some? Then that's often enough; if you need it for flavor, okay, but use it sparingly)

You don't always have to tick all 4 boxes.
You should avoid the typical combination of "outside = carbs + fats + sugars, almost zero protein."

In practice

Move 1) Sort in 10 seconds (one-sentence pattern)

Use this mental phrase:

"A protein + a side dish + (if I need it) a carbohydrate."

Real-life examples:

  • “main course + vegetables + bread (if I need it)”

  • “single dish with real protein + side dish”

  • “salad with protein (not just leaves)”

Step 2) Bar/breakfast: don't let it always be sugar

If your breakfast out is often a croissant and cappuccino, it's not a sin: it's just a choice that tends to leave you feeling hungrier.

Simple alternatives (without becoming rigid):

  • yogurt/Greek yogurt + fruit (and, if available, dried fruit)

  • eggs/sandwich with lean cold cuts + fruit

  • Cappuccino + something with protein (even a small amount) instead of the usual dessert

Step 3) Cafeteria: Build the dish, not chaos

If you have a cafeteria or diner, the rule is: first choose your protein, then your side dish, then decide on your carbohydrates.

Example:

  • protein (meat/fish/eggs/legumes)

  • 1–2 vegetable side dishes

  • carbohydrates if you need them (bread/pasta/rice/potatoes) in reasonable portions

Step 4) Restaurant: you don't need "the perfect choice," you need a consistent choice

Two moves that will save you:

  • if you want to stay stable: second course + side dish (and carbohydrates only if you need them)

  • if you want flavor: choose the dish you want, but avoid the "all together" effect (appetizer + first course + second course + dessert just because).

Move 5) Hotel/buffet: the trap is variety, not quality

The buffet encourages you to "try everything."

The move is simple:

  • choose a protein base

  • add fruit/vegetables

  • if you want carbs: choose one (not three)

Move 6) Autogrill/emergency: 70% is already a victory

When you're at a highway rest stop or train station, don't look for "cleanliness." Look for dignity.

Examples:

  • sandwich with real protein + water

  • ready-made salad with tuna/eggs + bread (if needed)

  • bresaola/prosciutto + fruit + yogurt

The point is to avoid the "only sweet/salty snacks" combo that leaves you feeling hungrier afterwards.

Signals & stops

  • If "eating out" always makes you think "oh well, it doesn't matter now," it's not the restaurant: it's your mindset. You need a criterion before choosing the place.

  • If you find yourself compensating (punitive fasting, excessive cardio), you are feeding the loop.

  • If your life consists of shifts/travel, you don't need willpower: you need a dedicated strategy.

If you often work shifts (and have irregular hours), this is a useful guide: Diet for shift workers

FAQs about eating out

Does eating out inevitably make you gain weight?
No. It's easier to gain weight when you eat "randomly": large portions, few proteins, lots of extra liquids or desserts, and then compensations. With minimal criteria, eating out becomes manageable.

Should I avoid pasta/bread when eating out?
No. The right question is: do you need them today? If so, choose a "serious" carbohydrate in a reasonable portion and build your meal around protein and side dishes.

How can I avoid feeling like I'm "on a diet" at a restaurant?
Stop looking for the perfect choice and choose the consistent choice: protein + side dish as a base, and then intentionally decide if you want to add carbs or an extra.

What if I want to enjoy dinner today?
Perfect. Enjoy it intentionally: choose what you really want and avoid the automatic "everything just because." If you need a complete frame, go to "free meal."

Learn more
EAT Deborah EAT Deborah

Monotonous diet? How to vary your diet without "changing your diet"

If "healthy eating" means chicken, rice, and salad to you, it's not your fault. It's the fault of poor imagery. Here's a simple guide to creating real variety without losing structure.

If when you think of "healthy eating" you think of chicken, rice, and salad, it's not because "you're the problem."

It's because for years, the fitness/diet world has sold "clean eating" as a short, sad list: few "safe" options, zero taste, zero real life. And when your diet is like that, it's normal for it to break down sooner or later.

Here we do the opposite: you don't need a thousand recipes or chef-level creativity. You need 2–3 levers to create real variety while maintaining structure.

For those who

For you if:

  • you feel stuck with 5–6 "safe" meals and the rest is chaos;

  • Do you want to lose weight or maintain your weight without eating boring meals?

  • You break out of your routine because you get bored.

Not for whom

Not for you if:

  • You have a very fragile relationship with food (frequent binge eating, strong control, constant guilt): more guided work is needed here.

  • You are following a restrictive clinical diet for medical reasons: before expanding your food range, you need to consult a professional.

In short

  • There are few food categories (by definition): you don't have to invent "new foods," you have to learn to play within the categories.

  • The useful variety is not "a thousand recipes": it is changing 1–2 elements (cuts, side dishes, spices, cooking methods) while maintaining the structure of the meal.

  • If you increase variety only in snacks/sweets, you will want to eat more. If you increase variety in proteins and vegetables, you will stick to your diet more.

Principles

1) It's not that you "always eat the same things": you're looking at the small picture

If you think in terms of individual foods ("chicken," "salad"), everything seems repetitive.

If you think in terms of categories, your diet ceases to be a list and becomes a system. Discover the category model (because "diet" is an illusion).

2) Variety does not mean complicating your life

The question is not "how many new recipes can I learn?"

It is: what lever can I use to obtain a different flavor with the same meal?

Three easy levers:

  • Cut/format (meat: breast, thigh, minced; eggs: omelet, scrambled, fried, omelette, crêpes; legumes: pan-fried, cream, purée...)

  • Side dish/volume (different vegetables, raw/cooked, different textures)

  • Flavor (spices, herbs, acids, simple sauces)

3) The problem is not monotony. It is "distorted" monotony.

There is a helpful monotony: 2–3 basic breakfasts, 3–4 basic lunches, 3–4 basic dinners. It gives you stability.

And there's a monotony that gets on your nerves: the same sad flavors + hyper-tasty "exceptions" → then rebound.

So the right question is: where do you want more variety?

  • If you put it on desserts/snacks/condiments, it often increases hunger.

  • If you focus on protein, vegetables, and preparation, adherence often increases.

Evidence

Studies show that variety tends to increase how much you eat in a single meal (this is a robust effect). But that doesn't mean "less variety = better."

Meaning: choose where to put the variety.

The practical lever is this:

  • more variety in high-energy-density foods (snacks, sweets, sauces) → easier to "go overboard"

  • more variety in low-energy-density foods (vegetables) and protein sources → easier to stay regular

In practice

Step 1) The 2×2 rule: change two things, not ten

When a meal seems boring, don't start from scratch. Just change:

  • 1 protein (cut or source)

  • 1 side dish (different vegetable or different cooking method)

And leave the rest unchanged.

Quick example:

  • “chicken + zucchini” → becomes “eggs + peppers”

  • “tuna + salad” → becomes “mackerel + fennel”

  • “legumes + vegetables” → becomes “legumes + different vegetable cream”

If you want practical ideas for turning vegetables into "real food" (not punishment): How to cook vegetables.

Move 2) Unlock the "useless prohibitions" (those that make you monotonous)

Many diets become monotonous because you impose unnecessary rules on yourself.

There is no need to "clean up" everything. What is needed are criteria.

Useful question: What are you excluding out of fear, not reason?

Typical examples:

  • tastier cuts (which would give you satisfaction and adherence)

  • "normal" (full-fat) dairy products instead of sad (low-fat) versions

  • "Serious" carbs in quantities consistent with your activity level

If it helps you think in a less moralistic and more functional way, this article is a good bridge: Meat, fruit, and food categories.

Step 3) Use "flavor" as leverage, not as an excuse

If your meal is disappointing, it's normal to look for a "reward."

Three simple tricks:

  • acid (lemon, vinegar, yogurt) → enhances flavor without adding chaos

  • herbs and spices → change the dish without changing its structure

  • a basic sauce (plain tomato, yogurt + spices, diluted tahini) → makes it repeatable

Here is a practical guide to spices and "dieting" without paranoia: Spices: how to really use them.

Step 4) The minimum weekly rotation (which saves your grip)

You don't need daily creativity. You need rotation.

Try this (minimum):

  • 2 basic breakfasts

  • 3 basic lunches

  • 3 basic dinners

Each base has two variations (protein or side dish). End.

This is "always eating the same things" in the right way: stable, but not dreary.

Signals & stops

  • If "varying" for you just means adding snacks, sweets, and extras, that's not variety: it's noise.

  • If you are so rigid that any variation causes you anxiety, you don't need more variety: you need more leeway (and less perfection).

  • If monotony is leading you to episodes of loss of control, don't wait: you need a more comprehensive strategy and, often, support.

FAQs about monotonous diets

Is it better to always eat the same things to lose weight?
Eating the same things can help with regularity, but if it becomes boring and leads to rebound weight gain, it's a strategy that breaks down. The goal is stability with minimal rotation.

Variety = eating more? So should I avoid variety?
Variety easily increases intake when you add it to highly palatable foods. You don't have to eliminate variety: you have to shift it to proteins, vegetables, and "smart" preparations.

How can I vary my meals without wasting time?
With the 2×2 rule: change one protein and one side dish. And use basic spices/sauces to change the flavor without reinventing the meal.

If I get bored, does that mean I'm on the "wrong" diet?
Not necessarily. It often means that you have few "basic meals" and no variety. Before changing your diet, change the way you put your meals together.

Learn more
EAT Vincenzo EAT Vincenzo

Dolci e ricette fit fanno ingrassare? Quando aiutano e quando ti sabotano davvero

Il problema raramente è il dolce fit in sé. Di solito è l’uso che ne fai: porzioni, frequenza, licenza mentale e voglie che restano aperte.

Le ricette “fit” sono ovunque. E ormai fanno una cosa sorprendente: replicano quasi qualsiasi dolce tradizionale in versione “macro-friendly”.

La domanda, però, non è se siano buone o cattive.

La domanda utile è questa: che ruolo stanno giocando nella tua dieta?

Perché un dolce fit può essere un aiuto (ti fa stare nel piano), oppure un boomerang (ti tiene il palato sempre acceso e ti fa compensare).

For whom / Not for whom

Who it is for:

  • ti piacciono dolci “fit” (protein cookie, mug cake, cheesecake light, gelati proteici) e vuoi capire se e quando ti sabotano;

  • ti ritrovi a pensare: “Ok, ma allora posso mangiarli tutti i giorni?”

  • senti che alcune ricette “fit” ti fanno partire con voglie e snack a cascata.

Not for those who:

  • vuole una sentenza (“mai più dolci fit” o “vai tranquillo sempre”);

  • sta vivendo abbuffate frequenti o compensazioni: qui serve un lavoro dedicato con professionisti.

In short

Il problema raramente è “il dolce fit in sé”. Di solito è uno di questi:

  • Health halo: “se è fit posso esagerare”.

  • Frequenza: il dolce diventa un sottofondo quotidiano, non uno sfizio deciso.

  • Aspettativa vs realtà: lo vuoi tantissimo (wanting), ti soddisfa poco (liking) e allora cerchi altro.

  • Sostituzione sbagliata: usi il dolce fit al posto di un pasto stabile e poi la fame torna.

Se vuoi la lente di base su fame, appetito e sazietà (utile per capire perché certe voglie partono “prima” di te): Perché hai più fame di quella che vorresti.

Principles

1) Il “fit” non è un nutriente

“Fit” è un’etichetta. A volte significa:

  • meno zucchero,

  • più proteine,

  • più fibre,

  • porzione più controllata.

A volte significa solo: marketing.

E anche quando è fatto bene, resta una regola semplice: un dolce fit è comunque un dolce. Se lo usi come lasciapassare, ti frega.

2) Sostituzione vs moltiplicazione

C’è una differenza enorme tra:

  • sostituire un dolce tradizionale con una versione che ti aiuta a rientrare in un assetto più stabile,

vs

  • moltiplicare l’esposizione al dolce (dolce a colazione, dolce “fit” a merenda, dolce “fit” dopo cena) perché “tanto è ok”.

Nel primo caso può aumentare l’aderenza. Nel secondo stai allenando il palato nella direzione opposta.

3) Wanting e liking: puoi desiderare tanto e godere poco

Alcuni dolci fit sono bravissimi ad accendere il desiderio (la promessa è “dolce senza conseguenze”).

Ma quando li mangi, a volte non chiudono davvero il bisogno: ti lasciano in una zona grigia.

Risultato tipico: ne cerchi un altro. Non per fame vera, ma per “completare”.

4) Non esiste “o tutto o niente”

Tra “non provarlo mai” e “mangiarlo ogni giorno” c’è un mare di opzioni.

Qui non ti invitiamo a demonizzare il dolce. Ti invitiamo a decidere quando è nutrimento e quando è (iper)gratificazione — e di gestire entrambi con criterio.

Evidence (only what you need)

  • Le etichette e i claim (“low fat”, “light”, “senza zuccheri”) possono creare un effetto alone: percepisci il prodotto come più “leggero” e tendi a concederti porzioni più grandi o meno controllo.

  • La palatabilità influenza molto quanto mangi nel momento (saziazione), ma non garantisce che reggerai meglio dopo (sazietà).

  • Più varietà e più stimolo sensoriale rendono più facile mangiare oltre il necessario (e trovare “spazio” per altro).

  • Una dieta più basata su cibi ultra-processati può facilitare un aumento dell’introito energetico, anche a parità di macros “sulla carta”.

In practice

1) Decidi il ruolo: “nutrirmi” o “gratificarmi?”

Prima domanda (semplice, ma potente):

  • Questo dolce fit lo sto usando per nutrirmi (es. mi serve un’opzione comoda con proteine/fibre)?

  • O lo sto usando per gratificarmi (dolce, premio, break)?

Entrambe le risposte sono lecite. Cambia solo la gestione.

2) Regola della frequenza: “dolce deciso, non dolce sottofondo”

Se vuoi evitare l’auto-sabotaggio, scegli un ritmo.

Esempi pratici (scegline uno):

  • dolce fit 2–3 volte a settimana come sfizio;

  • dolce fit quotidiano solo se è una porzione piccola e non ti aumenta voglie/spuntini;

  • dolce “vero” una volta ogni tanto, e fit solo quando ti serve logistica.

Se il tuo dolce più critico è quello dopo cena, qui hai un protocollo pratico: Sfizio dopo cena: come gestirlo

3) Porzione: non trattarlo come “illimitato”

Il modo più comune di ingrassare “con i dolci fit” è banalissimo:

  • porzione non chiara,

  • assaggi continui,

  • “tanto è fit”.

Mossa starter: porziona prima.

  • porzione nel piatto/ciotola;

  • finisci e stop;

  • niente “spizzico mentre cucino”.

4) Se ti lascia in zona grigia, scegli un dolce diverso (o smetti di inseguire)

Se noti il pattern “lo mangio e poi ne cerco un altro”, non è il momento di stringere i denti.

È il momento di fare debug:

  • o lo rendi intenzionale (porzione + rituale + fine),

  • o scegli un’alternativa più soddisfacente (anche non fit), ma più rara e più consapevole.

Se ti capita spesso di “rincorrere” cibo e poi sentirti in colpa: Fame vera, fame emotiva e sensi di colpa

Signals & stops

Se riconosci questi segnali, riduci frequenza o cambia strategia:

  • il dolce fit ti porta a più snack nelle ore successive;

  • lo usi come “permesso” e finisci per mangiare di più nel totale;

  • ti ritrovi a pensare al dolce tutto il giorno (palato sempre acceso);

  • il dolce fit sostituisce pasti veri e poi la sera crolli;

  • entra un ciclo restrizione → sfogo → colpa.

Su quel ciclo, leggi qui: Il miglior modo per ingrassare è mettersi a dieta

FAQ su dolci e ricette fit

Quindi i dolci fit fanno ingrassare?
Non “per definizione”. Ti fanno ingrassare quando diventano un lasciapassare (porzioni più grandi, più frequenza, compensazioni) o quando ti tengono in una zona grigia di voglia non soddisfatta.

Meglio evitare del tutto?
Non serve. La mossa migliore è decidere ruolo (nutrimento vs sfizio) e frequenza. Un dolce fit può essere una soluzione logistica utile. Non dovrebbe diventare la colonna sonora della giornata.

Se è ricco di proteine, allora va bene sempre?
Le proteine aiutano, ma non rendono il prodotto “illimitato”. Se ti porta a mangiare di più nel totale, l’effetto pratico è comunque quello.

Perché mi viene voglia di altro subito dopo?
Perché a volte aumenta il “wanting” senza chiudere davvero il “liking”: desiderio alto, soddisfazione bassa. In quel caso o lo rendi intenzionale (porzione + fine) o scegli un dolce diverso e più raro.

Se uso dolcificanti nelle ricette fit è meglio o peggio?
Dipende dal tuo comportamento: se sostituiscono zucchero e ti aiutano a stare nel piano, ok. Se aumentano la tua esposizione quotidiana al dolce o ti portano a compensare, non aiutano.

Learn more
EAT Vincenzo EAT Vincenzo

I dolcificanti fanno ingrassare? Correlazione, causalità e come usarli senza auto-sabotarti

Se ti aiutano a sostituire zucchero, spesso sono utili. Se diventano un lasciapassare, ti fregano. Ecco come capirlo e usarli bene.

Ti hanno detto due cose opposte:

  • “Se è zero calorie, è sempre meglio.”

  • “Se è dolce ma senza calorie, il corpo si confonde e ingrassi.”

La verità è meno cinematografica (e più utile): dipende da cosa stai sostituendo e da che comportamento stai sbloccando.

Se un dolcificante ti aiuta a togliere zucchero senza aggiungere altro, spesso è un vantaggio. Se diventa un lasciapassare per aumentare dolcezza, frequenza o “extra”, può diventare un boomerang.

Qui facciamo una cosa semplice: separiamo correlazione da causalità e ti lasciamo criteri pratici per usarli senza auto-sabotarti.

For those who

  • Se usi (o stai pensando di usare) dolcificanti non nutritivi: bevande “zero”, stevia/aspartame nel caffè, yogurt/proteici dolcificati.

  • Se ti stai chiedendo se ti aumentano la fame o se ti bloccano il dimagrimento.

Not for whom

  • Se cerchi una sentenza (“bene” o “male”). Qui trovi criteri, non dogmi.

  • Se hai una condizione clinica per cui stai seguendo indicazioni specifiche: usa questo articolo come orientamento, non come prescrizione.

In short

Il punto non è “il dolcificante fa ingrassare?”. Il punto è: cosa sostituisce e che comportamento sblocca.

  • Se un dolcificante sostituisce zucchero (soprattutto nelle bevande), di solito ti aiuta: meno calorie senza perdere del tutto il gusto.

  • Se un dolcificante si aggiunge a una dieta già “dolce” (e diventa un lasciapassare), spesso non aiuta:

    • non per magia metabolica,

    • ma perché compensi (“tanto è zero”) o aumenti la frequenza dello stimolo dolce.

  • Le ricerche non raccontano una storia unica: la parte “confusa” nasce quasi sempre dal mischiare correlazione e causalità.

Principles

1) Sostituzione vs addizione

Sostituire zucchero con un dolcificante è una leva. Aggiungere dolcezza in più è un’abitudine.

Se ti trovi spesso in modalità “zero + extra”, il problema non è il dolcificante: è la licenza che ti dà.

2) Il “mismatch” (dolce senza energia)

Il sapore dolce è un segnale. Quando arriva senza energia, per alcune persone (e in alcuni contesti) può aumentare la probabilità di:

  • più fame a breve,

  • più voglia di cibi molto palatabili,

  • più fatica a “chiudere” il pasto.

Non è garantito. Ma è un pattern che vale la pena monitorare.

3) Non tutti i dolcificanti sono uguali

Quando parliamo di “dolcificanti”, spesso mettiamo nello stesso sacco cose diverse (aspartame, sucralosio, stevia, acesulfame-K, saccarina…).

A livello pratico, per te conta una cosa: come reagisci tu (fame, craving, aderenza), non il dibattito su internet.

Evidence

1) Perché gli studi “osservazionali” confondono

Negli studi osservazionali spesso trovi associazioni tipo “chi consuma più dolcificanti ha più peso”.

Ma questa può essere causalità inversa: chi ha già più peso (o sta cercando di dimagrire) sceglie più spesso prodotti “zero”. Quindi il dolcificante può essere un segnale di un problema già presente, non la causa.

2) Cosa succede nei trial (quando si sostituisce)

Quando i dolcificanti rimpiazzano zucchero (e non diventano un lasciapassare), diversi trial mostrano che non sono “peggio dell’acqua” e, in alcuni contesti, possono aiutare l’aderenza e il mantenimento.

Negli interventi strutturati (programma comportamentale, sostituzione di bevande zuccherate), la direzione tipica è: meno zucchero → meno energia → più facilità a stare nel piano.

3) Linee guida: perché l’OMS è prudente

L’OMS (2023) ha pubblicato una raccomandazione prudente: non usare i dolcificanti come strategia principale di controllo del peso.

Traduzione operativa: se ti aggrappi al “zero” per dimagrire, stai puntando sul dettaglio sbagliato. Usa piuttosto i dolcificanti come strumento di transizione, mentre riduci la dipendenza dal gusto dolce e stabilizzi la dieta.

In practice

1) Tre scenari e una scelta semplice

Scenario A — Bevi zucchero (succhi, bibite, tè zuccherati)

Qui il cambio è quasi sempre un win.

Mossa starter (7 giorni):

  • sostituisci solo le bevande zuccherate con acqua o “zero”,

  • senza aggiungere snack “perché tanto ho risparmiato”.

Se vuoi un gancio pratico sul tema “zuccheri liquidi”, puoi partire da qui: il succo di frutta è davvero ‘sano’?

Scenario B — Dolcifichi caffè/yogurt/proteici

Se ti aiuta a mantenere un’alimentazione stabile, ok.

Regola: tienilo come piccolo facilitatore, non come “dolce a richiesta” tutto il giorno.

Scenario C — Dopo lo “zero” ti viene più fame

Qui non devi “resistere”. Devi fare debug.

Mossa starter (7 giorni):

  • elimina i dolcificanti solo nelle ore in cui noti l’effetto (es. pomeriggio/sera),

  • lascia invariato il resto,

  • monitora: fame, voglia di dolce, spuntini.

Se l’hai notato soprattutto dopo cena, questo può aiutarti: perché il dolce entra anche da pieno

2) Le 4 regole “anti auto-sabotaggio”

  1. Usali per sostituire, non per aggiungere.

  2. Non comprarci il dessert: se risparmi 150 kcal e poi ne aggiungi 400, non è “metabolismo”: è matematica.

  3. Non aumentare la frequenza del dolce: se prima avevi un dolce ogni tanto e adesso hai “dolce” in ogni bevanda/snack, stai allenando il palato nella direzione opposta.

  4. Stabilità prima: se la tua dieta è già fragile, il “zero” diventa spesso un cerotto. Prima stabilizza pasti e proteine; poi affina i dettagli. (Se ti riconosci nella frustrazione da calorie e micro-ottimizzazioni, è utile leggere qui: frustrazione da kcal)

Signals & stops

Fermati e ricalibra se:

  • noti più fame nelle 1–3 ore dopo l’uso (pattern ripetuto, non un caso);

  • aumenti la frequenza di snack “perché tanto è zero”;

  • ti ritrovi a inseguire il dolce tutto il giorno (palato sempre acceso);

  • hai sintomi intestinali quando usi prodotti “senza zucchero” (qui spesso il problema sono polioli/fibre aggiunte, non i dolcificanti in sé).

FAQ su dolcificanti e peso

Quindi i dolcificanti “fanno ingrassare”?
Di default no. Il rischio pratico è che tu li usi in modo che ti faccia mangiare di più (compensazione) o che aumenti la tua esposizione al dolce. Se sostituiscono zucchero (soprattutto nelle bevande) e non diventano un lasciapassare, spesso sono neutri o utili.

È meglio l’acqua o la bibita “zero”?
Se bevi “zero” al posto di bibite zuccherate, è spesso un miglioramento. Se invece la “zero” ti alza fame/craving, l’acqua diventa la scelta più pulita. Non scegliere per ideologia: scegli per aderenza.

Stevia = meglio perché “naturale”?
“Naturale” non significa automaticamente “migliore”. A livello di gestione del peso vale la stessa regola: conta la sostituzione e il comportamento che sblocca.

Ci sono persone che dovrebbero evitarli?
Se hai fenilchetonuria, l’aspartame è da evitare (per la fenilalanina). Per tutto il resto, se hai dubbi o condizioni specifiche, confrontati con un professionista: qui stiamo parlando di strategie, non di terapia.

Learn more
EAT Vincenzo EAT Vincenzo

Perché ho sempre fame? 7 cause comuni e 4 check pratici

Se provi a risolvere fame, voglia e stress con la stessa arma (resistere), perdi. Qui capisci cosa sta succedendo e scegli una mossa piccola ma sensata.

Se ti sembra di avere fame “sempre”, la tentazione è semplice: darti una colpa.

Più utile è un’altra ipotesi: stai mescolando cose diverse (fame, appetito, voglia, stress, abitudine) e stai provando a risolverle tutte con la stessa risposta: resistere.

Qui facciamo il contrario: identifichi la causa più probabile e poi scegli una mossa piccola ma sensata.

For whom / Not for whom

Who it is for:

  • senti spesso fame anche quando “hai mangiato da poco”;

  • ti ritrovi a fare snack random e a rincorrere energia;

  • vuoi una pagina che ti orienti e ti indichi la mossa giusta (senza enciclopedia).

Not for those who:

  • cerca un trucco per non sentire mai fame (la fame è un segnale, non un bug);

  • sta vivendo abbuffate frequenti o compensazioni: lì serve un percorso dedicato con Professionisti.

In short

Avere sempre fame di solito non è “mancanza di forza di volontà”. È uno di questi scenari:

  • pasti poco stabili (ti riempi ma non reggi);

  • snack e bevande che alzano e abbassano l’energia;

  • sonno e stress che ti spostano verso cibi più facili;

  • restrizione rigida → desiderio → rimbalzo;

  • contesto “iper-stimolante” (varietà, ultra-processati, porzioni);

  • allenamento/deficit non gestiti.

Se vuoi la lente che spiega perché (fame vs appetito, sazietà vs saziazione, wanting/liking), parti da qui: Perché hai più fame di quella che vorresti

Principles

1) “Pieno” non significa “stabile”

Puoi sentirti pieno e avere fame dopo due ore. Succede quando il pasto ti sazia nel momento, ma non ti dà sazietà nelle ore successive.

2) Non è sempre fame: spesso è appetito (cue-driven)

Se l’unica cosa che ti va bene è “quel cibo preciso”, non è fame generica: è appetito, voglia, abitudine, contesto.

Le 7 cause più comuni (e dove andare)

1) Pasti poco stabili (ti fermi, ma non reggi)

Segnali tipici: fame a rimbalzo, spuntini inevitabili, porzioni che cambiano ogni giorno.

Mossa base: a pranzo e cena costruisci almeno un “piatto stabile” (proteine + qualcosa di saziante + porzione normale).

Per scegliere ritmo e quantità senza rigidità: Quanti pasti al giorno?

2) Snack e bevande “invisibili” (energia facile, fame veloce)

Segnali tipici: arrivi alle 16 distrutto, ti “salvi” con qualcosa di dolce, poi hai di nuovo fame.

Mossa base: se fai snack, fallo deciso (quando, cosa, quanto). E attenzione alle calorie liquide (succhi, bevande zuccherate, alcol).

Per decidere snack senza estremismi: Snack: sì o no?

3) Sonno scarso (più “drive”, meno margine)

Segnali tipici: fame e voglie più forti il giorno dopo, soprattutto per cibi rapidi e gratificanti.

Mossa base: non serve diventare monaco: ti basta una micro-routine che aumenti la probabilità di dormire meglio. Scopri come dormire meglio (già da stasera).

4) Stress e stanchezza mentale (mangi per spegnere, non per nutrire)

Segnali tipici: non hai fame “di stomaco”, ma vuoi qualcosa per cambiare stato. E spesso non ti soddisfa davvero.

Mossa base: prima di mangiare, fai una pausa breve (30–90 secondi) per tornare al volante; poi decidi.

Se qui ti riconosci spesso: Fame vera, fame emotiva e sensi di colpa

5) Restrizione rigida → desiderio → rimbalzo

Segnali tipici: giorni “perfetti” seguiti da giorni in cui salta tutto; sensi di colpa; compensazioni.

Mossa base: se il piano si regge solo con forza di volontà, è fragile. Ti serve un assetto più umano.

Scopri perché il miglior modo per ingrassare è mettersi a dieta.

6) Contesto iper-stimolante (varietà, ultra-processati, porzioni)

Segnali tipici: potresti smettere, ma “ti viene da continuare”; una cosa tira l’altra; mangi più per stimolo che per fame.

Mossa base: non devi “ripulire tutto”. Devi ridurre l’automatismo: porziona, scegli, sposta, rendi meno disponibile.

Per una lente utile su categorie e contesto: Cos’è davvero “cibo vero”?

7) Allenamento e deficit gestiti male

Segnali tipici: ti alleni duro, mangi poco, poi la fame ti travolge (o la sera “recuperi tutto”).

Mossa base: se il tuo obiettivo è dimagrire, il deficit deve essere sostenibile. Se il tuo obiettivo è performare, il carburante non è optional.

Per capire quando ha senso stringere e quando no: Allenarsi meno e mangiare meno

I 4 check (router) che risolvono l’80% dei casi

1) Check stabilità pasto

Chiediti: “Dopo questo pasto, reggo 3–5 ore?”

Se la risposta è quasi sempre “no”, il problema non è disciplina: è assetto.

2) Check tempo + specificità

  • Se sono passate molte ore e mangeresti anche qualcosa di semplice → più fame.

  • Se hai mangiato da poco e vuoi solo “quel cibo preciso” → più voglia/appetito.

3) Check sonno

Se dormi male, non sei “più debole”: hai semplicemente meno margine.

4) Check ambiente

Se ciò che ti “accende” è sempre a portata di mano in forma illimitata, stai chiedendo troppo alla tua forza di volontà.

In pratica: 4 mosse per oggi

  1. Aggiungi un’ancora proteica a pranzo e cena.

  2. Se fai snack, fallo deciso (non random): orario + porzione.

  3. Quando parte la voglia, fai 10 minuti di “buffer” (spostati, fai altro, bevi acqua): poi scegli.

  4. Proteggi il sonno con una micro-regola: stessa ora di stop schermi per 3 sere.

Signals & stops

  • Se la fame “sempre” è nuova, intensa e associata a sintomi insoliti (sete marcata, dimagrimento non voluto, tremori frequenti, insonnia importante), ha senso confrontarsi con il Medico.

  • Se senti di essere in un ciclo di abbuffate/compensazioni, la priorità non è aggiungere regole: è uscire dal loop con supporto professionale.

FAQ su “sempre fame”

Se ho sempre fame, devo mangiare più spesso?
Non per forza. A volte basta rendere i pasti più stabili. Se invece i tuoi pasti sono già solidi, aumentare la frequenza può diventare solo più opportunità di “fare snack”. Parti da: Quanti pasti al giorno?

È normale avere più fame quando dormo poco?
Sì, succede spesso: il giorno dopo hai più “drive” verso il cibo e meno margine decisionale. Non serve la notte di sonno perfetta: una routine minima può fare molto.

Il digiuno intermittente mi aiuta o mi fa venire più fame?
Dipende da come reagisci tu. Per alcune persone è comodo; per altre aumenta rimbalzi e voglie. Se ti porta a serate ingestibili, non è lo strumento giusto.

Cos’è il “food noise”?
È quando il cibo diventa un rumore di fondo: pensieri ricorrenti, voglie che partono da stimoli e contesto più che da fame. Se ti ci riconosci, spesso aiutano: struttura dei pasti, gestione snack e lavoro su fame emotiva.

Bere acqua mi “toglie” la fame?
A volte confondi sete e fame, quindi bere può aiutare. Ma se il problema è appetito/cue o un pasto instabile, l’acqua non sostituisce un assetto alimentare migliore.

Learn more

Do you want clear direction?

Take the Never Diet Check (2 min) →