If you'd like to open up a dialogue, it would be fair to use my whole text- not just one very out of context sentence.
½ to 1lb per week fat loss is generally noted(yes "generally", but noted nonetheless) to be the most sustainable rate of fat loss- drugs or not.
Except that's not what you said.
You said "The only real formula for sustainable weight loss is losing weight gradually, around ½lb/week.".
You didn't say "1/2 to 1lb", and you didn't say anything about "Generally noted".
You can't pull the "use my whole text" card, and then add words/change your statement.
You made a definitive, catch-all statements, that people parrot but is just flat out untrue.
"Rapid weight loss is never sustainable."
"The body will always return to homeostasis."
It's just B.S.
And yes, when your "proof" is anecdotal evidence, someone is in fact allowed to counter with anecdotal evidence. Especially when your statement is worded in a way that is definitive and doesn't allow for any exception.
But, if you want to pull that card, the effect of rapid weight loss vs slow weight loss wrt weight regain has in fact been studied and the literature we do have on the subject flies directly in the face of your arguments:
It is absolutely true that rapid weight loss, particularly the kind that relies on heavy compound usage, routinely backfires on people. I do not dispute that and don't think very many people would.
In fact, I am constantly making the counter-argument to clients and other people who are obsessed with compound use and short-term results in lieu of developing any discipline or healthy habits.
But your overarching and condescending statements are mostly just dogmatic horseshit, period.