But Gary Taubes isn’t denying that more people came into the room than exited it. Surely you’re not arguing that he is?
Taubes also certainly doesn’t deny that, to lose weight, you have to be consuming less energy than you’re burning. Contrast this with what’s being claimed in this thread.
Completely agree with all this.
That doesn’t show that calories are irrelevant. That shows that the hormonal effects of different types of calories are also relevant. Why must it be either/or? I don’t understand the logic.
People are talking here as if we don’t know the energy inputs and outputs of the human body. But we do. You take in food as energy. (You aren’t photosynthesizing or getting energy in any other way.) And you’re burning energy to feed your cells, extra energy when some of those cells work extra hard (like your muscles when you pick up the remote control), respiration, body heat.
You can actually measure all of these inputs and outputs. Inputs by watching the calories that go into the body, outputs by using a calorimeter and watching the energy outputs of the body.
We know all of these inputs and outputs; that’s exactly how Ludwig did his study in November showing that low carbohydrate diets cause an increase in calories out (a study that was rightly celebrated by keto people, but that apparently the people arguing with me and @OldDoug would take issue with, because God forbid any scientist mention the word “calories.” And also, according to some people here, the laws of physics don’t apply to the human body, because it’s not a closed system, so the laws of thermodynamics don’t apply to it… or something!)
And now here’s Eric Westman again saying that you should lower your calorie intake if you’re not losing weight. “Calories matter. The amount you eat matters.” He’s obviously out of his mind and should be cast out from the keto community/church that he is largely responsible for creating:
Look, if you want to believe that the laws of physics don’t apply, then you’re really no different from a climate change denier or an anti-vaxxer. That’s fine but don’t pretend that you’re basing your diet on science. You’re basing it on faith. That may have little practical impact because you’ve accidentally stumbled upon believing in a science-based diet, but you’re not believing in it because it’s correct, you’re believing in it because you have faith in the gospel. Don’t expect sympathy when I find you arguing with a vegan, because they’re also faith-based eaters!