One for TC... ;)

Mirek Fidler said:

http://www.theomnivore.com/calories_do_count_baby.html

Mirek

Of course calories count. That is why every single person that tried to
lose weight by counting calories succeeded in losing all the weight
they wanted to and succeeded in keeping it off. And that is also why
the US has no obesity problems whatsoever and no diabetes problems and
no heart disease problems and no need for stomach stapling surgery and
no need for liposuction procedures.

The American Paradox.

TC

A quick look at the empty USENET group alt.support.diet.low-calorie reveals
the extraordinary rejection of caloric restriction. Thus, the ambiguity,
that the key to weightloss can be clearly known, specifically calorie
reduction, yet people fail to do it. The conditions in American society you
describe are the result.

Some people begin a low calorie program, but then, very soon, they start
cheating. Often they estimate their calories with a distorted mindset. The
result is a proclamation that reducing calories does not work. This is a
false proclamation based on a very natural delusion.

Compliance is the key.

"TC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mirek Fidler said:

http://www.theomnivore.com/calories_do_count_baby.html

Mirek

Of course calories count. That is why every single person that tried to
lose weight by counting calories succeeded in losing all the weight
they wanted to and succeeded in keeping it off. And that is also why
the US has no obesity problems whatsoever and no diabetes problems and
no heart disease problems and no need for stomach stapling surgery and
no need for liposuction procedures.

The American Paradox.

TC

Cubit said:

A quick look at the empty USENET group alt.support.diet.low-calorie reveals
the extraordinary rejection of caloric restriction. Thus, the ambiguity,
that the key to weightloss can be clearly known, specifically calorie
reduction, yet people fail to do it. The conditions in American society you
describe are the result.

So the reason that caloric restriction fails is because people really
don't believe in it they fail to give it enough of an effort.

Quoted message said:

Some people begin a low calorie program, but then, very soon, they start
cheating.

So they fail because they are dishonest.

Quoted message said:

Often they estimate their calories with a distorted mindset.

Or they are mentally incapable.

Quoted message said:

The
result is a proclamation that reducing calories does not work.

Or they are quick to judgement after they are unable to make it work.

Quoted message said:

This is a
false proclamation based on a very natural delusion.

But they are deluded.

Quoted message said:

Compliance is the key.

They should get their [censored] together and make it work.

So 95% of the people who fail to lose weight by caloric restriction are
just a bunch of whiny, stupid, mentally incapable, deluded,
non-believers who simple can't keep their [censored] together long enough to
ensure compliance long enough to succeed.

Yet many of these same people seem to be able to easily succeed by carb
restriction.

Yep, you've convinced me that caloric restriction is the key in spite
of its 95%+ failure rate.

TC

Actually, I agree with most of your comments, which you intended as sarcasm!

Carb restriction favorably influences the innate caloric regulatory system,
which is what is responsible for the typical failures at conscious efforts
at caloric restriction.

"TC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Cubit said:

A quick look at the empty USENET group alt.support.diet.low-calorie

reveals

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the extraordinary rejection of caloric restriction. Thus, the

ambiguity,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that the key to weightloss can be clearly known, specifically calorie
reduction, yet people fail to do it. The conditions in American society

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

describe are the result.

So the reason that caloric restriction fails is because people really
don't believe in it they fail to give it enough of an effort.

Quoted message said:

Some people begin a low calorie program, but then, very soon, they start
cheating.

So they fail because they are dishonest.

Quoted message said:

Often they estimate their calories with a distorted mindset.

Or they are mentally incapable.

Quoted message said:

The
result is a proclamation that reducing calories does not work.

Or they are quick to judgement after they are unable to make it work.

Quoted message said:

This is a
false proclamation based on a very natural delusion.

But they are deluded.

Quoted message said:

Compliance is the key.

They should get their [censored] together and make it work.

So 95% of the people who fail to lose weight by caloric restriction are
just a bunch of whiny, stupid, mentally incapable, deluded,
non-believers who simple can't keep their [censored] together long enough to
ensure compliance long enough to succeed.

Yet many of these same people seem to be able to easily succeed by carb
restriction.

Yep, you've convinced me that caloric restriction is the key in spite
of its 95%+ failure rate.

TC

Cubit said:

Actually, I agree with most of your comments, which you intended as sarcasm!

Carb restriction favorably influences the innate caloric regulatory system,
which is what is responsible for the typical failures at conscious efforts
at caloric restriction.

I think there is room for calorie restriction/counting in a low carb
lifestyle. You simply cannot 'eat all you want' on a low carb diet. I
am sorry, if you eat 4500 calories a day of low carb food, you will
remain fat.

Now, some people may naturally down-regulate their apetite eating low
carb, to the point that they naturally restrict calories to a level
where they lose weight. Awesome for them. Doesn't work for me. I
have to be conscious of what I am eating, and if not strictly counting
calories, make sure I am eating meals for which I have a rough idea of
the calorie count.

Low carb definitely does help curb my apetite. Calorie restrictions is
*much* easier for me when I follow a low carb lifestyle. I don't get
light headed when hungry, I don't get headaches, and in general hunger
is much easier to simply ignore.

Bingo!

"joshv" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Cubit said:

Actually, I agree with most of your comments, which you intended as

sarcasm!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Carb restriction favorably influences the innate caloric regulatory

system,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

which is what is responsible for the typical failures at conscious

efforts

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

at caloric restriction.

I think there is room for calorie restriction/counting in a low carb
lifestyle. You simply cannot 'eat all you want' on a low carb diet. I
am sorry, if you eat 4500 calories a day of low carb food, you will
remain fat.

Now, some people may naturally down-regulate their apetite eating low
carb, to the point that they naturally restrict calories to a level
where they lose weight. Awesome for them. Doesn't work for me. I
have to be conscious of what I am eating, and if not strictly counting
calories, make sure I am eating meals for which I have a rough idea of
the calorie count.

Low carb definitely does help curb my apetite. Calorie restrictions is
*much* easier for me when I follow a low carb lifestyle. I don't get
light headed when hungry, I don't get headaches, and in general hunger
is much easier to simply ignore.

Cubit said:

Actually, I agree with most of your comments, which you intended as sarcasm!

Carb restriction favorably influences the innate caloric regulatory system,
which is what is responsible for the typical failures at conscious efforts
at caloric restriction.

Could you please provide me with a clear, concise description of this
"innate caloric regulatory system" that you refer to?

How exactly does the body regulate fat storage based solely on caloric
intake and expenditure? Please, give us the precise bio-chemical
mechanisms that do this. How does the body know that it is low in
calories and how does it trigger fat-loss in this case. Conversely, how
exactly does the body detect an excess of calories and how exactly does
this specific factor trigger fat storage. Connect the dots for us.

Your "innate caloric regulatory system" is a mythical beast that only
exists in the minds of the modern-day alchemists who pretend to be
scientists.

TC

TC said:

Mirek Fidler said:

http://www.theomnivore.com/calories_do_count_baby.html

Mirek

Of course calories count. That is why every single person that tried to
lose weight by counting calories succeeded in losing all the weight
they wanted to and succeeded in keeping it off. And that is also why
the US has no obesity problems whatsoever and no diabetes problems and
no heart disease problems and no need for stomach stapling surgery and
no need for liposuction procedures.

Actually, I think that "they" want you to believe that only fat makes
you fat 🙂

Do not make the same mistake.

Mirek

TC said:

Cubit said:

Actually, I agree with most of your comments, which you intended as sarcasm!

Carb restriction favorably influences the innate caloric regulatory system,
which is what is responsible for the typical failures at conscious efforts
at caloric restriction.

Could you please provide me with a clear, concise description of this
"innate caloric regulatory system" that you refer to?

How exactly does the body regulate fat storage based solely on caloric
intake and expenditure? Please, give us the precise bio-chemical
mechanisms that do this. How does the body know that it is low in
calories and how does it trigger fat-loss in this case. Conversely, how
exactly does the body detect an excess of calories and how exactly does
this specific factor trigger fat storage. Connect the dots for us.

Nobody knows exact mechanism. All you can depend on here is empirical
data. And they strongly support idea that calories do count.

Quoted message said:

Your "innate caloric regulatory system" is a mythical beast that only
exists in the minds of the modern-day alchemists who pretend to be
scientists.

Hm, kind of funny when 4 low-carbers argue about this topic...

Anyway, I believe that it is you here coming with extraordinary claims,
so it is again you to prove things (like Montygram, whose grandparents
lived for 100 years without eating PUFA3).

Mirek

Mirek Fidler said:

TC said:

Cubit said:

Actually, I agree with most of your comments, which you intended as sarcasm!

Carb restriction favorably influences the innate caloric regulatory system,
which is what is responsible for the typical failures at conscious efforts
at caloric restriction.

Could you please provide me with a clear, concise description of this
"innate caloric regulatory system" that you refer to?

How exactly does the body regulate fat storage based solely on caloric
intake and expenditure? Please, give us the precise bio-chemical
mechanisms that do this. How does the body know that it is low in
calories and how does it trigger fat-loss in this case. Conversely, how
exactly does the body detect an excess of calories and how exactly does
this specific factor trigger fat storage. Connect the dots for us.

Quoted message said:

Nobody knows exact mechanism. All you can depend on here is empirical
data. And they strongly support idea that calories do count.

Nobody knows the exact mechanism.

Read that again. After over a hundred years of calorie counting and
billions spent on nutrition research, nobody knows the exact mechanism.

And the empirical data shows that calorie counting fails in 95%+ of the
cases.

Nobody knows the exact mechanism. Why do they not know the exact
mechanism? How can they support the concpet that fails in 95% of cases
and after 100 years they cannot explain the exact mechanism.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your "innate caloric regulatory system" is a mythical beast that only
exists in the minds of the modern-day alchemists who pretend to be
scientists.

Hm, kind of funny when 4 low-carbers argue about this topic...

Anyway, I believe that it is you here coming with extraordinary claims,
so it is again you to prove things (like Montygram, whose grandparents
lived for 100 years without eating PUFA3).

Mirek

After a hundred years of calorie counting failures, it is time to look
a bit closer at the calorie concept. And the first question to ask is
how does the "innate caloric regulatory system" actually work. That is
the nature of science, ask the hard questions and study the subject
until you understand not only what works but you also understand
exactly how it works.

But you say that nobody knows.

Then how can you be so certain that it does work. If it did work,
anyone who puts in even a modicum of effort to restrict high calorie
foods, even a little bit, would easily succeed in losing some weight.
And it would not be that difficult to maintain the weight loss, just
eat less and exercise more, right? There are hundreds of products that
were engineered to be low calorie, so the availability of low calorie
foods is not an issue. It is easy to eat less and onlu just a bit
harder to exercise more. And it isn't just the lazy gluttons that have
trouble maintaining their weights, many people work very hard at eating
less and exercising more and still cannot achieve any weight loss of
any note. You would think that those really putting in the effort would
succeed, but the failure rate is in the 90th percentile. Surely more
than 5 or 10 percent of the population can learn to count calories
correctly.

For a hundred years calorie counting it has been preached from the
pulpit of science as the very essence of weight control. Yet, America
and the world has never been fatter.

And no-one cannot explain how the "innate caloric regulatory system"
actually works. Maybe, just maybe, it doesn't.

TC

Someone posted a study that was supposed to support the "essential
fatty acid" claim (they are unable to state it as a scientific
hypothesis), and it made the point that I have made on this NG for
years, that is, when you feed animals lots of omega 6 PUFA, their
"feeding efficiency" goes way up. What that means is the animals put
on a lot of weight with mimimal food consumed. If you want to lose
weight, first thing you should do is to avoid any major source of PUFAs
(and unsaturated fatty acids in general). All the "chronic disease"
"epidemics" conincide with the increasing consumption of oils high in
omega 6 PUFAs. Feeding soy and corn to fatten up animals has been
known by farmers for decades now. Give it a chance if you are serious
about losing weight (assuming you are now overweight by a substantial
degree).

nutrients? It's like you eat and part of it goes out without
processing, so actually it's like you eat less. but the effort of
digestion does put oxidative stress on the body.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nobody knows exact mechanism. All you can depend on here is empirical
data. And they strongly support idea that calories do count.

Nobody knows the exact mechanism.

Read that again. After over a hundred years of calorie counting and
billions spent on nutrition research, nobody knows the exact mechanism.

Dear TC, there is subtle but very improtant difference between "calorie
counting" as dieting method and "calories do count" claim.

Quoted message said:

Nobody knows the exact mechanism. Why do they not know the exact
mechanism?

Because it is way too complicated? Actually, *EXACT* mechanism is not
known in many other cases - e.g. nobody knows *EXACT* mechanisms that
are involved in cumbustion engines - but we still can build them and
measure their fuel consumption.

Quoted message said:

After a hundred years of calorie counting failures, it is time to look

The problem is, there were NONE. Each time calorie restriction is
performed in controlled environment, it works.

Quoted message said:

But you say that nobody knows.

Then how can you be so certain that it does work. If it did work,
anyone who puts in even a modicum of effort to restrict high calorie
foods, even a little bit, would easily succeed in losing some weight.

That is the problem. Restricting high calorie foods is not the same
thing as restricting calories.

Quoted message said:

And it would not be that difficult to maintain the weight loss, just
eat less and exercise more, right? There are hundreds of products that
were engineered to be low calorie, so the availability of low calorie
foods is not an issue.

You keep to be absolutely wrong. Low calorie products have NOTHING to do
with caloric restriction.

And, just for the mark, you are absolutely right that eating low-calorie
food ad libitum does not work in 95% cases. People just eat more of it.

Mirek

Mirek Fidler said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nobody knows exact mechanism. All you can depend on here is empirical
data. And they strongly support idea that calories do count.

Nobody knows the exact mechanism.

Read that again. After over a hundred years of calorie counting and
billions spent on nutrition research, nobody knows the exact mechanism.

Dear TC, there is subtle but very improtant difference between "calorie
counting" as dieting method and "calories do count" claim.

Calorie counting does not work.

And until someone can explain how exactly calories count, and to
exactly what extent they do count, and why counting them seems to fail
95%+ of the time, I see no practicality in the phrase "calories do
count". That is like saying that the location of the stars count, and
as far as I can see the only practical use for the stars is the
location of the northern star for navigation, otherwise they are of no
use. They exist and can be seen, our forefathers revered them, but they
are of no practical use whatsoever.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nobody knows the exact mechanism. Why do they not know the exact
mechanism?

Because it is way too complicated? Actually, *EXACT* mechanism is not
known in many other cases - e.g. nobody knows *EXACT* mechanisms that
are involved in cumbustion engines - but we still can build them and
measure their fuel consumption.

How about a general description of the process? You know the cells,
enzymes, hormones, bio-chemical cascades involved? We know virtually
everything about the inner workings of every organ and cell in the
human body, but we do not know even the rudiments of how our body is
triggered to store or lose fat from its excess or deficiency of
calories. We do not know how it works because we are talking about a
feedback regulatory system that does not exist.

We know the exact mechanism of how internal combustion engines work. We
can create hundreds of variant designs of various sizes and
efficiencies using various types of fuels anytime we want. There is
abolutely no mystery as to how engines work. It is not a black box and
neither is our metabolic system.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After a hundred years of calorie counting failures, it is time to look

The problem is, there were NONE. Each time calorie restriction is
performed in controlled environment, it works.

Bullsh*t. Every time we starve we will lose weight but that is not
exactly what we are looking for. What we are looking for is to restrict
calorie consumption by just enough to start losing weight
progressively. It does not take a huge restriction, just enough to
ensutre that energy expenditure exceeds energy intake, and then to
maintain that level of intake for an extended period of time. But even
people on very low calorie diets still find it nearly impossible to
lose weight, and then keeping it off is virtually impossible.

The formula is simple, eat less and exercise more. Yet, 95%+ of people
find this impossible to do. The reason why it is impossible is not
because people are stupid, or dishonest, or lazy, or mentally
unbalanced. It is because it does not work. Period.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But you say that nobody knows.

Then how can you be so certain that it does work. If it did work,
anyone who puts in even a modicum of effort to restrict high calorie
foods, even a little bit, would easily succeed in losing some weight.

That is the problem. Restricting high calorie foods is not the same
thing as restricting calories.

But the strategy has always been to cut back high-calorie foods
(ie.fats) and consume low-calorie foods (ie, carbs). In fact studies
have shown that since the 1970's people are eating about 10% less fat
and about 10 or 12% more carbs, on average, and they are fatter than
ever. Obesity has more than tripled.

Low carb has been attacked as being silly simply because it encouraged
the consumption of high calorie fats and discouraged the consumption of
low-calorie carbs. Scientists were publicly condemning the diet because
it was supposed to go against the very basic laws of thermodynamics.
Atkins was a quack because he was purported to be pushing a diet that
was scientifically impossible.

Restricting fats is absolutely synonymous with restricting calories.
They are one and the same.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And it would not be that difficult to maintain the weight loss, just
eat less and exercise more, right? There are hundreds of products that
were engineered to be low calorie, so the availability of low calorie
foods is not an issue.

You keep to be absolutely wrong. Low calorie products have NOTHING to do
with caloric restriction.

Restricting fat, restricting calories, eating low-calorie foods, eating
low-fat foods. These are all part of the same concept of eating less
calories and expending more calories. And that simple concept is all
that is supposed to be required to lose weight and maintain the weight
loss. You cannot separate them.

Quoted message said:

And, just for the mark, you are absolutely right that eating low-calorie
food ad libitum does not work in 95% cases. People just eat more of it.

Mirek

Not all. Many succeed in eating less calories and expending more
calories and still fail to lose weight. Studies have shown clearly that
low-carbers were able to eat up to 300 calories more than low-fatters
and still either lose weight, lose more weight than low-fatters, and/or
maintain their weight loss. If that doesn't bring the whole
calorie-is-all concept to its knees, then we are really basing our
beliefs on blind faith. And since we cannot explain the exact
mechanism, or even a give generally accepted theory on the mechanism
for the calorie-based fat regulatory system, we might as well come up
with some low-calorie based religious icons and start genuflecting in
their presence, because we aren't talking about science anymore.

TC

Question of the day:
What do George Bush and TC have in common?
Answer: Neither of them will ever change his mind on his false war.

In my experience both calories and (especially hi GI) carbs count.
The negative health effects of excess in either one are quite clear,
separately or together.
As in Enron, and Republican budgeting, the only remaining debate is
about the accuracy of the accounting system used, and who performs
the spin.
Like "W", TCs main value is in the entertainment of idle minds!
(Mirek excluded, of course).

MikeV

"Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

TC said:

Mirek Fidler said:

http://www.theomnivore.com/calories_do_count_baby.html

Mirek

Of course calories count. That is why every single person that
tried to
lose weight by counting calories succeeded in losing all the
weight
they wanted to and succeeded in keeping it off. And that is also
why
the US has no obesity problems whatsoever and no diabetes
problems and
no heart disease problems and no need for stomach stapling
surgery and
no need for liposuction procedures.

Actually, I think that "they" want you to believe that only fat
makes you fat 🙂

Do not make the same mistake.

Mirek

How about answering the question put forward? Or are you just
interested in spin. You appear to have that in common with Bush.

TC

MikeV said:

Question of the day:
What do George Bush and TC have in common?
Answer: Neither of them will ever change his mind on his false war.

In my experience both calories and (especially hi GI) carbs count.
The negative health effects of excess in either one are quite clear,
separately or together.
As in Enron, and Republican budgeting, the only remaining debate is
about the accuracy of the accounting system used, and who performs
the spin.
Like "W", TCs main value is in the entertainment of idle minds!
(Mirek excluded, of course).

MikeV

"Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

TC said:

Mirek Fidler wrote:

>http://www.theomnivore.com/calories_do_count_baby.html
>
>Mirek

Of course calories count. That is why every single person that
tried to
lose weight by counting calories succeeded in losing all the
weight
they wanted to and succeeded in keeping it off. And that is also
why
the US has no obesity problems whatsoever and no diabetes
problems and
no heart disease problems and no need for stomach stapling
surgery and
no need for liposuction procedures.

Actually, I think that "they" want you to believe that only fat
makes you fat 🙂

Do not make the same mistake.

Mirek

Why?
We should probably get the evolution versus intelligent design thing
settled first.
Thanks for the opportunity tho'
MikeV

"TC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

How about answering the question put forward? Or are you just
interested in spin. You appear to have that in common with Bush.

TC

MikeV said:

Question of the day:
What do George Bush and TC have in common?
Answer: Neither of them will ever change his mind on his false
war.

In my experience both calories and (especially hi GI) carbs
count.
The negative health effects of excess in either one are quite
clear,
separately or together.
As in Enron, and Republican budgeting, the only remaining debate
is
about the accuracy of the accounting system used, and who
performs
the spin.
Like "W", TCs main value is in the entertainment of idle minds!
(Mirek excluded, of course).

MikeV

"Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

TC wrote:
> Mirek Fidler wrote:
>
>>http://www.theomnivore.com/calories_do_count_baby.html
>>
>>Mirek
>
>
> Of course calories count. That is why every single person that
> tried to
> lose weight by counting calories succeeded in losing all the
> weight
> they wanted to and succeeded in keeping it off. And that is
> also
> why
> the US has no obesity problems whatsoever and no diabetes
> problems and
> no heart disease problems and no need for stomach stapling
> surgery and
> no need for liposuction procedures.

Actually, I think that "they" want you to believe that only fat
makes you fat 🙂

Do not make the same mistake.

Mirek

"TC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The problem is, there were NONE. Each time calorie restriction is
performed in controlled environment, it works.

Bullsh*t. Every time we starve we will lose weight but that is not
exactly what we are looking for. What we are looking for is to restrict
calorie consumption by just enough to start losing weight
progressively. It does not take a huge restriction, just enough to
ensutre that energy expenditure exceeds energy intake, and then to
maintain that level of intake for an extended period of time. But even
people on very low calorie diets still find it nearly impossible to
lose weight, and then keeping it off is virtually impossible.

The formula is simple, eat less and exercise more. Yet, 95%+ of people
find this impossible to do. The reason why it is impossible is not
because people are stupid, or dishonest, or lazy, or mentally
unbalanced. It is because it does not work. Period.

[snip]

Like the man said, calorie restriction does work in the lab. The subjects
need to be prisoners and the food portions need to be measured by a third
party. There are many "normal" human delusions about the world. It may be
that if humans had to rationally think through how much is correct to eat
the species would be at risk. Thus, a subconscious mechanism evolved, which
manipulates the conscious mind to achieve caloric intake regulation. It
works slowly. Day to day calories vary, but if you look at a monthly
average you will find remarkable consistency. Some aspect of the modern
diet imbalances the regulatory mechanism. My guess is that it is the intake
of grains and starches that confuse the regulator.

I would not call people "stupid, or dishonest, or lazy, or mentally
unbalanced" for being unable to maintain conscious control of a process the
body is designed to do subconsciously. If you were trying to consciously
control the number of hours of sleep (without using an alarm) it would be
silly to call a person "stupid, or dishonest, or lazy, or mentally
unbalanced" because they sleep a different number of hours than they decided
to sleep ahead of going to bed.

You ask for proof. The evidence is in the studies where subjects were
prisoners and have the third party measuring. The studies that use personal
journals are just plain wrong.

The Atkins metabolic advantage may or may not be true. If true, it is a
limited percentage change in the balance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because it is way too complicated? Actually, *EXACT* mechanism is not
known in many other cases - e.g. nobody knows *EXACT* mechanisms that
are involved in cumbustion engines - but we still can build them and
measure their fuel consumption.

How about a general description of the process? You know the cells,
enzymes, hormones, bio-chemical cascades involved? We know virtually
everything about the inner workings of every organ and cell in the
human body,

Actually, this claim is false. What you perhaps do not understand is
that we just barely start to know how our bodies work.

Quoted message said:

We know the exact mechanism of how internal combustion engines work.

Well, general principle maybe, but not exact mechanism.

Quoted message said:

We
can create hundreds of variant designs of various sizes and
efficiencies using various types of fuels anytime we want.

But we can only estimate their real-world behaviour, based on previous
designs and emprical data and never really know the exact parameters
before we build them.

Quoted message said:

There is
abolutely no mystery as to how engines work. It is not a black box and
neither is our metabolic system.

Well, try to describe them using quantum mechanics. Even at this level,
which is not final, you will not be able to solve shrodinger's equations
and really demonstrate what makes the piston move.

All of our "knowing" is just estimates. We have quite precise estimates
about engines, less precise about bodies.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is the problem. Restricting high calorie foods is not the same
thing as restricting calories.

But the strategy has always been to cut back high-calorie foods
(ie.fats) and consume low-calorie foods (ie, carbs). In fact studies
have shown that since the 1970's people are eating about 10% less fat
and about 10 or 12% more carbs, on average, and they are fatter than
ever. Obesity has more than tripled.

Well, but that is not the same thing as "calories do count" claim, you
know? We both agree that increasing carbs to fats is the worst thing you
can do to lose weight.

Quoted message said:

Low carb has been attacked as being silly simply because it encouraged
the consumption of high calorie fats and discouraged the consumption of
low-calorie carbs. Scientists were publicly condemning the diet because
it was supposed to go against the very basic laws of thermodynamics.
Atkins was a quack because he was purported to be pushing a diet that
was scientifically impossible.

Quoted message said:

Restricting fats is absolutely synonymous with restricting calories.
They are one and the same.

OK, if this is what is "calorie counting" for you, I can agree, but be
aware that the rest of the world shares completely different definition.
Perhaps this could explain to you why everybody is arguing you when you
start your "calories do not count" claims.

Next time please rather claim that "fat % do not count".

Mirek