It is a 100% undeniable fact that if you consume less calories than you burn. You will loose weight, that is irrefutable.
How you do that doesn't matter whatsoever, that's just laws of thermodynamics.
How you do that doesn't matter whatsoever, that's just laws of thermodynamics.
The question is what causes you to consume less than you burn?
It's saying it's the wrong place to try to find a leverage point for defeating it.
What Taubes is claiming is that talking about calories to someone who is obese doesn't help them. Like Nicholson's character says in "As Good As It Gets", it's like describing the water to someone who is drowning: it's information that is true, but doesn't solve their problem.
This is like saying it doesn't matter what means of transport you take to work because if you keep moving you'll get there eventually. It's kind of true, but it's missing the point - it's obviously better to e.g. cycle than to crawl.
Edit: before you nitpick about one being faster I'll change my analogy to walking forwards vs walking backwards at the same speed.
Without those systems, with just a 100kcal a day, you would gain 5kg of fat a year.
All of this is consistent with thermodynamics.
Eat nothing but grass and you will die of starvation. Yet ruminants live on grass, and its energy content can be measured with a calorimeter. Thermodynamics are a poor mechanism for understanding biology.
Given a calorie rich diet your body can decide to pass it in your poop or absorb it.
Given a fixed normal diet your body can decide to increase metabolism and decrease weight or decrease metabolism and increase weight.
People, even in the same occupations, like say a mail man that delivers mail on food is on average much heavier than in decades past.
Do you blame the food? Chemicals in the environment? Clearly there's a big shift that can't be explained just by more sedentary lifestyles.
It literally says loosing weight has nothing to do with energy.
Stating that this isn't a problem if thermodynamics isn't saying thermodynamics isn't real. It is just saying that it doesn't apply in this problem, i.e. it is an irrelevant factor.
It is similar to saying speed isn't the reason you are late to work today. There was an accident and the freeway was locked up. Speed is still real. It just doesn't explain anything.
If a problem were solved, then the problem would be solved. But that doesn't mean that every problem is best described as a "solve the problem"-problem .
Indeed, if the mass that exits the body (including via respiration) is more than the mass that enters it, then the mass of the body decreases. This is obvious. If you think that people advocating different focuses don't believe this, I think you are for the most part mistaken.
When people say that something "is an <X> problem", I think they generally mean (something along the lines of) that the most useful way (or, one way among the more useful ways) to think about the problem, is to think of it in terms of <X> , or that <X> is important to think about when trying to solve or understand the problem.
So, when someone says "It is a hormone problem, not a calorie problem", they aren't saying that human bodies violate conservation of mass, they are saying that the best way to understand the problem is through hormones, and how the hormones influence the mass in vs mass out.
When someone is drunk, they tend to behave differently. Surely you understand this? When someone is hungry, they tend to behave differently.
"In the future, eat less and exercise more." Is not an atomic action that a person can take at a given time. A person in the moment makes a decision as to what to do in that moment, and this can include thoughts or other mental actions with the goal of influencing their future decisions. But, if one's current "decision" to do something in the future is only a mental action with the goal of influencing the future actions, then to succeed in influencing those future actions, doing things that influence one's body chemistry and thereby influence one's future actions, can be helpful, and possibly more consistently effective than merely making some mental actions.
Suppose one wants to act in a professional and formal manner during a meeting which takes place in a few(?) hours. If one has this goal, then it may be helpful to currently refrain from drinking large quantities of alcohol. If one has adhd and needs to be able to focus on some task later in the day, that may be a reason for them to not refrain from taking their prescribed medication.
Our decision making processes are not like a RL-agent simply getting data in and sending actions out, but always using the same process, but rather, our interactions with the environment can influence our decision making processes. We can get drunk. we can consume caffeine. We can consume things that influence thought processes in more radical ways (like, hallucinogens or whatever). A railroad spike through the brain can drastically and in a long-term way alter someone's behavior.
If someone has an alien brain-slug on their head that compels them to punch spotted dogs that they encounter, the solution to this is not to tell them "stop punching spotted dogs", but to tell them to remove the alien brain-slug. This is true even if the former would result in them sometimes successfully resisting the compulsion to punch spotted dogs.
(?) : I don't actually know how long it takes for someone to become drunk or cease being drunk, as I've never really been around people while they have been drunk.