> > I don't fully understand this compulsion to explain anything successful in the weight-loss field, ultimatlely, in terms of calorie restriction.
> Because any other hypothesis has to explain why it violates the conservation of energy and matter.
Umm, no. None of the weight loss diets violate the conservation of energy and matter. (The "I lived on just water for 10 years" diets do.)
Feces contains calories. Therefore conservation of energy isn't the only limiting factor - conversion and usage matter too.
There's no "conservation" argument that says that conversion effectiveness is a constant. Heck, there's no argument that says that calories/pound is a constant.
> But the direct cause of weight loss in IF is that you simply do not eat as much.
Nope. You lose weight when your body "releases" more mass than you're taking in.
Comments
> > I don't fully understand this compulsion to explain anything successful in the weight-loss field, ultimatlely, in terms of calorie restriction.
> Because any other hypothesis has to explain why it violates the conservation of energy and matter.
Umm, no. None of the weight loss diets violate the conservation of energy and matter. (The "I lived on just water for 10 years" diets do.)
Feces contains calories. Therefore conservation of energy isn't the only limiting factor - conversion and usage matter too.
There's no "conservation" argument that says that conversion effectiveness is a constant. Heck, there's no argument that says that calories/pound is a constant.
> But the direct cause of weight loss in IF is that you simply do not eat as much.
Nope. You lose weight when your body "releases" more mass than you're taking in.