Your equation doesn't include those of use that consume a lot of calories, and don't spend a lot of time exersizing, and stay rail thin.
As a food service professional, I care about this issue. I'm glad they are doing the test. I look forward to the results.
/johnny
>>What kind of calories? Carbohydrates? Fats? The body treats them differently.
Your equation doesn’t include those of use that consume a lot of calories, and don’t spend a lot of time exersizing, and stay rail thin.<<
Statistical Outlier. There are some forms of calories that affect the formula more than others but overall the formula holds.
Wishful thinking “science” in weight loss is just that. Wishful thinking. Good for Dr. Nick infomercials at 1:00 AM.
Look at the show “Biggest Loser.” They do formulate the diets to be the most efficient for weight loss (and tailor it to the the individual). But it is the sweat that does the most (and most important) work.
I think he's suggesting that obesity is a function, at least for the vast majority of people, of the total number of calories consumed vs. the total number of calories burned. If so, he's correct. If you burn more energy than you consume, you will lose weight. If you exercise regularly, you will burn even more calories than by only employing calorie restriction. Pretty simple, really. Although the people out there touting the latest diet fad, while selling their latest diet book, will vehemently disagree, the macronutrient ratio is not all that important. What really matters is total energy consumed vs. total energy burned.
Also, a calorie is a measure of the amount of energy. This is how a calorie is defined. As such, a calorie will always be the same. When your body metabolizes fat, amino acids or carbohydrates, different pathways are used for each and the efficiencies will not be the same for each process. Even so, a calorie is always a calorie.
Taubes has made a good living demonizing one macronutrient over another. That may be an effective way to sell books, and earn lecture fees, but it doesn't offer much for those looking for something other than assumptions being presented as facts. Taubes touts the Atkins diet, but Atkins is really nothing more than a low calorie diet in disguise. Taubes also seems intent on denying the basic thermodynamic perspective. Taubes isn't a scientist. If he were, he'd know that calories are the bottom line.