Nick Szabo  🔑

I don’t know if we’re on the same page. There are separate studies about diet adherence, and they don’t necessarily find strong evidence that low carb diets have better adherence. There’s wide variability. What they do tend to show is whatever produces weight loss, yields benefit

You're insisting that nutrition studies be up to the rigors of physics, that if we don't isolate 1 cause to 1 effect ignore it. The biology is far too complex for that. If that's your standard there's no such thing as nutrition science & you should just eat what your grandpa ate.

BTW, scientific controls, while quite valuable for the science itself, are often abused in the reporting of science, here's a common way it is done: Study to show whether X causes Z via cause A, controlling for B,C,etc. Negative. Media reports as "study shows X doesn't cause Z."

I may have misused the term variable. What I was trying to say is, in order to understand the mechanism, we’d need to be able to tease out whether carbs -> overeating -> , or carbs-> X ->

For myself, I’d much rather keep eating carbs. I can control my intake by counting calories. It’s unclear to me how this study informs what *I* should do differently. Maybe it supports a *general* advice to the average person to eat low carb

People outside of hospitals with highly controlled menus generally do not and cannot accurately count their calories. I am calling bullshit.

Calling bullshit on the idea that I can reliably control my weight that way or that the average person can? Because I agree that low carb diets are extremely useful in that they’re self-regulating due to eating high satiety foods

Unless you show me the very expensive and highly unusual lab equipment you use, and the extremely oppressive behavioral controls that are needed to avoid eating outside those constraints, I am calling bullshit on your claim that you are accurately counting your calories.