[Dylan16807]

> In the short term a reduction in energy intake is counteracted by mechanisms that reduce metabolic rate and increase calorie intake, ensuring the regaining of lost weight.

If calorie intake increases, then it's no longer "calorie restriction".

If his actual claim was that calorie restriction does not cause weight loss, then that's wild despite your quote.

> I'm not going to go on and on...

Well you didn't address the other really egregious supposed claim, that "non-nutritive sweeteners have the same impact on fat/weight gain as sugar". If that's an accurate description of his stance, that's really bad.

[scoofy]

>While people often choose “diet” or “light” products to lose weight, research studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2892765/

Again… things that are counterintuitive are exactly the purview of good science. The human body is an absurdly complex multi-variate system that is confounding even in the areas we pretend to understand.

The interaction of the neurologist of taste on biological processes may be affecting the hunger responses, thus weight gain.

This shit is not simple, and the simplistic models we use to explain these processes are exactly the type on ultimately wrong knowledge that Karl Popper rails against.

Again, I definitely think Lustig claims debatable things overconfidently, but he’s no crank.

[Dylan16807]

"may contribute" is really far from "the same impact"

Even more so if there's a calorie restriction going on, but still so if there isn't.

[scoofy]

"is a crank" is really far from "has some controversial or heterodox views"

I'm not arguing that everything Lustig says is correct, on the contrary, I've gone out of my way to criticize him. My point in this conversation is that saying a reputable scientist, at a reputable institution, doing reputable research is somehow a crank... is bananas.

[Dylan16807]

If he actually said it's the same impact, that is much closer to crank than controversial without a few pieces of really strong evidence.

And the counterargument you had for calorie restriction described a situation that is not calorie restriction.

I'm not saying he's a crank for sure, but my evaluation of him is riding on whether loeg's description of his claims is accurate, not the evidence you brought, because that evidence really does not support the plausibility of those claims.

[loeg]

What do you imagine "crank" means that differs from having some heterodox views? That is the definition of this use.

"a person who has strange or unusual ideas and beliefs"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/crank