And I just thought of one last thing to say in terms of this debate, let's turn to logic:
If a statement is true, the contrapositive must be true, but the inverse and converse do not need to be.
More on that here:
http://www.jimloy.com/logic/converse.htmStatement: If you have a negative calorie balance, you lose weight
Converse: If you are losing weight, you have a negative calorie balance
Inverse: If you don't have a negative calorie balance, you are not losing weight
Contrapositive: If you didn't lose weight, you did not have a negative calorie balance.
The first statement is correct probably 95% of the time. THere are caveats though which we discussed. Once you go into starvatino mode, you are screwed, once exposed to food. Metabolically your body is trying to store fat. I think it is possible to get fat eating few calories if you're stressed out enough.
Converse: This can certainly be true, but it can be false. Look up the raw food diet weight loss. I also provided a link to one blog talking about a high carb low protein diet that resulted in weight loss.
Inverse: again both false and true, if the converse is true, the inverse is true, but they both have exceptions.
Contrapositive: Not necessarily true once again.
I used to be at like 20+% as a kid eating a lot of oily indian food. I ate a high protein diet, with a lot of carbs, so I definitely did not activate AMP kinase, and also had a very stressful childhood.
I think cutting can work for most people, but others have high stress hormones in their system already all the time so it doesn't work in the long term. Sugars can alleviate stress hormones, and its been shown that a high carb low protein diet can result in fat/weight loss. Note I'm not against cutting completely, I'm against telling somebody to just eat less and exercise more because it will fail in the long term. Americans are eating foods that activate the wrong metabolic signals. Metabolism certainly si not a combustion reaction, so looking at everything in terms of calories isn't specific
