Instead one needs to focus on a whole lifestyle shift. So the focus on an intervention is wrong. Basically just that we regress to a weight set by lifestyle. If you're a physicist, you start to want to calculate it at two different rates, you want to see the slope between the two, so you get units of kJ/s/kg, but a kg of fat also maps to a certain number of kJ so this is actually a time constant of something like a year-some crude differential equations then suggest that the time constant is something like the half-life of your weight, so if you start living like someone who is 50 lb lighter than you, after a decent chunk of a year you will be 25 lb lighter, then 37.5 lb lighter after another. Put another way, most people calculate a basal metabolic rate or total daily energy expenditure at their present weight, and leave it at that. That is, when you say diet and exercise you are talking about temporary interventions and no temporary intervention is going to permanently disrupt the equilibrium. So, the claim is that I can diet and exercise down to the weight that I want and then return to the lifestyle that I had before but maintain this new weight. The first is that it ignores equilibrium. There are many physical problems with ending the explanation there. Thermodynamics is necessary but not sufficient to understand the problem. Since it touches my field, physics, why people have this misapprehension, (“a calorie is a calorie” is an attempt at a thermodynamic statement) I feel somewhat qualified to talk about part of this even though I am not an endocrinologist or a nutritionist, they would have better answers for you in many other respects. This is well known: most fad diets work this way in some fashion or another, and it’s well known that most fad diets fail. Diet and exercise are indeed not the path to weight loss.

Math wolf solver