That post of yours contains quite a bit of words, and none of them seem to be indentified as keywords. Googling for various subsets of the words in that post hasn't yielded any insight.
So I've read both the link and the article on feces.
Many components of feces are indeed infuenced by diet as well as other factors.
I think I'm ready for the second installment of breakup of my homework.
However, before you continue on to that, I still don't understand how any of this is relevant to this discussion. Can you please elaborate? Don't pizza and kale both result in defecation?
Or are you arguing that the contents of excreted feces have some sort of spooky-action-at-a-distance relationship with calories that were metabolized and retained within the human body?
All unburned calories are stored as body fat whether they came from carbohydrates, fats, or proteins, except for those that are stored as glycogen. Since the limit for glycogen stores is roughly 2000 Calories, and carbohydrates have roughly half the energy density of fats, this accounts for a maximum discrepancy of 280g, or half a pound. Of course, the glycogen:fat ratio is not impacted by the source of calories (except for the very short term), so even this transitory half-pound upper bound is a gross overestimate of the potential impact on weight.
So now that I've addressed your last remaining objection by providing a citation for my claims, is there anything else you'd like to add?
You're misunderstanding our objection. A Calories is a Calorie. This study doesn't contest that claim.
Regarding the study, that's what I said.
Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same.
Regarding the pizza, that's what I said.
TFA is a citatin against this statement, though far from perfect.
Regarding my statement about pizza and kale, that's what you said.
The study was a comparison between a high fat / low carb diet and a low fat / high carb diet with no calorie restrictions. My comparison of a pizza and kale does not follow a high fat / low carb vs low fat / high carb distinction, and it is calorie restricted. Since the study and my statement regarding pizzas and kale are orthogonal to each other, your claim that "TFA is a citatin against this statement [about pizza and kale], though far from perfect" is incorrect, since my statement about pizza and kale and the study have nothing to do with each other. Since they have nothing to do with each other, one cannot be a citatin [sic] against the other. It is incorrect to point to a calorie unrestricted study as a citation against a statement that hinges upon restricted calories.
Additionally, your statement that "with nothing available about their relative calorie consumption, probably on an average it was similar" is entirely baseless. It amounts to begging the question, in that you assume the conclusion (that calorie consumption was similar, i.e. that a calorie is not a calorie when it comes to body weight) right from the start.
Your other statements about gut biomes and water weight, which you've repeatedly tried to insert into the dialogue, have no bearing on any of this.
And finally, your statement that "there is a lot of other outputs like heat, sound, flatulence, gas, faeces, gut flora" regarding the energy from metabolism is irrelevant. While heat is a very real end product of metabolism (an average human, at rest, emits about 70W of heat, which works out to roughly 1500 Calories per day, otherwise known as basal metabolism), the rest of your "outputs" are negligible, as humans are capable of generating only very low levels of sound, expel flatulence, gas, and feces that are devoid of digestable calories (nutrition label calorie counts are determined by summing digestable calories, not bomb calorimetry), and maintain relatively stable quantities of gut flora. Since the outputs that you list are negligible, they're not relevant to a discussion about how one can't gain fat weight from calories that one doesn't consume or how one can't avoid fat gain if one metabolizes more calories than one expends.
I already read that. But since you keep thinking I am talking about you drawing conclusions from gut flora whereas I am talking about your drawing conclusions from the study in TFA, that is useless.
For clarification, the only conclusion I drew from TFA was that this study "doesn't contest" the claim that "a Calories is a Calorie", which is indeed the case. But go on, keep talking about variation in digestion between individuals as though that's what the study was about.
Calling you an idiot isn't personal attack really, is just a statement of fact.
Argumentum ad hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. I never contested the factual veracity of your claim of my idiocy because it's not relevant to the fallacious nature of your argument. In other words, I could be the world's biggest idiot, and you'd still be wrong. I'd like to point out that your embrace of irrelevant points in this instance is reminiscent of the entire conversation we just had.
In this post (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5615545&cid=47818631) I referred you to the second sentence (and first as well, for context) of this post (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5615545&cid=47817579).
This just got very meta. Brief aside: check out the Google News headlines related to this story. It looks like many writers are opting for the "it doesn't matter which diet you choose" interpretation I support.
So I guess the Russian armed forces allow soldiers to take their military convoys with them when they go on vacation? I suppose the Ukraine's agents have infiltrated commercial imagery provider DigitalGlobe to offer up these "fake" satellite images that show Russian artillery travelling through Ukraine?
Nobody in eastern Ukraine considers themselves Ukrainian, including my Family who has lived there for generations. Eastern Ukraine has always been and will continue to be Russian.
But doesn't it make more sense for your family to move to Russia than it does for Russia to move to your family?
Low as my opinion of Obama is, I'd certainly vote for him again if he was running against the same two clowns as last time
Jill Stein and Gary Johnson? I'm not crazy about Johnson, personally, but Jill Stein really seemed like the best candidate for the US presidency. Why would you describe either one, let alone both, as clowns?
The commercial satellite imagery company DigitalGlobe has provided commercial imagery that corroborates NATO claims that Russian forces are operating in Ukraine.
Here is a link to a news story that documented this over a week ago.
Unfortunately, posting this will undo a few troll mods. Eh.
A factor need not be the "subject of the study" for it to affect drawing of conclusions from it. You draw more conclusions from it than are warranted , in fact more than the researchers themselves draw.
"A factor" is the implied object of your second sentence. You accused me of drawing more conclusions than warranted from a factor that is not the subject of the study. I've been consistently pointing out that I'd like to avoid bringing up unrelated factors so that we may stay on topic. That ship sailed many posts ago, however. Now it seems that we've moved on to basic grammar.
If that's not what you intended to communicate, you need not be angry with me; I'm not the one writing your posts. Feel free to chime in with another personal attack, though.
I draw more conclusions than warranted from unrelated factors that I didn't bring up? What conclusions did I draw from gut biomes or water weight? I never drew any conclusions from such factors, because they're not relevant to this discussion. You're the one that brought them up, and you're the one that has been drawing conclusions from them. You'll notice that this entire thread revolves around me not appealing to unrelated factors, and instead trying to convince you to stop straying from the topic of conversation. Earlier you accused me of preferring "to remain ignorant of the significant influence of gut flora and to some extent water", and now you accuse me of drawing more conclusions from these unrelated factors than warranted. I understand it can be difficult to make up one's mind sometimes, but personal attacks aren't likely to help.
And here I thought it was you that brought up other factors that aren't the subject of the study, like gut biomes and water weight. Nice switcheroo there. Your argument strikes me as mostly incoherent at this point.
Brief aside: This is the longest offtopic thread I've ever participated in. Lesson learned.
No, I did. It was fascinating and informative. However, you clearly have not read TFS, which clearly states that the subject of this study was not the gut biome or water. It's a study that looks at the ratio of carbs to fats, as well as weight loss. Your posts have strayed from that subject quite some time ago.
Regarding the conservation of energy: it applies to isolated systems, not closed systems. You dismiss implications of this law on closed systems (and on open systems) as though they are insignificant. However, it is this law that states that mass-energy doesn't come from nowhere, and mass-energy doesn't vanish into nowhere. You're proposing that a low carb diet causes you to lose weight by sound and flatulence, and you're pointing to my claims as idiotic. The irony.
Beyond this, I believe the only additional information in this post is entirely unrelated to the subject at hand, so I'll refrain from further comment.
"Is same" and "can be different" do not need the same level of citation.
Let me caveat my claim. "Is same" for normal people, a majority of people, the people that this study focuses on. I specifically said in my last post "this study did not concern itself with individual variations in gut biomes or other factors which could account for individual discrepancies in digestion, so let's not trot out that distraction". Thus, my statement is a tautology, and arguing against it isn't likely to get you very far. My statement, much like this study, is concerned only with people that digest things normally.
Additionally, your "can be different" claim specifically strays beyond this set of people. The people whose digestive system is abnormal, who either cannot digest certain things properly (say, those who are lactose intolerant) or can (and do) digest things that normal people don't (say, people whose gut biome burns through all kinds of fiber). That's not what this study is focusing on, and that's not what I'm talking about. Please don't derail the conversation by straying from the topic at hand.
Possibly. It still doesn't buttress your stronger statement.
It's stronger, but it doesn't need to be proven for everyone, merely for everyone that I'm talking about. Since neither I nor the authors of this study were concerned with people that suffer from abnormal digestion and metabolism, it's already "proven" by virtue of being a tautology. All normal people will get the same caloric input from 12000 consumed, digested, and metabolized calories, by definition. It seems that you're hung up on this "everyone digests differently" axiom; in that case, I recommend you s/eat/eat+digest+metabolize/g on all of my posts, since that's what I (and the authors of the study) are talking about.
This is idiotic - there is a lot of other outputs like heat, sound, flatulence, gas, faeces, gut flora. Read up on law of conservation of energy - it works on closed systems.
I'm not sure how this is relevant. Are you saying that people are gaining weight because they're not yelling enough, or not farting enough? That the discrepancy in weight loss identified by this study is not due to difference in calorie consumption, but due to difference in sound? Perhaps you can clarify what, exactly, "is idiotic"?
You will note that I did not draw any conclusions - I just asked you for citations for your strong unsubstantiated statement I also hypothetically put it against another statement - weaker, with imperfect citation in TFA. I put it against your much stronger statement with zero citation.
I believe it was you that said "with nothing available about their relative calorie consumption, probably on an average it was similar", which I call out as a baseless assumption. Not only baseless, but extremely unlikely in light of what we do know about the study. Also, I'm not sure what "imperfect citation in TFA" you're talking about. As far as I can tell, your statements have all been in relation to my posts, and none of them has "cited" anything from TFA.
However, I will apologize for misunderstanding you on at least one point. You took issue with my claim that "whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same". I took this to mean that you believed the opposite. I didn't realize that you weren't making a counterargument, merely calling out my statement as uncorroborated. Now that I've clarified that the scope of my statement was limited to people with normal digestion/metabolism (as was the scope of this study), I trust we can move beyond this point.
Valid point. However, most studies of calorie restiction show not only dramatically extended lifespans but also a dramatic decrease in age-related disease. It looks like calorie restriction makes you live longer by making you age more slowly. I'm not qualified to comment on whether age-related diseases are a bigger concern than chronic conditions caused by chronic lack of exercise.
With nothing available about their relative calorie consumption, probably on average the people eating the low carb / high fat diet consumed fewer calories than the people eating the high carb / low fat diet, which is a much more reasonable assumption than yours for the following reasons:
1) It's consistent with what we know about theses types of diets. Carb calories offer very little in the way of satiety, unlike fat carbs. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect that people on a high fat diet will feel "more full" with fewer calories than people on a high carb diet. Since this study was unrestricted, we'd expect both groups to eat to the same level of satiety, on average. The effect would be more calories consumed for the high carb group, and fewer calories consumed for the high fat group.
2) It's consistent with what we know about the laws of physics. You can't gain fat weight from calories that you don't consume. You can't avoid fat gain if you metabolize more calories than you expend. Everyone digests things differently, but that doesn't negate the law of conservation of energy. This study did not concern itself with individual variations in gut biomes or other factors which could account for individual discrepancies in digestion, so let's not trot out that distraction.
You derive your conclusions from the entirely baseless assumption that the relative calorie consumption between the groups was similar on average. I derive my conclusions from the not-so-baseless assumptions that A) people who feel hungry eat more than people who feel full and B) the human digestive system is not an exception to the known laws of physics. Note that if indeed the groups in this study did have significantly different relative calorie consumption (which seems overwhelmingly likely in the absence of calorie restrictions), then your entire argument falls apart.
The kaiseki meals I enjoyed at a ryokan dwarfed even some of my most epic rodizio adventures! I suppose that's not typical of a common Japanese diet though.
Citation needed. TFA is a citatin against this statement, though far from perfect.
That's not possible. TFA talks about "a test without calorie restrictions", which means the number of calories eaten by the high carb / low fat people was not necessarily the same as the number of calories eaten by the low carb / high fat people. That means TFA makes no per-calorie claims, at all. That's my point: people are misunderstanding the article for evidence that carb calories are "worse" than fat calories for weight loss. TFA makes no such claim, it's just weak critical thinking skills.
Calorie restriction has never been shown to extend lifespan in humans.
That's intentionally misleading. Calorie restriction has been shown to extend lifespan in all studied mammals. Primate studies are still underway (due to the relatively long natural lifespan of primates), but the results so far look very promising. Human studies are not yet underway, and it will be a very, very, very long time until they're complete (on the order of 150 years).
Calorie restriction has never been shown to extend lifespan in humans because it hasn't been tested with humans. However, there is no reason to suspect that calorie restriction will not extend lifespan in humans. Quite the opposite.
Of course, we'd expect those vegans (that are unsatisfied even with local small-scale farms) to be on the edges of their seats waiting for stuff like this, right?... Right?:P
You have more energy, are less hungry, less irritable, etc...
Notice that none of these factors are "Calories" and "body weight"?
Your low carb diet may make you "feel better" or "smile more", but it doesn't make you lose weight (and keep it off) any better than a high carb diet. When it comes to weight, the only thing that matters is Calories. The known laws of physics still apply in the mysterious human digestive system.
It's likely that having more energy, being less hungry, and being less irritable make it easier for one to continue with their diet. However, having more willpower also makes it easier for one to continue with their diet. In the end, hunger (or lack thereof) doesn't help one lose weight; continuing with the diet does.
Slashdot Mirror
That post of yours contains quite a bit of words, and none of them seem to be indentified as keywords. Googling for various subsets of the words in that post hasn't yielded any insight.
So I've read both the link and the article on feces.
Many components of feces are indeed infuenced by diet as well as other factors.
I think I'm ready for the second installment of breakup of my homework.
However, before you continue on to that, I still don't understand how any of this is relevant to this discussion. Can you please elaborate? Don't pizza and kale both result in defecation?
Or are you arguing that the contents of excreted feces have some sort of spooky-action-at-a-distance relationship with calories that were metabolized and retained within the human body?
My apologies. Not all unburned calories. All metabolized-but-not-burned calories. The ones that digested, that are turned into ATP.
I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion. Can you please elaborate? Don't pizza and kale both result in defecation?
Next you'll be telling me that the Biblical "eye for an eye" stuff was neither Christian nor Jewish but instead from the Babylonian code of Hammurabi.
All unburned calories are stored as body fat whether they came from carbohydrates, fats, or proteins, except for those that are stored as glycogen. Since the limit for glycogen stores is roughly 2000 Calories, and carbohydrates have roughly half the energy density of fats, this accounts for a maximum discrepancy of 280g, or half a pound. Of course, the glycogen:fat ratio is not impacted by the source of calories (except for the very short term), so even this transitory half-pound upper bound is a gross overestimate of the potential impact on weight.
So now that I've addressed your last remaining objection by providing a citation for my claims, is there anything else you'd like to add?
You're misunderstanding our objection. A Calories is a Calorie. This study doesn't contest that claim.
Regarding the study, that's what I said.
Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same.
Regarding the pizza, that's what I said.
TFA is a citatin against this statement, though far from perfect.
Regarding my statement about pizza and kale, that's what you said.
The study was a comparison between a high fat / low carb diet and a low fat / high carb diet with no calorie restrictions. My comparison of a pizza and kale does not follow a high fat / low carb vs low fat / high carb distinction, and it is calorie restricted. Since the study and my statement regarding pizzas and kale are orthogonal to each other, your claim that "TFA is a citatin against this statement [about pizza and kale], though far from perfect" is incorrect, since my statement about pizza and kale and the study have nothing to do with each other. Since they have nothing to do with each other, one cannot be a citatin [sic] against the other. It is incorrect to point to a calorie unrestricted study as a citation against a statement that hinges upon restricted calories.
Additionally, your statement that "with nothing available about their relative calorie consumption, probably on an average it was similar" is entirely baseless. It amounts to begging the question, in that you assume the conclusion (that calorie consumption was similar, i.e. that a calorie is not a calorie when it comes to body weight) right from the start.
Your other statements about gut biomes and water weight, which you've repeatedly tried to insert into the dialogue, have no bearing on any of this.
And finally, your statement that "there is a lot of other outputs like heat, sound, flatulence, gas, faeces, gut flora" regarding the energy from metabolism is irrelevant. While heat is a very real end product of metabolism (an average human, at rest, emits about 70W of heat, which works out to roughly 1500 Calories per day, otherwise known as basal metabolism), the rest of your "outputs" are negligible, as humans are capable of generating only very low levels of sound, expel flatulence, gas, and feces that are devoid of digestable calories (nutrition label calorie counts are determined by summing digestable calories, not bomb calorimetry), and maintain relatively stable quantities of gut flora. Since the outputs that you list are negligible, they're not relevant to a discussion about how one can't gain fat weight from calories that one doesn't consume or how one can't avoid fat gain if one metabolizes more calories than one expends.
I already read that. But since you keep thinking I am talking about you drawing conclusions from gut flora whereas I am talking about your drawing conclusions from the study in TFA, that is useless.
For clarification, the only conclusion I drew from TFA was that this study "doesn't contest" the claim that "a Calories is a Calorie", which is indeed the case. But go on, keep talking about variation in digestion between individuals as though that's what the study was about.
Calling you an idiot isn't personal attack really, is just a statement of fact.
Argumentum ad hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. I never contested the factual veracity of your claim of my idiocy because it's not relevant to the fallacious nature of your argument. In other words, I could be the world's biggest idiot, and you'd still be wrong. I'd like to point out that your embrace of irrelevant points in this instance is reminiscent of the entire conversation we just had.
In this post (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5615545&cid=47818631) I referred you to the second sentence (and first as well, for context) of this post (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5615545&cid=47817579).
This just got very meta. Brief aside: check out the Google News headlines related to this story. It looks like many writers are opting for the "it doesn't matter which diet you choose" interpretation I support.
Nobody in eastern Ukraine considers themselves Ukrainian, including my Family who has lived there for generations. Eastern Ukraine has always been and will continue to be Russian.
But doesn't it make more sense for your family to move to Russia than it does for Russia to move to your family?
Low as my opinion of Obama is, I'd certainly vote for him again if he was running against the same two clowns as last time
Jill Stein and Gary Johnson? I'm not crazy about Johnson, personally, but Jill Stein really seemed like the best candidate for the US presidency. Why would you describe either one, let alone both, as clowns?
The commercial satellite imagery company DigitalGlobe has provided commercial imagery that corroborates NATO claims that Russian forces are operating in Ukraine.
Here is a link to a news story that documented this over a week ago.
Unfortunately, posting this will undo a few troll mods. Eh.
Second sentence of this post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5615545&cid=47817579
And for context, the first sentence as well.
A factor need not be the "subject of the study" for it to affect drawing of conclusions from it. You draw more conclusions from it than are warranted , in fact more than the researchers themselves draw.
"A factor" is the implied object of your second sentence. You accused me of drawing more conclusions than warranted from a factor that is not the subject of the study. I've been consistently pointing out that I'd like to avoid bringing up unrelated factors so that we may stay on topic. That ship sailed many posts ago, however. Now it seems that we've moved on to basic grammar.
If that's not what you intended to communicate, you need not be angry with me; I'm not the one writing your posts. Feel free to chime in with another personal attack, though.
I draw more conclusions than warranted from unrelated factors that I didn't bring up? What conclusions did I draw from gut biomes or water weight? I never drew any conclusions from such factors, because they're not relevant to this discussion. You're the one that brought them up, and you're the one that has been drawing conclusions from them. You'll notice that this entire thread revolves around me not appealing to unrelated factors, and instead trying to convince you to stop straying from the topic of conversation. Earlier you accused me of preferring "to remain ignorant of the significant influence of gut flora and to some extent water", and now you accuse me of drawing more conclusions from these unrelated factors than warranted. I understand it can be difficult to make up one's mind sometimes, but personal attacks aren't likely to help.
And here I thought it was you that brought up other factors that aren't the subject of the study, like gut biomes and water weight. Nice switcheroo there. Your argument strikes me as mostly incoherent at this point.
Brief aside: This is the longest offtopic thread I've ever participated in. Lesson learned.
No, I did. It was fascinating and informative. However, you clearly have not read TFS, which clearly states that the subject of this study was not the gut biome or water. It's a study that looks at the ratio of carbs to fats, as well as weight loss. Your posts have strayed from that subject quite some time ago.
No, I prefer to remain on topic. This study had nothing to do with either of those things.
Regarding the conservation of energy: it applies to isolated systems, not closed systems. You dismiss implications of this law on closed systems (and on open systems) as though they are insignificant. However, it is this law that states that mass-energy doesn't come from nowhere, and mass-energy doesn't vanish into nowhere. You're proposing that a low carb diet causes you to lose weight by sound and flatulence, and you're pointing to my claims as idiotic. The irony.
Beyond this, I believe the only additional information in this post is entirely unrelated to the subject at hand, so I'll refrain from further comment.
"Is same" and "can be different" do not need the same level of citation.
Let me caveat my claim. "Is same" for normal people, a majority of people, the people that this study focuses on. I specifically said in my last post "this study did not concern itself with individual variations in gut biomes or other factors which could account for individual discrepancies in digestion, so let's not trot out that distraction". Thus, my statement is a tautology, and arguing against it isn't likely to get you very far. My statement, much like this study, is concerned only with people that digest things normally.
Additionally, your "can be different" claim specifically strays beyond this set of people. The people whose digestive system is abnormal, who either cannot digest certain things properly (say, those who are lactose intolerant) or can (and do) digest things that normal people don't (say, people whose gut biome burns through all kinds of fiber). That's not what this study is focusing on, and that's not what I'm talking about. Please don't derail the conversation by straying from the topic at hand.
Possibly. It still doesn't buttress your stronger statement.
It's stronger, but it doesn't need to be proven for everyone, merely for everyone that I'm talking about. Since neither I nor the authors of this study were concerned with people that suffer from abnormal digestion and metabolism, it's already "proven" by virtue of being a tautology. All normal people will get the same caloric input from 12000 consumed, digested, and metabolized calories, by definition. It seems that you're hung up on this "everyone digests differently" axiom; in that case, I recommend you s/eat/eat+digest+metabolize/g on all of my posts, since that's what I (and the authors of the study) are talking about.
This is idiotic - there is a lot of other outputs like heat, sound, flatulence, gas, faeces, gut flora. Read up on law of conservation of energy - it works on closed systems.
I'm not sure how this is relevant. Are you saying that people are gaining weight because they're not yelling enough, or not farting enough? That the discrepancy in weight loss identified by this study is not due to difference in calorie consumption, but due to difference in sound? Perhaps you can clarify what, exactly, "is idiotic"?
You will note that I did not draw any conclusions - I just asked you for citations for your strong unsubstantiated statement I also hypothetically put it against another statement - weaker, with imperfect citation in TFA. I put it against your much stronger statement with zero citation.
I believe it was you that said "with nothing available about their relative calorie consumption, probably on an average it was similar", which I call out as a baseless assumption. Not only baseless, but extremely unlikely in light of what we do know about the study. Also, I'm not sure what "imperfect citation in TFA" you're talking about. As far as I can tell, your statements have all been in relation to my posts, and none of them has "cited" anything from TFA.
However, I will apologize for misunderstanding you on at least one point. You took issue with my claim that "whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same". I took this to mean that you believed the opposite. I didn't realize that you weren't making a counterargument, merely calling out my statement as uncorroborated. Now that I've clarified that the scope of my statement was limited to people with normal digestion/metabolism (as was the scope of this study), I trust we can move beyond this point.
Valid point. However, most studies of calorie restiction show not only dramatically extended lifespans but also a dramatic decrease in age-related disease. It looks like calorie restriction makes you live longer by making you age more slowly. I'm not qualified to comment on whether age-related diseases are a bigger concern than chronic conditions caused by chronic lack of exercise.
With nothing available about their relative calorie consumption, probably on average the people eating the low carb / high fat diet consumed fewer calories than the people eating the high carb / low fat diet, which is a much more reasonable assumption than yours for the following reasons:
1) It's consistent with what we know about theses types of diets. Carb calories offer very little in the way of satiety, unlike fat carbs. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect that people on a high fat diet will feel "more full" with fewer calories than people on a high carb diet. Since this study was unrestricted, we'd expect both groups to eat to the same level of satiety, on average. The effect would be more calories consumed for the high carb group, and fewer calories consumed for the high fat group.
2) It's consistent with what we know about the laws of physics. You can't gain fat weight from calories that you don't consume. You can't avoid fat gain if you metabolize more calories than you expend. Everyone digests things differently, but that doesn't negate the law of conservation of energy. This study did not concern itself with individual variations in gut biomes or other factors which could account for individual discrepancies in digestion, so let's not trot out that distraction.
You derive your conclusions from the entirely baseless assumption that the relative calorie consumption between the groups was similar on average. I derive my conclusions from the not-so-baseless assumptions that A) people who feel hungry eat more than people who feel full and B) the human digestive system is not an exception to the known laws of physics. Note that if indeed the groups in this study did have significantly different relative calorie consumption (which seems overwhelmingly likely in the absence of calorie restrictions), then your entire argument falls apart.
The kaiseki meals I enjoyed at a ryokan dwarfed even some of my most epic rodizio adventures! I suppose that's not typical of a common Japanese diet though.
Citation needed. TFA is a citatin against this statement, though far from perfect.
That's not possible. TFA talks about "a test without calorie restrictions", which means the number of calories eaten by the high carb / low fat people was not necessarily the same as the number of calories eaten by the low carb / high fat people. That means TFA makes no per-calorie claims, at all. That's my point: people are misunderstanding the article for evidence that carb calories are "worse" than fat calories for weight loss. TFA makes no such claim, it's just weak critical thinking skills.
Calorie restriction has never been shown to extend lifespan in humans.
That's intentionally misleading. Calorie restriction has been shown to extend lifespan in all studied mammals. Primate studies are still underway (due to the relatively long natural lifespan of primates), but the results so far look very promising. Human studies are not yet underway, and it will be a very, very, very long time until they're complete (on the order of 150 years).
Calorie restriction has never been shown to extend lifespan in humans because it hasn't been tested with humans. However, there is no reason to suspect that calorie restriction will not extend lifespan in humans. Quite the opposite.
Of course, we'd expect those vegans (that are unsatisfied even with local small-scale farms) to be on the edges of their seats waiting for stuff like this, right? ... Right? :P
You have more energy, are less hungry, less irritable, etc...
Notice that none of these factors are "Calories" and "body weight"?
Your low carb diet may make you "feel better" or "smile more", but it doesn't make you lose weight (and keep it off) any better than a high carb diet. When it comes to weight, the only thing that matters is Calories. The known laws of physics still apply in the mysterious human digestive system.
It's likely that having more energy, being less hungry, and being less irritable make it easier for one to continue with their diet. However, having more willpower also makes it easier for one to continue with their diet. In the end, hunger (or lack thereof) doesn't help one lose weight; continuing with the diet does.