I don't even see the point of arguing against the FA argument of the high failure rate of weight loss anymore, because I know they aren't coming at it in good faith. They blame the method and refuse to acknowledge the human aspect. Most diets aren't successful long term, because most people quit.
I am interested in how they think weight change even functions if they don't think a consistent caloric deficit can result in sustained weight loss.
If calorie surplus/deficit isn't what causes weight gain/loss, what do they think is? Why do people who consume more than they burn gain weight? Why would a calorie deficit work in the short term but not long term if a person did not return to their previous eating habits after reaching their goal? Why does severe underconsumption lead to underweight condition? Why do people remain underweight unless they start eating more, and why is eating more part of the treatment plan for unhealthily underweight people, if calories are fake?
Why would someone's "set point" be a weight that is too high or low for their height? Why can "set point" only increase but never decrease? Why did my dumbass doctor suggest mine could be in the underweight range, just not the severely underweight range? What's the difference, if HAES?
And why do they think weight or BMI is all that matters and don't voice as much pushback against evidence for the health detriment of elevated waist:height or body fat percentage?
