> An antidote to this somewhat absurd position was published by Dr. Ruth
> Kava, director of nutrition for the American Council on Science and
> Health.  She points out that energy balance is neglected in the
> arguments on which nutrient it is that makes us fat and, therefore,
> ignores the most fundamental science in this debate. The form of
> calories we take in is not as important as the number compared with
> those we burn through activity.
> < http://www.acsh.org/forum/features/choices.html >

Caloritic reduction has an abysmal record in producing permanent weight
loss.  In fact the Harvard Nurses Studies ( 125,000 nurses for 25 years
actually showed a slightly inverse relationship between calories and weight
( the more you eat the less you weigh).

Exercise has an equally bad record in producing weight loss showing no
effect on weight in most recent studies.

Simple thermodynamics does not predict results in complex chaotic systems.
This was noticed in biological systems and resulted in the 1970s of a new
mathematics called fractal geometry.  Fractal geometry is the math of
biology - unfortunately most medical professionals have never studied it.
Fractal geometry predicts the results found in the recent long-term studies.

see:
Mandelbrot, Benoit B.,
" The Fractal Geometry of Nature. "
New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1977

Ray Audette
Author "NeanderThin"
www.NeanderThin.com