For example, suppose a certain runner has a broken leg, but you don't know this and he can't communicate it to you. He just says "It really really hurts when I run!" And you just answer "Well, you need to run through the pain!" This is an unreasonable request.

Of course. I use the broken leg while trying to run analogy to describe people's advice to "just keep functioning" during deep depressive bouts.

Working off Taubes and a few other of the low-carb people, some people's fat cells do not release energy.

Can you provide an estimate to the % of the population this applies to?

So is our disagreement that you don't think even Taubes' picture provides a situation in which one should privilege bodyhacking-type solutions over willpower-based solutions, or just that you don't think Taubes' picture is correct?

My understanding is that individual metabolism varies pretty significantly from person to person. From my recall, something like 25%-30% of BMR is derived from some unknown variable, probably just genetic pre-disposition.

If that is the case, then it is true that some people are much better—no credit to them or their will—at losing weight. Person A and B could live identical lives from a caloric balance standpoint, one ending up obese while the other is trim and fit.

This is a very useful thing for people to know. Skinny people and obese people might not be doing anything differently in terms of lifestyl, willpower, motivation, etc. I like spreading that idea, because skinny people can act superior and shame obese people for "failing", and the data suggest that can be bullshit.

However, if you are pre-disposed according to the 25-30% mystery BMR to not have a fast enough metabolism to stay skinny in a culture that so cherishes it, then there is not necessarily much you can do about it other than just (a) eat less or (b) exercise more. Come up with smart 2 ideas, sure. But there is no escaping the reality of 1, and nature has put you at a X% disatvantage in the "staying skinny" dept. (Nature does the same to those with depression in the "staying happy" dept. or those with OCD in the "staying calm and avoiding obsessive thinking" dept. I know first hand.)

I don't think low carb diets work for the pseudo-scientific reasons that propenents say they do. I think it is nothing more than calorie control.

Look at Atkins. Consider it in light of the average, carb-loaded American diet. If you quit carbs, you create a calorie deficit for very practical reasons. Pretending something mystical is taking place is silly and leads to bad ideas about the nature of weight loss.

I could say, "If you want to increase you chest strength, do 3 sets of bench press 3 times per week PLUS touch your nose 22 times while you are lying in bed waiting to fall asleep."

If my audience was eager enough for increased chest strength and I presented myself as an expert, they'd follow my instructions, benching and nose-touching themselves to bigger, stronger chests. Likely, someone would branch off my successful work, claiming that 44 nose touches and 2X2 bench presses was a better method. Then 66 and 2X4. Or 51 and 5x1.

Soon a whole market of nose-touching techniques would be created... Books written, seminars seminared.

I sense this is something like what has happened with low-carb diets. It does work. But not for the stated reasons. Low fat diet was a simple heuristic that looked at which macro-nutrient source (fat) was most calorie dense and then demonized it. Low carb diet is a heuristic that identified the macro-nutrient source that made up the highest % of our caloirc intake and then demonized it.

Other diets, like the No-S diet, work for similar reasons. There are just simple #2 hacks that give easy to follow heuristics.

I feel Atkins and other diets are often presented as something more scientificky than that. I expected LWers to recognize the ruse. My views started to change when they seemed to sincerely believe in some stuff I thought was nonsense. I was deferring to higher intelligence as that usually works pretty well for me.

Then I dieted. And it worked exactly how the simple calorie math said it would work. I limited my carbs some. And my fats. I took multivitimans. Ate fruits and vegis. Drank plenty of water. I quit drinking alcohol/soda and eating fast food/dessert. It sucked for about 4-5 weeks. I "starved" a little and limited my ability to "think" a little, I suppose. But then you get used to the new lifestyle. Curb the calorie deficit a bit... then back to equilibrium once you are at your desired weight.

I know my single experience doesn't prove anything for the general population. Maybe there are factors at play that I'm not accounting for? I herniated a cervical disc and haven't been able to lift weight. I've lost a good amount of muscle I'd suspect. I took a lot of NSAIDS after my injury, maybe that factored in?

My sense, however, is that it is simpler than that. And some LWers were just overcomplicating a simple thing in such a way that I almost listend and missed out on what appears to be, at least in the short term, a positive outcome for me.

(Again, I'm aware some people have a MUCH more difficult time dieting due to factors they cannot control. I hate fat-shaming and I'm a huge advocate of destroying the smugness of skinny punks with hard science.)