Ellyn Satter's website nominally supports "eating what you want as much as you want" but glosses the whole "... as long as what you want isn't actually what you want, but instead these other things that you could learn to eat as long as you've got rigorously enforced habits." I should note that Ellyn Satter seems exclusively focused on children, and so a large part of her work seems to be about controlling what they have access to and shaping their desires. It is definitely not advocating limitless access to whatever you want, and is actually very strict about time-based and content-based access to foods.
I guess in the literal sense she advocates 'eating whatever you like', but the modified definition of 'like' that Ellyn Satter uses is not what I'd consider unrestrained.
Also I should note that it is a much better cite.
Satter and TFN both have beliefs about what people want (after adjustment periods or habit formations periods designed to clear away disorded eating patterns etc.). That doesn't mean that they don't really hold the belief that people (adults) should eat whatever they want, as much as they want. If I tell a houseguest they can eat anything they want in the kitchen, I really mean that when I say it, even if I am later shocked to find them eating glass bowls or something and say "I didn't mean anything in the kitchen."
I posted recently that "I tend to assume that things people hate are bad for them. CR may be an exception, but it's plausible that evolution would usually select for warnings that one is hurting oneself."
I think this points at an interesting question. If you know that people like a behavior, or dislike it, or love it, or hate it, does this tell you anything about whether the behavior is useful?
I expect that most people reading this question have a handy list-- one that comes quickly to mind-- of things which are good for people but that they resist. There's a tremendous amount in the culture (and perhaps more from somewhat different angles at LW) about people's reflexive preferences being wrong.
However, there's a lot where people's preferences are assumed to be in line with what's good for them that doesn't get much attention. I believe this is because there's a fascination with the drama of self-denial, but that might be a topic for a different post.
For example, people hate long commutes. I've never heard anyone say that long commutes are good for people.
People generally dislike being low on sleep.
Rather few modern people think that liking sex is a problem in itself. (Note a cultural shift-- anxiety about pleasure has been moved from sex to food.)
Nobody says that human contact is bad, even though many people like it.
And there's no cultural consensus that hating spam is bad, even though hating spam is a spontaneous response.
It's implausible that evolutionarily developed pleasure and pain should be completely out of line with well-being. On the other hand, it's a noisy signal. Should it be taken at all seriously?