Just because I've quoted the Why We Get Fat book doesn't mean that's all I know, Fred. It is just the best source I have for the information that I am trying to convey in one periodical. Ignore it if you want, and forget about the author. The science is still the same. Leafs and long life.
Many studies have statistical issues with the methodology. If you believe that peer reviewed means bullet proof then you need to spend more time in the academic arena. Journals publish studies they think readers will like or has some controversial findings to attract views. I can find numerous studies that subsequent studies poked giant holes in based on their control group and their statistical significance. It happens quite a bit becuase academics have pressure to publish and there is a lot of journals competiting for studies to publish. Many journals are only a step above FOX and CNN with their bias and approach of the editorial board. Sorry but my credentials in statistics and peer reviewed journal research does not have to be stellar but it is good enough to highlight errors. If you think that researchers do not go into studies with bias and that bias can be shown in the methods and approach. Finally when I say someone can increase calories and lose weight when they increase activity leads to a caloric deficit. I said it and many here said it it is a net calorie issue of intake v. outgo based on thermodynamics. If you go from 2000 to 2500 calories but begin a regular HITT workout progam with resistance you are still leading to a caloric deficit with the increase in metabolism and muscle development. Now if you go from 2500 high carb to 2500 low carb then yes you can lose weight without caloric changes because of the insulin response and the fact that you are not storing so much fat but burning it up more due to better macronutrient balance. That is maybe a point you were making but once the body balances its metabolic rate you will stop the initial weight lose and reach homeostasis. To push weight lose you will then need to go into a negative calorie account. FOR EXAMPLE, eating more protein and fat burns more calories than eating high carbs and sugars. So that alone increases your metabolic rate and thermal energy required to process food which could be 10% of your total daily burn. If you switch quality of calories you actually in crease your burn rate. ALSO if you cut calories too much or too drastically you lower your metabolism so you need to find the balance so if you drop to 1200 calories you lose water and initial weight but then your metabolism slows and the weight loss stops even in deficit as body goes into preservation mode.
As mentioned, data on thermic effect of CHO and protein is widely published and consistent. Acheson (2) reported diet-induced thermogenesis values of 20–30% for protein, 5–10% for CHOs, and 0–3% for fat In other words, eat more protein, you burn more calories versus mostly carb diet. So switching quality icnreases metabolic rate.
One thing and one thing only makes you fat and that is too many calories. I've been nearly 300 pounds (I'm 5'7) and got my weight down to 140 lbs. This was 10 years ago. During this time, I've done the low carb dieting (paleo and keto) and I've eaten whatever I wanted (plenty of junk food was included) as long as my calories were the right number. Doing low carb and eating whatever I wanted at the same caloric intake the results, in terms of weight maintenance, were the exact same.