Dieting results in long term changes to hormones and muscle fibers.

[eridani]

191. I'm well aware of real science, given that I have a doctorate in biochemistry

That seems to be the problem here. I've spent my entire adult career doing research, writing articles, working on various commercial problems and having my work constantly shredded (and improved) by co-workers and reviewers. I've done a good bit of shredding myself. I'm starting to realize that few people on your generic discussion boards will react to citations of scientific work that way, preferring instead to read the conclusion and assume that everyone in the thread absolutely must agree with it because it comes from an Official Source.

Here's a clue--you post a link and I will actually read the article and evaluate the methodology and come to an opinion as to whether the data supports the conclusions, and whether the conclusions of the article have any logical relationship to the point the person citing it was trying to make.

Instead of analysis of what articles say, all I've gotten from you is that the normal scientific evaluation process is bad, and that everyone should just look at conclusions in scientific articles and accept them. That's one of the reasons why election integrity is such an uphill struggle--too many people think that if the machine said so, it has to be right.

Two more shots at rationality here

1. In what way is a study on dietary regimen adherence (NOT weight loss) with 86% male subjects relevant to the real world, where the majority of dieters are female and have far more extensive histories of dieting than men typically do?

2. Why is a study in which weight and other physiological parameters measured once at the beginning of the study and once at the end just as good as a study where regular measurements of all parameters are taken at frequent intervals throughout the study?

You don't want to even try, then I'll give up too.