There are at least three equilibriums that are apparently of relevance, based on what I have read. These are: 1. the hunger cycle - the hormones emitted durin

There are at least three equilibriums that are apparently of relevance, based on what I have read. These are: 1. the hunger cycle - the hormones emitted during hunger 2. the metabolic cycle - the neuropeptide y's and other such unmemorable names, near the decision making part of the brain 3. the hydrocarbon cycle – the hormones emitted as a result of fat cells that are not flush with hydrocarbons Diets address number 1. Number 2 and 3 are the more relevant for long-term success, but not enough is understood about them. Here's a TED talk with some illumination: https://www.ted.com/talks/sandra_aamodt_why_dieting_doesn_t_usually_work?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/sandra_aamodt_why_dieting_doesn_t_... Research about weight control and loss is further conflated by profit-oriented companies that derive their primary income from "diet cycles". That said, the failure of dieting is not new information: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Dieting-Does-Not-Work-UCLA-Researchers-7832 http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Dieting-Does-Not-Work-UCLA... The only known sure way to achieve substantial long-term weight loss is hyper-diligence in portion control and metabolic stimulation. Few can do it. One of the unknowns is whether fasting survives long-term trends, such as the "5-2 fast" https://thefastdiet.co.uk/ https://thefastdiet.co.uk/ All to say, the long-term results of the biggest loser accord with the latest research in weight control and loss.