> Any “solution” that basically tells people to ignore their hunger [...] is not a viable society-wide solution. This is a really good point, IMO, because part

> Any “solution” that basically tells people to ignore their hunger [...] is not a viable society-wide solution. This is a really good point, IMO, because part of the problem is our food itself, with unnaturally and unnecessary high amounts of processed carbohydrates. That kind of food causes hunger to increase. > A reduction of calories will normally result in the body lowering metabolic rate This is totally true, but is so commonly stated as somehow proving that calories shouldn’t be counted. Sure, the body adapts, sure calories aren’t perfect or absolutely constant, but if you need to lose weight, what is the alternative? You have to eat less, so slightly lower metabolic rate may be a natural part of the process. BTW, how much lower is my metabolic rate if I reduce my caloric intake by 10%? How much lower can my metabolic rate go? If you’re going to point at metabolic variability, those questions need to be answered. The answer can’t be to ignore calories and not eat less, right? That would be far less effective than counting calories imperfectly. So what other action should someone take?