>As sceptics pointed out at the time, though, the energy balance notion has an obvious flaw: it is tautological. If we get fatter (more massive), we have to tak

>As sceptics pointed out at the time, though, the energy balance notion has an obvious flaw: it is tautological. If we get fatter (more massive), we have to take in more calories than we expend— that’s what the laws of thermodynamics dictate—and so we must be overeating during this fattening process. But this tells us nothing about cause. Here’s the circular logic: Why do we get fat? Because we overeat. How do we know we’re overeating? Because we’re getting fatter. And why are we getting fatter? Because we’re overeating. And so it goes, round and round Yeah, so? Why do you need it to tell you about the cause? By that information alone, you have a path to stop being obese: don't overeat. You also have a gauge to periodically check to see if you're over or under-eating: you are getting fatter or losing weight respectively. Even if the cause takes 500 years to be discovered, you already have enough information to lose weight. Thankfully the TFA also tears down this "it's circular logic" bullshit refutation.