A consulted expert disses new research with a conjured, speculative flaw, because it contradicts his own research. This is illogical, but not just because the

A consulted expert disses new research with a conjured, speculative flaw, because it contradicts his own research. This is illogical, but not just because the expert has a conflict of interest; the studies measure different things. The old study put people on appropriate maintenance diets of varying compositions and found that everybody maintained their weights regardless of what they ate. As it turns out, humans are very good at maintaining their weights; feed them more, within reason, and their bodies burn more; feed them less and the trim is adjusted to burn less. The new study measures how easily people regain weight on various diets after their bodies have been kicked out of this mode by extreme calorie deflicts (resulting in weight loss). Not the same thing, at all.