The issue with the simplifying "calories in == calories out" is that conservation of energy is being applied over the wrong system. Our bodies are not 100% efficient at extracting energy from food, and to GP's point respond differently to different types of foods.
Your posts stood out (e.g. as rapid, aggressive, and unsubstantive) on a flamewar-prone topic. It's possible that others did worse and we didn't see it; we don't see everything or even close, so that's always the likeliest explanation.
When accounts do that, we sometimes rate-limit them. It's not great but it's one of the few tools we have for protecting HN from the destructive effects of such discussions. If people want not to be rate-limited and are willing to commit to posting civil, substantive comments only in the future, they're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com.
Well, I would have deleted my "rabid," "aggressive," and "unsubstantive" comments, but apparently you've decided your users don't deserve the right to retract statements when they get off topic.
HN's window for comment deletion is fairly short because the threads are shared by the community. Letting people go back and delete comments after the fact would destroy the context necessary to understand them. So HN's policy has always been to leave most history intact even when the thread was regrettable. (I say 'most' because we do occasionally delete a comment when a user is worried about getting in trouble from it.)
Thermodynamic laws certainly apply, but you just can't measure all the variables properly. Trying to apply that kind of input/output calculations on such a complicated bio-chemical model like human body is just a naive over-simplification. First you would need to calculate the caloric value of your complete excrements (including sweat), before you even know what the actual energy input is. Than you would need to measure precise oxygen used by body and the heat produced to be able to know how much of it is used by body. Not to mention that you even don't know the exact caloric values of the food that you eat. Guesstimates of this whole process that we have in a form of calorie tables and calculators are only a rough guidelines, not exact science, and that's why in real-life numbers never add up. Not because human body somehow breaks the laws of physics, but because popular calculations completely ignore a lot of biochemical nuances. How efficient is your guts in digesting different types of food, which pathway is used to turn that food into the energy and how efficiently due to levels of specific enzymes, does your body (due to the current hormonal levels) prefer to store the calories or to burn them, how efficiently you muscles are using that energy (depending on you height, weight, age, sex, health), and many, many other little details that all count.
The only problem is that calories in = calories out assumes a steady-state where there is no change in internal energy (dU/dt), which is not a good assumption.
The change in internal energy is negligible. The only exception is medical disorder.
If you want to lose weight and you are not, eat less. If the amount you eat goes below say 1200 calories and you're still not losing weight, go to a doctor.
The person who does the eating is the one who gets fat, yes. But if that person is eating low quality, highly processed foods with ingredients that are far more likely to cause metabolic dysfunction, then it's not just an issue of portion size (and yes, eating too much is definitely an issue too).
And I was saying for the _same_ caloric amount, regardless of density. Never mind though, pretty clear you're a troll.
I probably should have added more comment, but the point is the "Calorie is a calorie" argument as applied to diet was pretty thoroughly debunked over decade ago. Calorie counting is a poor predictor of weight, while source of calories is a much stronger predictor. However, plenty of other people have commenting with more detailed explanations as to why, so I won't go on.
No. If the laws of thermodynamics had been proven false, we would have heard of it.