That's like saying that quitting smoking is ineffective because many people can't follow through with it.

Limiting caloric intake (diet) below caloric output (exercise, etc) is the only effective way to lose weight, excluding literally cutting it off. Just because people struggle at doing so doesn't mean that it's not effective.

Depends on how you are measuring effectiveness. From the perspective of either sociology or public policy, calling a treatment that doesn't work effective makes no sense. It's like saying that the only reason we have problems is because people are not always completely rational and benevolent in every interaction. That may very well be true, but what use is that? I don't understand what purpose that kind of comment may serve outside of making the commenters feel better that they do not share the problem.

The issue with the human body is that psychological effects are actually physical effects and therefore entirely relevant. The human body is not a mere automobile into which you pour gas, you push a gas pedal, and it just goes. That's the entire problem. You can't even treat a cat like that, let alone a human.

The psychological consequences are part of the equation and disregarding them and trying to pretend they don't exist is essentially taking out all the complex variables out and solving a simple equation nobody cares about. Kind of like programming GPS using Newtonian physics and then being surprised it's off constantly. There are more complex laws at stake here and we don't understand them very well. Moralization is effectively a cop out. "They're too lazy, stupid, or otherwise inferior to me to do this theoretically simple thing" is the same as: "I have no idea what's going on."

Limiting caloric intake leads to weight loss. So why are people not limiting their calorie intake? Then consider what kind of people are more or less likely to limit their calorie intake. So on and so forth. The equation becomes a lot more complex and also a lot more interesting.

It all comes down to effective in theory vs effective in practice.

>effective in shitty theory

This is meta, but there really needs to be a better phrase for ideas/models that only seem good when ignoring important details. A good theory is also good in practice because it actually factors in the relevant details.

I have no particular problem with you clinging to a falsehood, but repeating it can't make it true. There is ample evidence that carbohydrate restriction is also effective at causing weight reduction, no matter how much people try to deny or ignore it.

Can you point to any evidence? AFAIK, low-carb diets mainly work by increasing satiety (i.e. indirectly limiting calories consumed).

Restricting carbohydrate intake let's you control blood sugar levels and insulin response to meals, which generally leads to weight loss in most people.

I get that the wiki article on low carb is rambling, but why HN :?

Lower insulin spike after a meal results in lower hunger pangs later on, i.e. less hunger and less calories consumed, leading to weight loss.

The problem is quitting smoking is not an intervention. You cannot push a button and cause someone to quit smoking. You can "Talk to someone about quitting smoking", or "Send them to quit smoking meetings" or "Give them nicorette". These things are interventions. Quitting smoking in an intermediate result that is linked to positive outcomes.