Comment by makeitdouble

> 1. then athletes wouldn't need a lot of calories.

Some don't. Think about marathon runners (which would be pretty close to the tribe studied), they have a muscle ratio that is way lower than your Phelps example and their body composition if also probably more efficient than yours (I don't know you, but let's assume). I wouldn't be surprised if a pro marathon runner would have be close to your 3.5K a day when going through light training.

Think of it through different angles: mountain trekkers aren't packing 80kg of sugar to go through their trekking, their bodies are way more efficient at doing these tasks and need less calories to work than what we'd expect from a random person. It literally means doing more with less.

> This often happens to people trying extreme calorie loss diets.

This happens to everyone. From your link: "In fact, your body is hard wired to maintain energy balance within a fairly small range."

> 3.

It seems well argued but just really nitpicky. It goes into the whole energy intake vs energy spent debate to explain why they don't agree with the methodology, but don't prove why they think the conclusion is wrong. It's as if I'd nitpick your use of calorie intake measurements and explain in great details how it's approximation of an approximation and we have no way to actually know someone's actual intake calorie, without ever engaging with your actual points.