Yes, it is complicated, and not really known to mankind. It would be good if you point out the error when slashdotters and people elsewhere make the mistake of considering it simple and lecture others.

Diet effect on water retention are also significant.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". I see these attempts to quantify the as yet unquantifiable as violation of the principle in second half of the alleged Einstein quote.

Read up on the faeces link again that I posted earlier. The 30% microbes cannot be ignored, as I mentioned earlier. Different species of microbes act on different macro nutrients, like I mentioned earlier. No one knows for sure the relative efficiency of different species of microbes in the gut - someone saying they are guaranteed to be equally efficient will need to cite away to glory.

Our own sucrase makes sure we don't need the little bugs to tackle most sugars. Which means we don't share our food with "friends" like good children should. So god punishes us with obesity. Sorry, just listened to relatives talking to their kids. But yes, the point stands that more of sugar comes as ATP than slower food like starch, fat etc.

"Calorie is a calorie", and similar statements are poetry. Good to preach to the choir, useless for contradicting someone.

You didn't deserve the benefit of doubt, because of other sentences you posted exposed that you did really mean "eat" , and you did NOT mean "eat, digest, and metabolize".

Take your post's sentence :

So no, it is definitely a retrospective change you made to your own sentence. While I don't mind educating someone, even for free, you can't convince me you meant this from the start.

Which is good, because useless statements disguised as simple actionable statements are dangerous.

My original objection was to the sentence "Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same". To which you have already made one retrospective change without an apology, while using the universal arithmetical addition operator in a non-standard way and not even objected on my earlier interpretating it thus. Moreover, this is not a minor change because the original sentence pretended to be useful, was falsifiable, actionable - and I pointed out many ways in which it is either wrong, or needs citation.

The new sentence does not have these qualities (except of incorrectness). Even so, when you have turned your sentence into such a useless sentence, I can still prove it to be wrong - or at least in desperate need of citation. But I think you will again change it retrospectively, so it would be best if you put down the sentence which you now want to replace your aforementioned original sentence with, and I will address only that.

I'll try multiple sentences, just to see how you take it now.

This is a white lie -

Reasoning is mentioned clearly here. Google the words you don't have enough information on.

The context of your homework I was helping with you with was about summation working differently on pizza and kale. No, summation works the same. Since you have only yet hopefully understood the milk fat in pizza shit and not in kale shit, let us ignore the other differences for the time being :

Pizza calories available to increase body fat : 12000 eaten, say 11500 digested, and say 11500 metabolized. (500 calories in milk fat excreted). Summation 12000+11500+11500 = 35000

Kale calories available to increase body fat : 12000 eaten, say 12000 digested , and say 12000 metabolized. (effects other than fat excretion ignored). Summation 12000+12000+12000 = 36000

You will note that 35000 is not same as 36000. So the sentence "Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same" remains false even if you add up eaten, digested and metabolized calories, and even if your ignorance is taken into account.

We have just started using multiple sentences. Wait a decade or 2.

You have been seen to be unable to read up to second sentence in a single post, but I could successfully help you through some of your homework by putting small points at a time.

That will need me to use multiple sentences (!!!) and you won't reach the second onwards.

Have you ever thought what the A stands for in AGW ?

Described fully linked which second sentence I meant here, to which you replied with a white lie.

Nor had you read the post of mine you were replying to.

As a reply to my post about your conclusion from the study, your asking me about your conclusions from 3 different things in different words clearly shows you didn't read it properly.

However much you might want to pretend that "unrelated factors that I didn't bring up" can mean the study, it doesn't and you know it.

From your long reply to my this post it was clear that you didn't reach second sentence of the very same post to which you replied.

Since then, because of your utter inability to reach even the second sentence of a post, I have to reduce my posts to extremely simple ones.

Opportunities for violent crime are much much more in cities than in rural areas. Say e.g. one person lives completely alone - who would he commit a violent crime against? In a city of n people, opportunity of crime is nC2 i.e. n*(n-1)/2. But actual crime is much less than proportionate when compared to rural areas. Some crimes take more than 2 people, say m, - for them it should be nCm.

In that interpretation, it is true that cities have lower crime but just more people. Remember to divide crimes by nC2, not n.