Please cite your source.
Just one source of many: https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3580 (2015)
> 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 come from cellular and molecular biology, not nutritional science.
These have all have nutritional studies.
For example, #7 dates back to the late 19th century, decades before molecular biology.
Another vastly replicated result you can find quite easily: low-glycemic-index diets and ketogenic diets can produce weight loss despite caloric excess.
And lastly, a reasoning from first principles reveals a prima facie credible flaw in the caloric balance hypothesis: the body is not a closed system, ergo the law of conservation of energy does not apply. More vulgarly: you can do things like "work up an appetite" or "shit excess food".
>These have all have nutritional studies.
The nutritional studies did not produce these initial findings. Without pointing to specific papers, it's hard to be very precise, but I would be willing to bet that these are either dietary studies building off of biological first principles, or replication-checks in broader studies. Both are totally fair practices, but can't be considered as an indication that nutritional science is a fruitful field.
If you run 20 more miles every day and eat 100 more calories, I suspect won't gain weight.
The banality of your arguments speaks for itself.
Nutritional science is roughly concerned with the question, "what constitutes a healthy diet?", and it has failed to produce even partial answers at every turn.