> Yes. That's what the guy above me is talking about. Because the fitness of the line is low, you likely should not put much stake in a low correlation.

No, these are different. There can be causation with low correlation. But high levels of correlation doesn't necessitate causation.

There can be a correlation without there being a direct causal correlation

Based. I just go by what I see in the mirror, which isn't a number but goes down too, so nice.

From the way you talk I'd assume you know but keep in mind that bodyfat measurements are almost all relatively inaccurate and imprecise. I suppose the precision doesn't matter much if you do it over longer times to see the trend.

> I think it's interesting that the calculated caloric deficit matches my actual weight loss so accurately

Why? Isn't that exactly what you should expect?

You are talking about Gnosticism, not gnosticism.