​1. Being a data based rather than research study, there are no controls or checks for accuracy or validity.​

SUMMARY: Self reports are not valid without controls or checks for accuracy. Or in brief, you don't trust the NWR because it is based on self report

.2. Controlled studies measure individuals' weights in person

SUMMARY In person is different from self report.In other words, you don't trust the NWR because it is based on self report.

3. There are a lot of people who lie. This doesn't happen when measure weight in person.

SUMMARY: because people lie, you don't trust the NWR because it is based on ​self report.

Your point about falsifying food records and non-compliance (unless you made a typo, which you may have) is actually supportive of my point. Put aside for now the insult implying a doctoral level student in psychology might not have had research training (I conducted two successful research studies, involving both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. you don't indicate you've had any training in psychological research methods, or you'd know the issue of unconscious falsifying of self-reports as well as even measurable data is much greater in psychology than in nutritional studies, which are almost entirely behavioral)

So let's sum up:

1. You made two assumptions (with no evidence to back them up) giving very slightly different reasons why you think self report in regard to the NWR is not valid.

2. You support my point that the research data you DO depend on is infinitely more complex than the NWR data.

Not to mention research, but in the course of conducting over three thousand psych evaluations over 20 years since my doctoral training was completed, I had often had to examine statistical data which included MORE than 1000 data points.

This is infinitesimal compared to what diet researchers have to analyze, but even within that limited data I examined, I nearly always had to account for unconscious mistakes (filling in True when False, or slightly false, or slightly true, to name just one of many possibilities)​TLDR?1.

The essential points you have made are simple.

You don't trust NWR because it is self report (no checks, people lie).

. ALL diet studies are extremely limited, because they all rely on self report.I've never come across a single instance online of anyone stating the NWR is invalid due to self report, and you don't have any evidence beyond your blank, unsupported assertion, and you acknowledge self report ​is a problem in all studies.

So I repeat - if you have to choose between self reported weight - 2 data points - and self reported food intake (timing, amount, kind of food) involving thousands of data points PER PERSON, tens or hundreds of thousands of data points for all the persons involved in any particular study - knowing from extensive psychological research that people are simply incapable of reporting that many data points accurately - it is reasonable, based on psychological research, and the voluminous number of experts who DO trust the NWR - to at least consider it to potentially be at least partially accurate, at least as much so as the studies you yourself acknowledge are often very poorly conducted due to the limitations of self report