[HyperSane]

"It is not just about eating more calories than needed for a long time."

Yes it is. It really is as simple as that, people just don't want to hear it. Historically food was scarce that it was nearly impossible to sustain a calorie surplus long enough to get fat. But some people did, that is why the rich used to be called "fat cats" but now calories are so cheap and delicious and lifestyles are so sedentary that it is very easy for almost anyone to sustain the caloric surplus needed to become very fat. I had a cousin who reached 650 pounds and then died. He would spend hours every day eating and almost as long shitting.

[kilgnad]

>Yes it is. It really is as simple as that, people just don't want to hear it. Historically food was scarce that it was nearly impossible to sustain a calorie surplus long enough to get fat. But some people did, that is why the rich used to be called "fat cats" but now calories are so cheap and delicious and lifestyles are so sedentary that it is very easy for almost anyone to sustain the caloric surplus needed to become very fat.

I'm skinny so I'm unbiased. There is nothing I "don't" want to hear because I'm literally not affected by it. Thus, I assure you I have more information than you. Read below:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/why-it-wa...

Your reasoning is on anthropological timescales, which while technically true, doesn't explain why people were still skinny in the 80s and before. There was an actual turning point AFTER the 80s... A huge shift in weight gain where MODERN and well-fed people suddenly got heavier. Something happened with the food supply starting with the US.

We only have correlative studies that match a number of things with the sudden change in weight. Thus no causative confirmation on the exact source. Our educated guess says that it has to do with processed foods. Processed foods streamline calorie absorption to unnatural levels leading to unnatural weight gain.

The article above mentions a number of other factors that I think are possible.

[HyperSane]

Self-reported calorie consumption is worthless.

But a reader questions the methodology of the researchers: “My main concern is that the calories are almost assuredly self-reported, which is notoriously unreliable.” Another reader agrees:

    In the 1980s, we weren’t walking around with a computer in our pockets to look up accurate calorie counts for everything that allowed us to store an accurate list of everything we’ve eaten and compute the calories based on that database. It was 100% self-reporting and calorie lookups “from memory” or done manually (complete with calculations) long after the fact. So the reports based on that old data might be suspect.

But another reader notes:

    The study authors addressed that point somewhat:

    Whether self-reported dietary intake accurately reflects an individual’s true dietary intake has been questioned. Indeed, doubly-labelled water studies typically show that individuals underreport their energy intake, and that the magnitude of the underreporting may be larger in people who are obese.

[kilgnad]

Lots of stretching of the imagination here in attempt to fill in the gaps in your bias. I mean you had to dig for this stuff in order to support your stance. Why not let the facts change your conclusions as an unbiased person should?

The fact of the matter is, people weighed less in the 80s then they do today. No amount of stretching can change this quantitative measurement. So something must've changed. What changed?

You can continue to talk about calories in and calories out just like we can blame the overdose problem on people doing too much heroin. Again, while YOU can do that, it's not a very useful position.

[HyperSane]

My bias is for basic laws of thermodynamics.

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/blog/2018/02/story-angus-barbieri...

"The fact of the matter is, people weighed less in the 80s then they do today. "

Because they ate less. Portions were smaller, Food wasn't marketed as much.

"No amount of stretching can change this quantitative measurement."

Self-reported calorie intake is not a reliable quantitative measure.

"You can continue to talk about calories in and calories out just like we can blame the overdose problem on people doing too much heroin."

I really don't understand why you think this statement proves. A heroin overdose IS caused directly by an excess amount of heroin in a given time interval, just like obesity IS caused directly by excessive calories in a given time interval. The time interval for obesity is years instead of hours.

Heroin and obesity are indirectly caused by people getting addicted to the dopamine levels consuming them cause.

You sound a tad like a 9/11 truther insisting on some over complex conspiracy theories to explain something fairly straightforward.

[kilgnad]

>I really don't understand why you think this statement proves. A heroin overdose IS caused directly by an excess amount of heroin in a given time interval, just like obesity IS caused directly by excessive calories in a given time interval. The time interval for obesity is years instead of hours.

This is the part you're not getting. You DIRECTLY say you don't understand here, and I am here to confirm that you in actuality DO NOT understand.

A heroin overdose IS directly a result of too much heroin within a time interval. But that answer is too obvious and PEDANTIC. You would be stupid to characterize the opiate epidemic as just people doing too much heroin and that they should do less to improve their health. "Yeah that's the problem with opiates in America, people doing too much of it, I know you guys don't like to hear it, but it's the truth. Just control yourself and do less"

Obviously it's more than that. There's a problem with tolerance, with addiction, the fact that opiates were introduced as addictive pain killers by Purdue Pharma under the name Oxycontin. The story of heroin is much more then the completely idiotic characterization of just "doing too much."

So to bring it back around. The the situation is MUCH more complex then people eating more and becoming fatter.

>You sound a tad like a 9/11 truther insisting on some over complex conspiracy theories to explain something fairly straightforward.

I'll just be blunt. You sound like a fucking idiot for regurgitating something SO OBVIOUS. Look, you're not actually an idiot, so stop acting like one and stop calling me a 9/11 truther.

What's even stupider is that when I tell you that while TECHNICALLY more calories in does make you fatter there's clearly something else going on. Do you see the connection with the metaphor here with heroin? Heroin isn't just about people doing too much of it. There's many underlying reasons here for WHY something happens.

I have experience in this area with people who are overweight. Even the simple answer of calorie density in processed foods increasing due to industrial food manufacturing after the 80s leads to fatter people is a better characterization here.

However that answer above ^^ is inline with your simplistic calorie in-out logic so maybe that explanation can help you "get it".

[HyperSane]

"I'll just be blunt. You sound like a fucking idiot for regurgitating something SO OBVIOUS"

First, don't be so rude. You think what I'm stating is obvious but there is an entire industry built to deny it. Even on this thread there are people who deny it.