[HyperSane]

The entire purpose of fat is to store excess energy for future use because over human evolution food supply was unreliable enough for this to create an evolutionary advantage. Getting fat from eating a lot of food is completely predictable.

"The idea that obesity could be avoided or cured with a little bookkeeping and self control"

It absolutely can. Again people just don't want to feel bad about not having enough self control.

[Dove]

>>"The idea that obesity could be avoided or cured with a little bookkeeping and self control"

> It absolutely can.

No it can't. ;)

Well, not always. I've experienced both sides of this: an effortless loss of 60 lbs with easy diet changes and bookkeeping over the course of a year and a half. And a few years later, an abject failure as the same strategy -- a moderate calorie restriction -- resulted in such profound physical distress that I developed psychological problems long before I made any physical progress.

Sometimes it's easy. Sometimes it's impossible.

My story is far from atypical. It's common. Practically universal. Everyone, just about everyone, who tries to lose weight, using any strategy, succeeds over a period of months, and fails over a period of years. The reason is that the underlying control mechanism is in a different condition, in different people who may be the same weight.

> people just don't want to feel bad about not having enough self control.

I know you're really attached to the energy imbalance theory of obesity. People often are. But I'd like to suggest that this comment suggests you may have a different motivation for believing in it than just that you find the evidence persuasive.

I often wonder why people get so attached to a theory that I think is in such obvious evidential crisis. A need to believe a simple solution will be there when they need it? A traumatic dieting experience that they need to believe was necessary and useful and healthy? Maybe it worked for them once and they're universalizing their experience? A desire for moral superiority? The fact that deliberately oversimplifying things makes for slam dunk messages on forums?

I don't know, but diet is one of those weird topics where people are attached to their opinion with the religious fire of a thousand suns. While I know I won't change your mind, it does seem fair to point out that your statements are both hyperbolic and inaccurate, and that's not a good sign.

[HyperSane]

"I know you're really attached to the energy imbalance theory of obesity. "

It isn't a theory, it is a fact. It is basic thermodynamics. The human body requires a constant amount of energy for basic operation and activity. Any excess is stored as fat for future use. Creating fat requires calories that HAVE to come from food. Eat few enough calories and you WILL lose weight. Eat zero and you WILL die. Eat 20,000/day for a year and you WILL get very fat.

A good example of this is this man went 382 days without eating

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

He had a calories surplus for long enough to weigh 207kg. While not eating his body consumed energy in his fat to stay alive and he got down to 81kg. ((207-87)kg * 7700 calories/kg)/382 days = 2539 calories/day, which is a very plausible number.

[hgomersall]

The problem, which I can't work out if you know about but ignoring or are ignorant of, is that humans have inordinately strong control systems to maintain some state, as well as hugely influential effects from e.g. a gut biome.

To say "it's just thermodynamics" might be right as far as the physics goes, but it doesn't recognise that biological drives overwhelm everything. It's hugely complicated how energy expenditure and steady state energy consumption interacts with weight gain, not least because the body will invariably work to make your actions as efficient as possible to maintain weight. For example, observational studies of hunter societies that might travel large distances daily, energy requirements bear little relation to daily activity after any transition time has elapsed when compared to relatively inactive Western counterparts. These people can't just will their activities to be less efficient if they hypothetically wanted to consume more energy.

Ultimately, the biology will decide what the effect of any intervention is, regardless of how motivated or not you are. Any advice that doesn't explicitly factor that in is just hot air.

[HyperSane]

"humans have inordinately strong control systems to maintain some state"

If energy intake matches energy needs then body fat percentage stays the same.

If energy intake exceeds energy needs then body fat percentage increases as the body stored the excess as fat.

If energy needs exceed energy intake then body fat percentage decreases as fat is used as fuel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate

[argella]

"The human body requires a constant amount of energy for basic operation and activity. "

no, it doesn't. the amount it uses for basic operation and activity will change. shrinking in response to your attempts to lose weight.

[HyperSane]

This is absolutely false. The human body must always consume a minimum amount of energy for basic maintenance. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate. While it does vary it also has a hard lower limit.

The basic metabolic rate varies between individuals. One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1,027 kilocalories (4,300 kJ) per day to as high as 2,499 kilocalories (10,460 kJ); with a mean BMR of 1,500 kilocalories (6,300 kJ) per day.

[argella]

you said "constant" not minimum. don't move the goal post.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK572145/

[HyperSane]

When I typed that I was thinking of the basal metabolic rate, which is relatively constant for a person. Think of it as the calories a coma patient would need to stay alive.

[Dove]

> The entire purpose of fat is to store excess energy for future use

That isn't true. Though it's a primary use, the opening paragraph of the wikipedia article on fat outlines that it actually has many biological functions (and is properly thought of as an organ!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipose_tissue

> ... because over human evolution food supply was unreliable enough for this to create an evolutionary advantage. Getting fat from eating a lot of food is completely predictable.

Not at all. While fat does have a primary function as an energy reserve, that does not mean that unregulated growth is a simple matter of putting too much energy into the system. After all, just as in nature there are times of famine, there are also times of feast. It would be pretty disadvantageous for animals to have no regulation on their fat growth in times of abundance. Something more has to go wrong to cross the line from "saving for a rainy day" to "killing you". Animals don't eat until they damage their stomachs, do they? Not generally. Why does it make any more sense that they should eat until they damaged their endocrine systems?

An interesting counterpoint: bears hibernate. In preparation for doing so, they become fat by eating a lot. Now, they do this, not just any time of the year when food is abundant, but specifically in the fall as they prepare for the winter. Are they just lucky that food happens to be abundant every fall? Or is something else going on? What happens in years of famine? Do they still manage to get fat so they can hibernate?

Another interesting counterpoint: Pregnant women eat a lot and put on weight. Why do they do that? Is it because more food is available? Or is something else going on?

One last counterpoint. Bodybuilders put on a lot of muscle, which also takes energy, and they eat a ton to support that growth. Why is it that if I eat an extra steak, my flab gets bigger, but when Ahnold eats one, his biceps get bigger?

Obesity is dysregulated growth. While growth does require energy, it is in the failed regulation of that growth that you will find the best explanation for the disease.

[HyperSane]

" It would be pretty disadvantageous for animals to have no regulation on their fat growth in times of abundance. Something more has to go wrong to cross the line from "saving for a rainy day" to "killing you". ""

I really can't blame you for assuming this, but it actually turns out that food was scarce enough in human history that humans never actually evolved a limit on how much fat we will store. If we keep consuming a caloric surplus the body will keep creating fat to store it. This is the body working as intended. Things would be different if humans had a more reasonable max body fat percentage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heaviest_people

[nradov]

You have mixed up a few facts with a lot of "bro-science" there. What you have described is not consistent with our current understanding.

https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson2/

Anyone can build muscle instead of flab if they do sufficient resistance training and eat enough protein. Gains will tend to be slower for women and older people. Arnold Schwarzenegger used a lot of steroids and other PEDS which can certainly accelerate gains, but aren't worth the side effects and legal risks for most people.

https://www.essentiallysports.com/us-sports-news-bodybuildin...

[yunwal]

> It absolutely can

It can’t. There are many people who, if they simply scaled down their diet without otherwise modifying their nutrient intake/lifestyle, start having health problems well before they lose weight. Hot flashes, fainting, severe stomach pains, nausea.

[HyperSane]

This sounds false to me. I suppose for someone used to eating 10 to 20 thousand calories per day suddenly going to 1500 would be stressful but if gently tapered no one should have any issues.

[yunwal]

I mean the obvious counterexample is someone who eats 1500 calories of real food and 2500 calories of junk food a day. If you scale that down by half you start getting all sorts of nutrient deficiencies well before hitting your target weight.

But there are subtler versions of this. People who live in food deserts, only have access to iceberg lettuce and freezer-burned tomatoes as produce are gonna have a tough time getting all the nutrients they need in 2000 calories or less. There’s also others who have very specific dietary needs that they’re not yet aware of.

[nindalf]

What's the issue with iceberg lettuce?

[yunwal]

Nothing wrong with it but it’s pretty devoid of nutrition compared to other greens.