[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.

[kilgnad]

Don't be rude? You compared me to a 9/11 truther. We're done here. I'm rude in response to your rudeness. I'm wrong though, I shouldn't be rude in response to you.. The proper thing to do is to end the conversation. Good day.

[HyperSane]

"You compared me to a 9/11 truther."

Just because you honestly reminded me of their need for overly complicated explanations of well understood things.

[kilgnad]

Same here, you honestly reminded me of an idiot.

Your explanations are simplistic you fail to see nuance and complexity within reality. I find your outlook on things to also be delusional. You think things are simple and well understood but that's just a reflection of your ignorance.

Not trying be insulting or anything like that but this is just what it is.

Just to drill it home. How stupid does a person have to be to think that comparing someone to a 9/11 truther isn't rude? You have to be pretty stupid.

Again not being rude. Just telling it like it is.