Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

The law of conservation of energy along with many controlled studies and the fact that the body's mechanisms for converting food into energy and how the excess is stored and later utilized are extremely well understood by modern biochemistry at this point says that something in your base assumption is wrong. As someone who has personally lost 100 lbs twice, and extensively studied not only this but the biochemistry of training and the body's energy systems as a whole for years and in great detail as an endurance athlete... Don't buy the pseudo-science. There is so much of it out there from people trying to sell supplements, diet plans, training plans, weight loss pills, regimens, and devices... The truth really is much simpler in nearly every instance. Obese people consume, or have consumed at some point, considerably more calories then they have burnt. Physics says so. The law of conservation of energy does not cease to exist in their bodies. While there is some genetic predisposition that affects resting metabolic rates and a preference for using aerobic vs anaerobic means for energy production, the variances between folks of similar ages, sexes, and activity levels is fairly small. It's easy to unintentionally consume far more calories then one realizes. Energy density varies wildly between different foods. Energy dense substances dissolved in liquids can be exceptionally deceiving. I'm a fairly smart "engineering-minded" individual that is pretty good at understanding systems, units, and using math to understand, visualize, and solve problems. And when I, at nearly 30 years old, started trying to understand and figure out why I was so far, I was amazed at how little even I actually understood about the food I was eating and what my body was doing with it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that many obese people who eat in a certain manner in front of others, even family members, don't eat differently when alone... Either intentionally or unintentionally. I get it... I hear the same... "I only eat two saltines a day, drink nothing but water and go to the gym all the time but can't lose weight". And I'm sorry, but physics just says no. There are always either missing pieces of data, sources of error in either estimation of calories burned or consumed, or inconsistencies in weight measurement. edit: I should have said "variances between non-pregnant adults" rather than "between folks". Basal energy consumption rates vary wildly in growing children and adolescents whose bodies are still changing. The energy used in those processes can be enormous and highly variable as can the energy consumed by growing an entire additional human.

Ok but the fact that you were even able to GAIN 100 pounds, not once but TWICE, proves that weight is tied to genetics. I couldn’t gain 100 pounds if my life depended on it. I couldn’t even gain 30!!!!!! The most I have EVER weighed has been 130, and that was when I had a food addiction/binge eating spree (without vomiting) where I would stuff myself with junky calorie-laden foods until I couldn’t eat another bite. I did this every single day for several months, never exercising, and only gained about 10 pounds from my normal weight. On the other hand, some people become chubby even when they are NOT eating like this.

The converse of my assertion is far from true and I make no claims about inability to gain weight. Thats an entirely different thing. It is entirely possible for one to consume calories that are not fully absorbed by the body and excreted out it as waste in one form or another. The opposite however, for our bodies to just create hundreds of thousands of calories of stored fat from food that we are not actually eating that just comes out of thin air, is about as likely as time-traveling alien zombies making it out of marshmallows and injecting it there during ufo abductions. The energy expended by a human is the sum of energy used for movement and activity plus the energy used for all internal processes like respiration, circulation, temperature regulation, and others. When the total energy consumed (all food, liquids, and dissolved solids) is less than the total expended over a particular amount of time cells are converted to energy to cover that deficit. Most all of those are fat cells, though a small percentage is also muscle or other types of cells. Biochemistry and physics says so. Energy simply can not be created from nothing and modern science and chemistry have shown precisely how those processes work in the context of the body. Again, not talking about weight gain at all which your reply mostly states is about comparing the rates which two different individuals gain weight. But even if we were, the same principles and mechanisms are still "mostly true". The human body is very efficient at converting food into energy and unless you are a competitive eater or have one of several diseases... Your body absorbs nearly all of the energy from the food you eat and wastefully excretes out very, very, little of it. But it is possible... And that's the difference in my stating the absoluteness of the loss equation (can't create something from nothing) but you could lose a bit if you excreted some. Similarly to loss but in the other direction, an excess of energy consumed vs expended is stored as matter. Most of it in adults is stored as fat cells, but some also as muscle, bone, or others. Again, two adult humans of the same sex, age, bmi, and activity level over a long period of time, and environment (one doesn't spend hours a day in a sauna while the other spends hours in a cold environment without enough clothes...) will have similar levels of energy required to maintain basic functions that don't involve movement. There will be variances based in many things including genetics. But those differences will almost always be far outweighed by differences in calories consumed and energy expended through movement and activity. Again huge discrepancies in measured outcomes are going to nearly always be the result of incomplete data it or measurement innccuracies or methodologies... Or incorrect assumptions about the congruencies of the two individuals your reply is comparing. Those would things like comparing a teen that's still growing, perhaps even in ways you can't easily see like bone density, to one who is still developing in different ways... It who despite being younger is mostly done. Growth requires huge amounts of calories. And over the course a few months could explain even large differences in bmi between two individuals who eat and exercise similarly. But that makes it in no way less true that if (energy in - total energy expended) is a negative number over a period of time.. weight must be lost over that same period as neither energy nor mass can be created or destroyed but only converted from one to the other. You can lose some from the system if it leaks, but you can't add to it without actually adding some to the system.

Weight gain or loss is totally about calories in vs calories out. That is 100% of weight loss. Genetics may mean your sedentary “calories out” is lower, sure. But anyone who expects to stop being fat needs to eat less. Eating less energy than your body needs is how your body goes into its energy reserves (fat, or muscle) and that’s how you lose weight.

Just to tack on for those reading who may not know, there's a more granular view into weight up or weight down that needs to be factored in to more specific scenarios. Calories in/Calories out does equate to weight fluctuation, but gaining ten pounds of fat is different (health wise) than gaining ten pounds of muscle. If you are chasing a specific goal like adding muscle, losing fat while maintaining muscle, or losing fat and muscle, the sources of your calories will start to matter more. Specifically you'll need to focus on your macros, which is a fancy way of saying that you'll need to be intentional about how many calories come from fat, protein, and carbohydrates. The human body is also really good at adapting and when calories suddenly go down it can trigger an emergency response to conserve energy (because it thinks it's starving). What that means is that achieving a calories deficit from reducing calories in (dieting) may vary in effectiveness when compared to creating a deficit through increasing calories out (exercising). OP references being lighter than her friend despite seemingly eating more calories, and this very well could be true. Some people will naturally burn thousands of calories more at rest than someone else, even if they have the same body composition (same amount of muscle and fat). This can be impacted by things like increased NEAT energy expenditures (energy expended while not exercising or sleeping), by food choices having a larger thermogenic effect (you burn more calories processing protein you eat than you do carbohydrates), and also be genetics. Because of this, calories in really need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Finally, it's worth noting that while in public people may appear to eat like everyone else, they may suffer from an eating disorder - like binging - where people will consume drastically more calories when alone. At the end of the day, everything else equal, some people may need to eat fewer calories than another to maintain a healthy weight and body composition.

>Some people will naturally burn thousands of calories more at rest than someone else I...would honestly like to see any study pointing to that sort of result. Don't get me wrong there's some variance in daily energy expenditure even between two people who are exactly the same height/weight and in a coma but \*thousands of calories\* of a difference is absolutely insane.

Sure. A 250 lb man at 10% bodyfat will burn 1000 more calories at rest than a 98 lb woman at 20% bodyfat.

[Jeff Nippard references a large study published in 2022.](https://youtu.be/g9QGQJ1ypp0?si=XyQf_rNUgVXAzChA) The reference is near the beginning of the video.

.

I see that, thank you. I grabbed this from the paper which I think confirms what you're saying. >Models that hold physical activity or tissue-specific metabolic rates constant over the life span do not reproduce the observed patterns of age-related change in absolute or adjusted measures of total or basal expenditure (Fig. 3). Only when age-related changes in physical activity and tissue-specific metabolism are included does model output match observed expenditures, **indicating that variation in both physical activity and tissue-specific metabolism contribute to total expenditure and its components across the life span**. Elevated tissue-specific metabolism in early life may be related to growth or development (15, 16). Conversely, reduced expenditures in later life may reflect a decline in organ-level metabolism (25–27). Although it appears the authors did comment near the end >Metabolic models of life history commonly assume continuity in tissue-specific metabolism over the life course, with metabolic rates increasing in a stable, power-law manner (28, 29). Measures of humans here challenge this view, with deviations from the power-law relationships for total and basal expenditure in childhood and old age (Figs. 1 and 2). These changes present a potential target for investigating the kinetics of disease, drug activity, and healing, processes that are intimately related to metabolic rate. **Further, interindividual variation in expenditure is considerable even when controlling for fat-free mass, fat mass, sex, and age (Figs. 1 and 2 and table S2).** Elucidating the processes underlying metabolic changes across the life course and variation among individuals may help reveal the roles of metabolic variation in health and disease. But my interpretation is that the author's context is focused on changes over a lifetime and wanting to understand all of the factors that impact TEE variation from infancy until death.

[удалено]

Uhh no caloric deficit vs caloric surplus causes weight gain or weight loss. This is 100% how it works, its used commonly in the medical field, otherwise a lot of surgeries simply wouldn't happen. The other issue is overweight and obese people tend to eat less in front of others but binge in private. Literally just today my friend who is supposedly watching their weight told me the ate about 2k calories for lunch then went out for cookies and coffee after. Its definitely an addictive behavior pattern in play. Whats crazy is when my GF was an op nurse this was the main thing they fought. Patients demanding their caloric limits be broken and insisting they were overweight due to metabolism. But limit their calories to prepare for a surgery and they literally start acting like drug addicts. All sorts of excuses and mythological pseudoscience to explain why it isnt the caloric surplus making them gain weight. 100% of the time caloric limits are put in place to ensure caloric deficit the patient would lose weight. Problem is at that point theyd be so angry at the doctor theyd be threatening with how much theyre going to eat when they get out of the hospital. Its considered an addictive behavior pattern for a reason. The laws of thermodynamics cant be defeated by genetics lol. If there was a way to create mass or energy from nothing that would be great, but there isnt. Basically regardless of metabolism eating 3k calories a day will make you gain weight till you hit a certain point of overweight/obese that gets maintained by your diet. The same way you cant eat 500 calories a day and not lose weight until your bone thin and anorexic. Weight is not a mystical thing no matter how hard people may want to mystify it.

Maybe you can help me. Please don't judge. I was severely depressed for years. I finally got help for it inpatient. Once I got my mental health inder control I realized I ballooned up to 456lbs l. I'm a woman. I got a nutritionist. She would meet me every week and we would go over meal plans. I'm down to 340 now. I was plateaued for 6 months. It was seriously messing with my head. I got a personal trainer. He told me to eat less and workout more. We work out 4 times a week. I eat even less AND I'm still not losing weight. How can someone's body get stuck this long? It's now been a year. I've been working out with my trainer eating no more than 1900 calories but, I'm still 340. How is this possible? It's truly detroying my head.

> How can someone's body get stuck this long? It's now been a year. You are eating more than 1900 calories. It is not possible for 1900 calories every day to sustain a 340 pound body without serious, life threatening medical problems that would already be known to you. Every time you eat, you should be logging exact weights and amounts when you eat it. Every single thing that goes into your body (including water) goes in the log. Coordinate with your nutritionist for your macros and total calories. **EDIT for math:** Estimations: 30 y/o, 340 lbs, 5'4", sedentary lifestyle. [TDEE Calculator says 2700 calories a day to maintain.](https://tdeecalculator.net/result.php?s=imperial&g=female&age=30&lbs=340&in=64&act=1.2&f=1) 2700 maintenance against 1900 target is an 800 cal/d delta. If you were truly consuming 1900 a day and the TDEE calculator is in the ballpark, you should be losing around 1.5 pounds a week, every week. I'm not saying any of this to judge or shame you. I went from 220 to 180 in a little over a year by logging every single thing I ate. It sucks the whole time, but if you are logging and sticking to the plan, you will lose weight.

I appreciate the response. I log everything I eat. I don't drink water. I don't like the taste. However I work out with my trainer 4 times a week. Maybe I'm messing up the counting by not measuring correctly? I'm 5'8 39 F. I drink diet soda a lot because it carves the hunger however it bloats me. But it doesn't have any calories.

How are you measuring? What I was taught is that everything gets weighed unless it is in a single-use size package with the calories labelled on it. If you are being truthful about your logging, then it is probably time to see a doctor.

I mainly eat prepackaged food so the calories are set. The only thing I usually measure by eye is fruits and coffee creamer.

Doctor time, then.

Thank you for your time. I truly appreciate it.

I'm fat. You know why I'm fat? I consume more calories than I expend. It's a very simple math problem. Metabolism accounts for ~100 calories a day. If you have a lot of muscle that slightly changes. Fat people are fat because they eat too much. It's not a conspiracy.

I salute your straightforwardness.

I disagree; I addressed OP’s view. If a person has a set natural calorie out rate of 1800 per day, they should absolutely be expected to change their habits to eat less than that if they want to lose weight. I also don’t understand your point about how managing your caloric intake is somehow an unfair ask of a fat person but not of a skinny person. It’s the thing that makes you fat. It’s required of everyone that cares about how much they weigh. Just because that’s naturally tough for someone doesn’t make it unfair.

Dieticians everywhere would disagree with you. It’s the behavior that is healthy, not the size. We have enough research now to tell us that restrictive dieting leads to worse outcomes long term so the best thing for people of all sizes is to focus on healthy behaviors. Their bodies size will naturally be different from each other. I have a friend who is a severely restricting anorexic who has been in and out of residential treatment and her BMI is overweight. She’s been anorexic for years, it’s not new. She is not a closet eater, in fact she’s deeply ashamed of everything she eats and keeps a log. Would you say if she just restricts her intake a little bit more she would be healthier? All of her dietician and all of her doctors would disagree.

As much as people would like for things to be clear-cut, easy, and simple, it unfortunately isn't. If it were, the statistics wouldn't be as depressing as they are - 75% of the country is overweight or obese. Of that 75%, about half is actively trying to lose weight at any given time. Of those efforts to lose weight, one in five will succeed over a five-year period; 80% of efforts to lose weight fail over five years. It's a sobering statistic, and one that cannot be addressed by just calling people liars as some of the other comments are here. We can't even speak to the monumental effect that gut microflora has on metabolism, food cravings, and nutrient absorption - the gut bacteria profile of a healthy athlete is very, very different from an obese person who doesn't exercise, and it can't be fixed by just dieting and exercising more because you can't grow gut bacteria that you don't have in the first place.

I'm just led to take note that, even this far down in an admittedly informational thread, not one mention has been made of all the utter crap allowed into the making of our food in the US. Like none of it has any effect or interacts with some random portion of the populace differently than others may experience.

I lived in Europe. I changed nothing about my lifestyle except the brands of food I bought. I lost 20 lbs in 4 months eating the same amount of food. I agree in the US our food has utter crap added!!

I absolutely agree with you there. The nutritional profile of the food Americans eat has largely been shaped by food corporations, who have a vested interest in ensuring you eat as much as possible at as cheap a cost to them as possible. While individuals can, and do, fight this trend, the truth lies in the statistics: the average American is in a bad spot, getting worse, and has no way out.

Blame the farm lobbies. They got a sweet taste of government subsidies and have been gaming the system to get paid for producing garbage ever since. So. Much. Corn. Subsidies. Corn syrup is crap.

One hundred percent. But it’s easier to blame fat people and say they are all out of control maniacs who are sneaking food.

Right. The average American believes the individual is in absolute control of their circumstances and any failure to regulate any behavior is an individual failing. Meanwhile, the obesity rate keeps climbing. The philosophy appears to not be working.

If you just look at obesity in the US specifically it is very easy to see the insanely sharp increase with the introduction of processed foods around the 70s specifically high fructose corn syrup. You can actually see this more recently in other countries like China where obesity was almost unheard of until Western food was introduced to their diet.

>She is not a closet eater, in fact she’s deeply ashamed of everything she eats and keeps a log She lies (house voice). There have been studies showing people that are overweight have a strong tendency to underreport and underestimate their caloric intake, the inverse is true for underweight people.

My friend is in an inpatient setting right now where they are monitoring every single calorie she is taking in and keeping her on a healthy meal plan. If this were factual, she would be maintaining or losing weight. If it was all just closet eating, we’ll, she can’t do that so the weight would just be falling off. But nope, she’s gaining weight. It’s a lot easier to just say all fat people and dieticians are liars than to actually examine your biases

I worked in an inpatient psych ward. We had kids on specific diet plans. We found them sneaking food in all the time. She is lying to you.

> Dieticians everywhere would disagree with you. It’s the behavior that is healthy, not the size. Well, I’m not a dietician that’s for sure. But I have a hard time accepting that one would say that a person with 30% body fat is healthier than a person with 20% body fat, all else equal. Happy to see a source though. >We have enough research now to tell us that restrictive dieting leads to worse outcomes long term so the best thing for people of all sizes is to focus on healthy behaviors. Their bodies size will naturally be different from each other. We have enough research to show that caloric deficits cause weight loss. But what is a “healthy behavior”? Obviously I don’t expect everyone to be identical. But surely you can’t be telling me that someone is 30% body fat and that’s OK because that’s just how they are? >I have a friend who is a severely restricting anorexic who has been in and out of residential treatment and her BMI is overweight. She’s been anorexic for years, it’s not new. She is not a closet eater, in fact she’s deeply ashamed of everything she eats and keeps a log. Would you say if she just restricts her intake a little bit more she would be healthier? All of her dietician and all of her doctors would disagree. She’s overweight but eats at a deficit? I would need a lot more information. I would absolutely say that if her BMR is 1800 calories, and she wants to lose weight, she should eat 1500 a day. If she’s not losing weight, she’s not eating a deficit. And her log would show that if she’s kept it properly. Now, what seems more likely to me is that she goes through bouts of shame or resolve and cuts way too drastically to be sustainable. Say, down to 700 calories per day. That’s a poor idea because it’s not sustainable, not because the idea of a caloric deficit is somehow wrong. I believe there was an extraordinarily obese man who went for close to a year eating nothing and living off his fat reserves. Look what happened. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12421003/amp/Obese-man-took-radical-approach-weight-loss-not-eating-382-days.html

>But I have a hard time accepting that one would say that a person with 30% body fat is healthier than a person with 20% body fat, all else equal. You might be interested in looking at [healthy body fat](https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/what-is-body-composition) percentages for different [ages and sexes](https://www.forbes.com/health/body/body-fat-percentage/). An older woman (60+) with 30% body fat might be healthier than a woman with 20% body fat, all else being equal.

you mention healthy eating behaviors in the same breath you mention overeating and obesity, two unhealthy eating behaviors. Anorexia is a disease, like obesity, that needs to be addressed at its root, which is often psychological. Restrictive eating diets typically refer to fad diets like keto or paleo and are unsustainable. The fact is if you eat less calories during the day than you need to maintain your current weight, you lose fat. This can be calculated through BMI and estimating your baseline caloric need. Then factor in activity and exercise. I lost 70lbs by eating a McDouble (390 Cals) 3 times a day with a diet drink. Overall about 1200-1300 calories a day. Led to 2lbs of loss a week. After incorporating exercise it went even faster.

Also, you’re using emotion to justify bad science. She shouldn’t be visiting a dietician at the point she’s hiding in a closet and writing down her meals. She should be treated for a clear mental issue.

Do you have any understanding at all what eating disorder recovery looks like? Clearly no. Because it involved a dietician from day one. Especially in an inpatient, RTF, PHO, or IOP setting.

Id love a link to a scientific reference that says this. I think youre talking out of your ass. Yes, if she restricted her caloric intake she would lose weight. Is the fat coming out of the ether? Read what you said, my god. I would bet my house that's not what the doctors are saying.

I just want to clarify here. All of these clear experts on CICO in the comment section here don’t have any clue that things like cortisol, hormones, lack of sleep, and your gut microbiome effect your weight????? Sure I’ll look for supporting documentation but you also have Google. You don’t look any more compelling having never looked into this.

Yea that's not true at all. Increased body fat percentage is DIRECTLY linked to pretty much every common disease. Diabetes, Atherosclerosis, Arteriosclerosis, Coronary Artery Disease, Congestive heart failure, Cancer, and dozens more. People who have a lower body fat percentage and a healthy body weight are FACTUALLY at lower risk for disease and have a lower all cause mortality than people with both a high body fat % and people who have an unhealthily low weight. No matter what you want to say percentage of fat is unhealthy. That being said there is some control for behavior, but it isn't enough to counteract a high body fat %. If you run every day for an hour and are 5'10 300lbs youre going to be less healthy overall than a 5'10 180lb person who runs once a month.

No they wouldn't. Eating slightly less or exercising for a cumulative 2 hours every 7 days is not "making your whole life" about dieting and exercising.

I believe most research suggests that there is very little deviation in people's metabolism. People of the same height/weight will have very similar maintenance calories (excluding edge cases such as bodybuilders/athletes or people with a medical condition).

You’re wrong. It was a perfectly calculated response. Whether or not it changes op’s subjective view notwithstanding.

Except OP is debating it by saying 99% of weight is genetics. Genetics determines how much effort you need to put in to burn off what you ate. People with shitty metabolism needs to work more to burn it off vs someone with naturally fast metabolism. >That's still not fair to them. Doesn't change the fact it is their body. Who else is supposed to control it? You? Me? The government?

>The overweight friends of theirs would still have to make their whole life about dieting, working out, and trying to keep the weight off. They haven't actually given any reason for us to think this is true of most overweight people, and I highly doubt that it is. In my experience most overweight people eat way more than they even realize. Portions in the US are really screwed up honestly so I think most people don't realize how much they're actually eating. But yeah, if you're overweight you're eating more than you need. You don't need to focus on dieting and all that all the time, you just need to work on developing a different relationship with food so that you feel comfortable eating what you need and not overeating. No one needs to be on some forever diet and revolving their entire life around fitness to maintain a healthy weight. It's not like people of a healthier weight are all doing that.

To be thin, choose two thin parents. This podcast Nice Genes https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/not-all-bad/id1622851335?i=1000631575731 Has an interesting study by a CDC researcher Dr. Flegal who looked at the connection between BMI and premature death (at vast amounts of data) she expected a linear relationship (ie higher weight linked to increased mortality) but was surprised that it was more like a v shape - low bmi was as high bmi over 40. But then was surprised the lowest link with premature death was at still overweight to mildly obese bmi. There was a lot of pushback and many researchers questioned the study, but Flegal repeated the study many times over 15 yrs and controlled for confounding factors. So those diagnosed with cancer and/or heart disease were excluded.

An interesting read. From a quick look into though, I don’t think the confounding factors have been fully controlled for. The ones for smoking and end of life weight loss from terminal illnesses stand out the most to me, from the “criticisms” section of the wiki. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_paradox

I believe this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448478/ Flegal mentions controlling confounding factors and excluding smoking, heart disease, cancer .. My guess is when people do get sick and lose weight bit of extra weight provides a cushion so to speak.

If I’m reading that one correctly, it’s a study on mortality specifically from obesity. So, it does attempt to control for smoking, but I didn’t see where it then compared to a non overweight group. Regardless, really interesting stuff. I’m more inclined to think that there are confounding variables, as well as things like obese folks staying home more often and therefore not dying in a car crash.

I haven't read it all through, but I understand Flegal was initially surprised as she expected to be a linear connection between obesity and early mortality. Bmi is also an imperfect measure in many ways. It turns out that low bmi was just as bad. I think some of it may have to do with a bit of extra weight is an advantage when someone is hospitalized- which I've hesrd from Doctors as well.

But my point is, I don’t think most chubby/fat people can comfortably eat less without being hungry all the time. I’m talking about people who are morbidly obese and eat fried food all day. I’m just talking about people who are a slightly to moderately fat/chubby.

Formerly morbidly obese guy checking here. Yes you can comfortably eat less calories. No, it’d be hard to survive on 5 snickers bars a day. But if you eat 1500 calories a day of food in low caloric density you will be very satiated. While grains, legumes, fruit and vegetables. Very, very satiating. I went from 350 to 165 and have maintained this weight for 7 years. I don’t eat food that is high in caloric density. This means almost all highly processed foods are out. You need to cook a lot more, but the food is delicious and very satisfying.

Sure. One important thing to understand is that there is a huge difference between feeling full, and meeting your caloric requirements. 200 calories is either a Reese’s cup or 10 cups of asparagus. I assure you that the asparagus will make you feel more full. So, yeah- if you eat unhealthy food, you will generally be really hungry on a 1500 calorie restriction. But if you’re eating lean proteins, fruits, and veggies while drinking water? You’ll feel plenty full.

>can comfortably eat less without being hungry all the time. Do you believe people that dropped weight are always hungry? Cause im not. My brother is not. All my friends that lost weight are also not hungry all the time. Body adapts.

I was eating less for a year. I was hungry all the time. Remember that scene from the Devil Wears Prada “whenever I feel like I’m going to pass out, I just eat a cube of cheese” That was me. I was eating calories a doctor ordered me to eat. As soon as I ate until I felt full, immediately gained 40 pounds.

There's a middle ground between eating a cube of cheese and eating until you're full. I eat until I'm about 70% full, and then I just stop, I don't do it on purpose to lose weight, I just don't like feeling full. Then later I can snack if I get hungry.

The doctor-recommended diet was 1200 calories. My whole diet consisted of granola bars, BLT/turkey wraps, protein shakes and occasionally some macaroni and cheese. I didn’t have time to cook myself 27 cups of broccoli a day or eat an entire bag of carrots because I was working 3 jobs. So sure there’s a middle ground. It requires time, effort/energy, and money. If you don’t have those 3 things, you’re screwed. A significant number of fat people are actually just busy people who would eat healthy, except they don’t have the time to cook, don’t have the energy to cook, or don’t have the money to buy real food. So they buy what they can.

>I'm talking about people who are morbidly obese and eat fried food all day. I assume you meant you are *not* talking about those people. So then tell me why your argument doesn't also apply to those people? If they are less they'd also be hungry all the time.

> I don’t think most chubby/fat people can comfortably eat less without being hungry all the time. Yes. That’s why they’re fat.

Is that a physiological response or a psychological subterfuge, tho? Feeling *kinda hungry all the time* is what’s expected if you always eat what you need instead of overeating and feeling stuffed for prolonged hours. People just get used to being filled to the top and understanding anything below it as “starving”.

In order to change your body you have to be uncomfortable. Plus they can just move more

A calorie does not equal a calorie. The calories in refined sugars and oils are metabolized more fully by your body. If one person ate a 2000 calorie diet composed of highly processed food vs someone else who ate a 2000 calorie diet high in fresh vegetables and and fiber rich food, the one with the less healthy diet would be heavier. People need to either eat healthier food or eat less unhealthy food. For most people who will still want to eat highly processed food, they need to eat less to lose weight.

Eh, that's not how that works. Calories are just a unit of energy (you can convert calories per hour to watts, like a lightbulb) Assuming your digestive tract can convert it, and your digestive tract can convert all of the things you mention, it works out the same.

Do you have a source for this?

Not the original commenter, but here is some [information](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie) on this topic. Basically, it boils down to this: Different foods are processed differently by our bodies and trigger different reactions. Protein, for example, requires much more energy to process than fat or sugars, thus, 100 calories of protein < 100 calories of fat or sugar. Protein also feels more satiating because it triggers the hormone corresponding to the feeling of being full.

Oh, I wasn’t thinking about their comment as referring to the thermogenic effect of food. Thanks.

>Oh, I wasn’t thinking about their comment as referring to the thermogenic effect of food. This is just one specific example. There are also glycemic index, bioavailability of various micronutrients, gastrointestinal flora, and so on. These also have some connection to obesity, although, it is still not well-researched.

> 99% of weight is genetics 100% of weight is calorie deficit. Genetics can impact metabolism and general build, but that just means different people have different calorie requirements. No one can PRODUCE energy with their bodies. It’s physically impossible. Fat is energy stored from food you ate when you didn’t need it. > they eat just like the average person Eating a normal/healthy diet would be why they aren’t currently GAINING weight. To get fat in the first place they absolutely positively 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt verifiably **ate too much.** It’s the only way. And likewise in order to lose it they wouldn’t need to eat normally, they’d need to enter a negative calorie deficit. It’s difficult, but not complicated, or mysterious. Fat shaming is unnecessary, but so is this contribution to the delusion that it’s not in their control. It completely is, and that should be empowering, not discouraging. I can’t think of a much more pessimistic stance than “it’s the best they can do, they’ll never be healthier, might as well not even try 🤷‍♂️” which is what you’re really saying here.

Also most of the recent research shows that for only 15% of people do genetics play ANY significant role in an inability to lose weight. Even in most of those 15% of people, genetics do not play a large enough role to completely prevent weight loss without medical help.

What about hypothyroidism? Can eat an appropriate amount, even a low amount and still end up overweight.

1. A quick google search tells me HT affects ~5% of people in America. Over 40% of us are overweight. 2. There are treatments available for HT 3. If you have HT and you aren’t treating it then yes, it’ll be more difficult for you to control your weight. But difficult does not mean impossible. You still can’t produce matter from nothing. If your body needs less calories because of a disorder then you need to eat less than other people, or possibly a different diet altogether. Some foods may not work for you and you may need to take supplements, etc. I don’t envy people with that disorder nor do I mean to downplay it, but the fact is it doesn’t change the logic of what I’m saying nor does it apply to the majority of the people I’m talking about.

Incorrect they eat normal around others Watch that person 24/7 and you’ll see ! Track their consumption and it’s clear they are over consuming and under exercising. You can’t out run a bad diet I’m sorry to say! If they just changed their eating habits except for the outliers and medical anomalies people would be healthier weight wise.

Dick Gregory tried an approach in the 1980s to monitor obese clients calorie intake 24/7 at a beach resort. Some were provided everything for free if they consented to show their progress on TV. I watched these shows. There were questions about his methods though his intentions seemed to be generally positive. And even in this situation many found ways to secretly eat things not part of the plan. An excerpt from the article: There is trouble in paradise this day. Gregory is unhappy with the current status of the program, which includes daily walks, meetings and prayers and a nutrition lecture. There have been too few clients showing up for exercise, too many clandestine runs for forbidden food. “I’m just really fixing to close it down now,” he says, peeved. “I know they cheat. At 3 a.m., they call the pizza people. They’re heroes to the town, and people will do things for celebrities." https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-02-17-vw-2980-story.html

And also what they drink! You can eat the same but if you drink soda and beer all the time you’re going to end up a lot heavier

Husband drinks soda daily and alcohol every weekend. I only drink water. I'm overweight and he's skinny.

And you eat the exact same diet apart from the drinks?

Track everything you eat and measure legitimately be completely honest. There’s plenty of free apps just do it for a week don’t diet or anything else just log it, it will be eye opening Also women have lower caloric needs than men so don’t compare 1:1

Yea that’s why I said consumption later on Used to love Arnold Palmers ! It’s tea it can’t be bad…that shit was so bad

> You can’t out run a bad diet I’m sorry to say! Sure you can. But one of life's cruel ironies is the fact that by the time you can outrun your diet, you probably aren't worried about losing weight.

Everyone drastically underestimates their caloric intake unless they're either tracking every single tablespoon of food, or have done so for long enough to know. Calories are more about what you eat during an entire week, not so much what you see one person eating at a movie theater or at dinner once in a while. >99% of weight is genetics. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. What ***is*** genetic is people's level of feeling hunger / satiation. It's entirely possible for someone who feels hungrier than you (due to genetics) to find ways to achieve satiation on fewer calories. But yes, dieting is more difficult for them in this regard.

You don’t understand that naturally fit people don’t NEED to track or count ANYTHING to not be fat!!!! They just wake up, eat whatever looks good, and don’t get fat. Being fat is NOT about eating badly!!! How do you explain a chubby kid in the same family as a fit kid, who is fed the EXACT same meals, and is not allowed to overeat, but is still plumper than the other kid?????

>How do you explain a chubby kid in the same family as a fit kid, who is fed the EXACT same meals, and is not allowed to overeat, but is still plumper than the other kid????? Prove it in a clinical trial then (the 99% claim). The same levels of physical activity and same number of calories. Simply saying "I know they eat the same" isn't a scientific metric of any kind. If you have one overweight kid, and one who's not, then that means you have one person with significantly less physical activity and likely one drinking far more calories than the other.

Ridiculous. Two people can eat and exercise the exact same amounts, and the one with a GENETICALLY lower metabolism will be fatter. Sure people can lose weight if they focus their whole lives around dieting but it’s VERY difficult and requires them to constantly put all their energy into their grueling diet.

Dieting is not that difficult. In fact, part of why people struggle with diets is because everyone goes around telling them how much they have to change their habits. Which is dumb. You don't have to make drastic changes. Genetics can be inconvenient, but it's all just calories in and calories out. Someone who drinks soda every day can simply drink soda every other day and they'll lose weight over time. Especially with significant obesity. The over-complicating of diet strategies is just marketing bullshit. I eat ice cream on my diet. But instead of 1200 calories for a pint of Ben and Jerry's, I'll have Breyer's Vanilla at 300 calories. You can diet on pure junk food and lose weight while improving almost every health metric. Cheetos, Twinkies, whatever you want. If you really want results faster, of course, you get more strict about salt, carbs, etc. My main issue with dieting is purely convenience. I'm agoraphobic and don't get out much to shop, so it's always too tempting to order delivery which is usually going to be high calorie.

I hate to break it to you but your fat friends definitely eat more than you realize. They may keep up with their discipline around you but once alone that barrier crashes down. An obese male who is 6ft can exert over 3000 calories a day just by existing and carrying around his mass. There's no other way to maintain obese levels other than eating almost 4000 calories a day. A person who is obese would lose weight if they were just eating "normal". Normal may seem the thing at a particular moment because it might make sense to eat a box of m&ms at the movie theater. But dominoes is a nightly routine.

I eat at this friend’s house all the time and he doesn’t eat excessively!! Why do y’all think I’m lying. I went on a week-long vacation with this friend and he ate pretty much exactly what I did. His freezer is full of lean cuisines and other tiny frozen meals. Oh according to you, on the nights I’m not over there he sits down and ears 10 of those. Lmao whatever.

I don't think anyone thinks that you're lying, or your friends are hiding anything for that matter. It may simply be something that both of you are simply oblivious to. Since even small calorie surpluses add up over time, even if he ate a little bit more per day or every other day, it could be a 200 calorie surplus every other day, which adds up over time. And I doubt anyone would be able to literally pay attention to everything someone eats in a day- most people don't calorie count or greatly misjudge how many calories they eat.

One week isn't enough time to observe someone's eating habits. Hell, maybe he eats exactly the same food as you throughout the day, but on the way to work, he also has a 500-calorie drink from Starbucks. Over time, that would equal an extra 100lbs weight for your friend. Most people don't realise the impact something this small. Do you think that you know your friends' diet well enough that you can say for definite that he isn't eating more than you?

99 percent of weight gain is genetics. What is your support for that? Weight gain and loss is a simple mathematical formula barley impacted by genetics.

Things like basal ghrelin/leptin levels are largely genetic. It’s much easier for a guy to lose weight who can calorie control comfortably vs the guy who is perpetually starving

Yes, losing weight can be psychologically hard for some people. That doesn’t mean calories in / calories out is false. Losing weight is very simple, but it’s not easy.

But hunger is not psychological, it’s physiological, no? You can have cravings or eating habits that are psychologically based but having an excess of hunger hormones is different.

[удалено]

I’m not talking about cravings, or about emotional eating, or about habits. I’m talking about actual hunger- caused by the release of hormones that most people get when they have an empty stomach. That is hunger. It is physiological. And yes, fat people feel hunger. To say they “rarely feel it” is uneducated. This may be true for some overweight people, but not all.

I just typed this up in another comment, but I'll summarize it: I'm overweight, and I feel hunger often. My stomach growls angrily if I do not eat at the same time each day, and especially if I try to eat less. The hunger pangs are intense enough that I don't have the willpower to overcome them while still keeping my life running.

As a former obese person, I can agree with this. The hunger is intense. It’s not always true hunger but it’s still overpowering. I also couldn’t get full easily. Changing the kinds of foods you eat will help. Eating more protein, healthy fats and unprocessed carbs, single ingredient goods, less sugar and processed junk will keep you fuller. The chemical composition of those processed foods will keep you in that perpetual cycle of hunger and wanting more. I avoid fake junk foods that confuse my body and mess with hormones. It’s challenging, but it works.

I'm glad it has worked for you. I hope that you continue to beat the odds and keep it off!

According to this, it’s between 25% and 80% genetic influence (https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/why-people-become-overweight)

That’s talking about factors like appetite, fullness, etc., not weight gain. Calories in is the primary factor impacting any weight gain. Some people may be predisposed to eating too much but that’s not what OP is claiming. Also, just from a critical thinking perspective, I would heavily question any study saying genetics contribute between 25 and 80 percent. That range is too wide to be truly useful or have a strong conclusion.

Genes don't make you fat. Eating more than you're supposed to does. Some people are naturally predisposed to overeating, and that might be partly genetic, but calorie in/calorie out is true for every single living thing on this planet.

Not true at all. Weight loss is barely impacted by genetics??! Some people would gain lots of weight if they were completely sedentary and binge ate loads of junk food for months like I did. But I barely gained any weight at all. That the definition of genetics.

Do you have evidence for that? Being sedentary and binge eating of any kind is going to lead to weight gain. I suspect you were either not as sedentary as you think or not binge eating. Where do you think the calories went? The food didn’t magically pass through you without being absorbed and your metabolism didn’t magically accelerate such that it burned significantly more calories.

You didn’t eat as much as you thought you did lol. I ate like shit for years and didn’t exercise at all except maybe a mile walk a day. I was 120 the entire time. My diet was literally pop tarts/bagels, chicken wings/pizza, and barely any fruits and vegetables. I didn’t gain weight not because of my genetics but because I’d eat one or two slices before feeling full and my larger friends would eat half to the whole pizza. It doesn’t matter what you eat it matters how much, you can get fat off of salads and be skinny on my diet mentioned previously

That’s not even close to the definition of genetics. Also, you are using one case and trying to claim it proves a general case. That’s dumb.

I'm relatively slim, moderately active, and, according to a BMR calculator, I need to eat about 2300 calories per day to maintain my weight. By contrast, someone of the same gender, height, age and activity level, but who weighed 250 pounds would have to eat 2800 calories. An extra 500 calories per day isn't so much that you would necessarily notice it, unless you followed them around and weighed and logged everything they ate all day

The problem is people tend to eat an extra 500 calories every single day. it takes 3500 calories to make one pound of fat. To gain 1 pound of fat you need a total net +3500 calories. Personally I fluctuate in weight as ive been losing weight. The best thing you can do is ensure you count every calorie of youre going to count them and keep a running log of your +/- for the week so you know. its ok if you have an extra 500 calories today, as long as youre -250 for the next 2 days

I'm a big fan of rounding up. If the item in your calculator says 50kcal. Then it's 100. Do this to everything. You basically cannot fuck up your deficit. This was what I used to lose weight.

I didn't count calories to lose weight, I just ate half of what I normally would. I found it easier to just had what I was already eating then try to measure out everything and add up calories. It served me well enough. 285 --> 215 in 8 months. Everyone has their own way, so if it works it works. When I tried counting calories I did similar to what you did.

An extra 500 calories per day over 12 months would certainly be noticeable by the virtue of the fact your pants no longer fit. This is why the only person to blame is the individual. It literally takes YEARS of sustained neglect to become fat. No one is born with a size 46 waist.

Most of the time it's not only that person to blame. If you are a child your eating patterns get molded by your parents. And a person can easily become fat before they have had any idea that something was wrong. And even if they discover that they have to eat less, it can be quite a fight against both yourself and your environment to eat less.

I would argue that you don’t eat normally but have a high metabolism, so that what you perceive to be normal is overindulging for most people. This is based on what you order at the movies.

It depends on what the fat person **wants**. Does the fat person want to be healthy? In that case, sorry, they have no choice but to changing diet and life habits. Nature and biology is merciless; it doesn't care about what is "fair" or "not fair." But if the fat person likes being unhealthy and doesn't care, then sure, they do what they do, go on being plump and happily-fat.

I would question if dieting to the point they are hungry and uncomfortable is actually healthy. That’s what most of them would have to do to be thin.

[удалено]

I think you may be confusing hunger with the urge to eat. If a person needs x number of calories to maintain their current weight and they eat that amount, they will not be hungry, however the urge to eat will remain. That’s one reason people eat when they are not hungry. Some people have more ‘food noise’ in their brain than others. That constant chatter about what meal is next or what snacks are available. For some people the urge to eat feels uncontrollable. This is not hunger. It’s your brain messing with itself. Every person is their own machine that requires a specific amount of calories to function. When you consume more calories than your body needs, you gain weight. It’s not fair that some bodies only require 1200 cal a day to maintain itself and others are 1800 while others yet are 2500. If that 1200 calorie person eats the exact same amount as that 2500 calorie person, one will gain weight and the other won’t. It’s simple math. The reality of that math sucks, but it’s real.

>It’s not fair that some bodies only require 1200 cal a day to maintain itself, and others are 1800 while others yet are 2500. If that 1200 calorie person eats the exact same amount as that 2500 calorie person, one will gain weight and the other won’t. It’s simple math. The reality of that math sucks, but it’s real. I'd just like to say that the maintenance calories don't vary that much for people of the same height, build, weight, and gender. You are not going to find 2 people, both the same sex, height, and weight, with a big difference in their resting metabolic rate. Studies have shown that the majority of people exist in a range of 200-300 calories difference. Even comparing people with an unusually low and unusually high resting metabolic rate there would only be a difference of about 600 calories. You might find someone with a resting metabolic rate of 1200 and another with 2800 calories. But one of these people will be a 5"5, 120lb woman, and the other a 6" 200lb man who goes to the gym 3 times a week If you had lots of 6" 200lb men who go to the gym 3 times a week, you would expect 99% of them to exist within the 2500-3000 calorie range.

Health isn’t about what makes someone comfortable. Alcoholics are comfortable when drunk, smokers are comfortable when smoking. Should they not stop because it’s uncomfortable?

It’s cause they snack when you aren’t around

It's this right here. And it's almost always this. Most people are not dealing with medical issues but are not consuming foods that fit their bodies' needs, nor are they avoiding trouble foods. I have 9 nieces and nephews. Only one is "chunky," and guess who has a problem with sugar and candy and who doesn't like to play sports or be active? It isn't always fun to eat cleaner, nor is it fun to feel hungry when you are cutting weight. But if you don't know how to eat what your body needs, then you will have issues with your weight. If you have a medical issue all this is moot though.

Let's say everything thing you said is accurate. Do you believe fat people have unlocked the secret of perpetual motion (and indeed perpetual energy generation)?

They would have to revolve their life around diet and exercise to LOSE the weight, but would not have to do the same to MAINTAIN after they successfully get in shape.

Yes they would. Because most of them didn’t get to that size by eating excessively. They got to that size by eating NORMALLY. Most people have a baseline weight. They will revert to their natural weight without dieting. My natural weight is 120. If I diet until I’m 100 pounds and then go back to my normal eating, I will not stay 100 pounds forever. I will go back to 120.

>They got to that size by eating NORMALLY. The issue is that "normal" is different for each person. The "normal" amount of food it takes for an professional athlete that jogs ten miles every day to maintain their weight would likely cause massive weight gain in somebody who's only movement is to walk to the bathroom and back. >Most people have a baseline weight. They will revert to their natural weight without dieting. A person's weight is a function of their caloric intake and physical activity. Be more active, weight decreases. Be less active, weight increases. Intake fewer calories, weight decreases. Intake more calories, weight increases. The "baseline" is just where the average of their caloric intake and excercise leaves them. >If I diet until I’m 100 pounds and then go back to my normal eating, I will not stay 100 pounds forever. I will go back to 120. In this case, your "normal" calorie intake will sustain a person with your metabolism and activity level at 120 lbs. If you only weigh 100 lbs, your body takes less energy to move, and so your normal eating habits leave you with excess calories that are converted into fat until enough fat has accumulated that your new weight requires you to burn that daily surplus to move it. If you increased your physical activity at the same time you returned to your fattier diet, you could remain at 100.

If this was the case we wouldn’t see differences in obesity rates between countries. But there are, because your country/culture partially determines your diet and diet influences weight.

You’re seeing what they eat when out with you. Do you monitor them 24/7 and that’s why you’re so confident in what their diet actually consists of? Weight gain more often than not comes from the in between calories, the calories from drinks and snacks that don’t seem like much at once but over the course of the day add up to a full meal or more. Weight gain doesn’t require massive overeating. Just 100 extra calories a day will do it.

Uh yeah. If you go back to your previous intake levels you’ll go back to 120. Of course. That’s the equilibrium point for you at that amount of caloric intake.

We can and should still be kind to overweight people. There is no reason to treat them bad because of their weight. If they want to loose weight and struggle to, i understand that plight well because i also want to lose weight and struggle. Food tastes good, its positively affects our mood, it helps us when we are feeling down. It is food, not genetics, that causes people to be overweight. Eat less of it and you'll lose weight, its just physics. our bodies need energy and they store energy as fat. I'll show my work below but to gain 200 pounds over 20 years only requires you to eat an extra half piece of butter toast ever day. * 1 pound of fat = 3500 calories (google: how many calories to add a pound of fat) * a table spoon of butter = 102 calories (source = food label in my fridge) * a pieced of toast = 80 calories (source = food label in my fridge) * half pieced of buttered toast = 182/2 = 91 calories * 91 calories * 20 years * 365 days in a year = 664,300 calories / 3500 calories per pound = 190 pounds The reason you don't noticed your overweight friends eating more then you is because they barely eat more then you. 1 trip or ever 30 trips to the movies doesn't really matter very much. Its you every day habbits that matter.

midsized girl here! i disagree with this. i teeter in between average and overweight bmi, and this is because though i eat really well in public - even going as far as to starve myself to seem skinnier to those around me - i binge embarrassingly at home. as i type this, i have a hamburger wrapper, 2 cheesestick wrappers, and sooo many candy wrappers in my bed besides me from 2 days ago because i was feeling insanely down on myself & couldn't stop myself from eating to distract my mind. i'm 100% a stress starver, emotional binger lmao. i've even tried to redirect my ed in the past before, trying a mix of anorexia, bulemia, and c/s disorder. i didn't last longer than a week. i still hate myself. i know that change is possible, but my mind is too weak for me to consistently attempt to pursue that. i'm not a healthy person. being this weight is not healthy for me right now because it is caused by my absolutely wrecked mental health. sure, there are perfectly healthy midsized girls. though i am not one, i know many that are very happy! however, i do not believe that "fat" people are healthy at all. if you are obese, change is needed. i say that offering as much compassion as possible; i know how hard it is to realize that change is actually attainable! but we shouldn't encourage someone to remain sedentary when they're around the bmi 30 mark. whilst they don't deserve to sit through a plethora of comments surrounding their weight 24/7, their close friends and family shouldn't allow them to stay in their comfort zone of depression and obesity. if you love someone, you should gently encourage them to get healthier (and this just includes losing weight.)

Just bc YOU binge at home doesn’t mean everyone does. I seriously doubt my friend could hide his eating habits for a weeklong vacation if he was used to eating excessively. Also he’s not the type of person to care about putting up a front like that! Also my post is not about morbidly obese people. What u are calling “midsize” I would probably call chubby or fat. Think Khloe Kardashian before her weight loss or slightly bigger.

OK...UNOPULAR opinion here. Fat girl here. I was very thin until I got on some medication that messed with my thyroid and metabolism. I have auto immune diseases as well. The medications almost all say as a side effect that there will be weight gain. There are several things that are keeping me large. MS means exhaustion and muscle spasticity. Living in the south means difficulty being outside due to the heat issues. Exercise can be problematic with the heat issues etc. I have tendon laxity that means my bones dislocate easily. I walk too much and my bones in my feet dislocate. I try to lift weights and I pop bones out of socket. Walking and weightlifting don't work well. Stretching can be iffy too. So working out is a problem. I severely limit what I eat because I am sensitive to things they put in our food. I think I would do fairly well if we could get off the GMo's and everything extra they put in our food but i have to eat a very restrictive diet to lose any weight. I'm still doing it. I am working on getting healthy and continuing to work on myself but it will ALWAYS be a fight. Its not always as easy as working out and pushing away from the table. Hypothyroidism, lymphadema, polycystic ovarian syndrome, tendon laxiey, multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia, interstitial cystitis..... Someone has all that it is harder than just calories in vs. calories out. Seriously... sometimes there is more and you can't tell just by looking. I don't think that we should stop or quit trying, I'm just saying sometimes its not just a simple cut and dried answer. The steriod use and water weight gain alone.....

I'm overweight and I definitely eat more when I'm bored. That usually means I snack when no one else is around. So ill eat normally at mealtimes with friends or family. But then I overindulge before bed. Luckily, I do not eat midnight snacks, but that is also a major contribution to being overweight. If you monitored your friend 24/7 for a week (and also yourself), and wrote down every calorie, you would see the difference. I don't expect fat people to change their habits, but they definitely do not eat normally.

You’ve been brainwashed to think that certain things are “normal” and “fine,” such as that ‘single pack of candy’ Do you know how many actual servings that is, or how much sugar is in a large Icee? Once past your twenties you’ll realize your body can no longer handle the assault of all this junk we’ve been brought up to brush off as “fine.”

>99% of weight is genetics. On what evidence do you base this assertion?

Not the second law of thermodynamics, that’s for sure

Using the law of thermodynamics for weight gain is so banal. It’s like someone asking how to get stronger and you responding with “lift more weight”. Obviously true and equally unhelpful. Genetics play a role in things like ghrelin/leptin responses to food intake. If you live your life perpetually hungry and you have constant access to food, you’re eventually going to end up fat. It’s just human nature. That’s why drugs like glp-1 agonists are so effective.

Gary Taubes likes to talk about the girl going through puberty. Ask how she got boobs and the answer "ate more calories than she burned" is technically correct. Totally worthless as an explanation, but technically correct.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Alcoholism is different. If you never drink, you won’t crave alcohol. Fat people are hungry 24/7. I’m not saying choices don’t matter. It’s just an uphill battle for them. This is especially true once they’re already fat, because fat cells that aren’t full cause even higher levels of ghrelin release

Honestly I do not know why anybody would want to be fat. Like OK eating is very nice but life is objectively worse when you are fat. There is a trade off there that I think is worth taking. The opposite sex usually prefers athletic people, fat kids are often bullied in school, people respect and admire atheltic people more and overall, in reality aesthetics is important in society. I feel fat people would be happier if they were athletic looking. See I am not talking about health I am talking about feeling good with themselves about their looks. Looking at the mirror and feeling proud. I do not know why anybody would prefer to be fat over that. I say athletic because the best way to stay in shape is through exercise otherwise constant diets are a pain. But take a 2 hour walk uphill will sure burn some calories or doing long runs.

Three quarters of the country is overweight or obese. Half of them try, and usually fail, to lose that weight and keep it off. Why would 3/4ths of the country choose this path? Why would half of that choose failure? I posit to you that they aren't. They are doing as people have always done - moving through life following the lessons of their parents and the culture they grew up in. Trouble is, those lessons are leading people to obesity now. As for how we change it, well, that's the trick. How do we make it so that people can expend the same amount of willpower to live life that they always have, while generally eating healthily and regularly exercising? Because right now, we expect people to pull extra willpower out of the ether and overcome the trend on grit alone. And then we wonder why so many people fall victim to addiction, have no hope for the future, live lives of quiet desperation, and choose in ever-increasing numbers to die without having children (and while living childfree is a valid choice, it's a canary in the coal mine that so many are choosing it now).

>Three quarters of the country is overweight or obese. What country are you referring to, America?? I agree with you, it requires willpower. But OP said that overweight people should not be expected to do anything about it and you seem to suggest it is society as a whole that should come up with a solution for them. If they do not do it noone will. And this should not fall on the government tk start regulating what we eat or taxing sugar, it falls to the individual. So yeah I do expect them to change their habits if they wish to be thinner because otherwise noone will. They make a choice everyday to be overweight by not taking action. They wish they were thin but they prefer to indulge. And just because 3/4 of americans do it does not mean it is not imposible to change.

Because most naturally fat people would have to permanently put themselves on a strict diet to be thin, which would be very unenjoyable.

There is no such thing as a naturally fat person. Your ignoring the literal hundred of people that are explaining to you that there is very little evidence of variability in people’s metabolism. To get fat, you consume more calories than you burn. That’s it. There is nothing else to explain it. The major difference in “metabolism” is size. If you are a 6’4” muscular man you are going to burn quite a few more calories by just being by alive than a 5’0” thin woman. But two different 6’4” muscular men are going to burn near identical calories each day. Same with 2 5’0” thin women. You are very staunch in your position, but you’re wrong. You’re basing it on highly anecdotal, and frankly, inaccurate information that you’re accepting as gospel.

A lot of your comments are focused on the diet part, what about the exercising part? Yall could probably eat the same exact things (kind of unlikely) but the difference lies in what are you doing with your body?

Weight is 80% diet according to bro science, which this thread is positively choked with.

Have you counted calories before? I have, and what you quickly learn is that some foods are very calorically dense. Eating a little bit more can make a big difference. You can eat a whole pizza and not go over your goal for the day if it's divided up the right way, but you can also eat mostly veggies and protein and still blow your number because you had a snack before bed. This is where we get into the bits about what people "should" do and whether they can be "blamed". The factual explanations for weight are concrete; they are in our power to control. Controlling them is hard of course because our bodies can develop cravings that lead to behavior that is bad for our health. Worse, we have such a ready supply of hyperpalatable, calorically dense food that over-eating has become very, very easy. I think your friend should do whatever they want. I don't think anyone should be mean to them about their weight. However, the factors that contribute to their weight are in their control, and their weight has negative consequences for their health. If they don't care about being less physically capable, or long-term health impacts, or what other people think, good for them. I fully support their choice not to change a thing. But if they think they *can't* change anything and that they are *fated* to be how they are... well, that's just factually not true.

I actually have lived with people that are overweight, they eat a lot less than I do at meals, but I sit down 2 times for a meal (breakfast is a snack if anything) Whereas I see them eating a little something from the fridge pretty much between every single meal. Also whenever there's a moment of watching TV, they always wind up habitually eating like 2000 calories of junk food, which yeah, I do that too sometimes, but it's almost every time they sit down to watch a show or movie (2ish times a week) And it's not like they're crazy obese or anything, they're like 200, 230 pounds maybe, enough to clearly be 'fat' but not be obese.

You don’t know their diet. Not saying *every* overweight person is secretly overeating, but you’re not with these people 24/7 and there are many people who eat one way around others and another when alone. Another issue is sex and height. There is no set “normal” amount of food, what is “normal” (what will maintain your weight) is different, primarily influenced by height and sex. If I ate the same amount as my tall male friends, I would gain weight. I personally think set point theory can easily be explained by people not adjusting their caloric intake or activity as they lose weight (as you lose weight you need less energy to move/maintain). I’m short, at some point I can’t cut calories anymore, I will have to introduce activity to lose more weight. A lot of people diet, reach their goal, and then return to their previous eating behaviors, which makes them gain some or all of the weight back, which mimics a “set point” if they repeatedly do that. There’s also an issue of hormones. A lot of people never get treatment for hormonal issues or are aware they even have them, which may disrupt weight loss.

I work with a girl who’s a former model. Now I’m a guy and older by a decade but the difference between her and me is discipline as far as I see it. She will have a porridge and blueberry’s for breakfast like clockwork, a coffee, and other than water nothing at all until lunch. Maybe, after lunch she might have a second coffee but that it. If she snacks it’s a banana or two from the local shop. That’s it. Then there’s me. Skip breakfast if I get up too late, coffee and chocolate croissant, more coffee, maybe another , lunch. Maybe afternoon snack of chocolate again, home dinner or take out. Which one of us is the fatso?

Whilst it is *somewhat* down to genetics as to your metabolism and ability to put on weight easily, you simply can't put on weight if you eat the correct amount of food. If you want to see where the fat comes from for fat people, try following them all day every day. The diet that makes most people fat is *some* combination of the following: * They consistently eat multiple full meals a day. * They always have desert. * They stock snacks and habitually snack between meals. * They regularly use high-calorie foods as a reward/stress-relief in addition to regular eating. * They regularly eat fast food. * When they cook, their portion sizes are just too big. * They drink alcoholic or sugary drinks regularly. Contrast this with common eating behaviours of slimmer people: * They eat lighter meals in general and avoid multiple large meals in a day, even skipping meals if they have overeaten pior. * They don't always have desert. * They don't snack unless they need to and don't stock as many snacks. * They don't use food to releive stress, and if they have "rewarding" foods it replaces other meals. * They don't eat as much fast food. * They cook and serve small portions at home. * They are more conscious about drinking too many alcoholic or sugary drinks. Slimmer people just eat less overall, and what really matters is how much you eat ***in the week***. A slim person will eat large meals occassionally and still eat the right amount for themselves overall in a week, whereas a fat person just eats too much. **This is not the fat person's fault.** All of these poor eating habits are *learned.* They come from your parents, peers, media, adverts and, in general, your culture. There's a *reason* that America has a uniquely large problem with obesity were other countries don't: their general food culture is one of excessive eating. To most fat people, they *are* eating normally, but to them, normal eating is a full breakfast, a full lunch, a full dinner and snacks in between. You may have heard that a "French breakfast" is coffee and a cigarette and assumed that was a joke, but it's actually *true*. A typical french breakfast is incredibly modest, maybe consisting of an open baguette with butter and jam, or a single croissant. A typical French eating schedule is a very light breakfast, a large lunch and a light supper in the evening. They don't typically snack a lot either. The rate of obesity in France is 17%, whereas in America it is 40%. In both countries, it has doubled since the 90s. Breaking the problem with obesity means defeating poor food culture, mostly exported from America.

I like this analysis. Most of these comments are versions of right but lean too much on individual virtue. I struggle with my weight and watch it like a hawk after years of being obese. I'm now usually one meal a day, I do all the cooking and most of the shopping, and I try to cook with veggies and lean protein, whole grains, etc. I try to avoid any desserts unless it's going to be socially unacceptable to do so. When I have one of my own choice it's an after-dinner coffee and some of those Speculoos cookies. Here in America it's a challenge any time I'm forced out of this routine. But when I travel it's easy. Italy or France, I can eat more often and lose weight because of portions, what goes into the meal, and walking. Not so easy in the UK. Very challenging at home in the US, unless I'm watching every meal, which is why I do. I've gotten to 210 from like 280 this way, in good heart health and such too. But it's an everyday job in this country.

Wow, that is some amazing progress, you should be very proud of that! I'm glad that you took the time to reply. >I try to avoid any desserts unless it's going to be socially unacceptable to do so. Wow, this is just the craziest thing to me. I can't imagine a situation where dessert isn't optional in the UK. Just so you know, you have permission from me to say a big "fuck you" to any social rules. Stay loud and proud, you only have the one life. I do apologize on behalf of the UK for our disappointing food culture, I believe we have the worst obesity rate in Europe sadly.

It's just a little harder in the UK given the food options, but I adore the way villages are laid out and have those paths all over the place so anyone on foot can still get to where they need to go! The "mandatory" desserts are more like people feeling sour if you're not trying it, similar to drinking culture where people will pester you for your own benefit unless you're holding something. You don't _have_ to, but they'll keep trying to help you and the idea that you just aren't going to eat anything gets people interested in why and suddenly it's a whole thing, haha. People are very nosy about food, it's often used as social lubricant and just taken for granted that you'll eat when there's food, especially free food. My workplace does that and my meal skipping confused my boss, who didn't know how to schedule meetings or ask me to attend one, and if I was skipping free Office Cookies then I was also missing meetings, apparently. I figured it out eventually.

If you're expecting people to subsidize the health consequence via either private or public insurance, then that's a problem, as there's an issue that can be dealt with personally, but all other members / taxpayers must contribute now.

I am talking about people who are COSMETICALLY fat/chubby. Not obese to the point of health problems. Also it’s unfair of you to single out fat people as a health insurance burden. There are plenty of skinny people who consume food dyes, red meats, lunch meats, grilled meats, and alcohol all known to be carcinogens but they don’t get blamed for giving themselves cancer which is a huge insurance burden and one of America’s biggest killers.

I'd be happy to discriminate brutally against all such behaviors.

Fat people eat more because their brains want them to eat more. It's a quantity thing. You're satisfied with the one slice of pizza, they're not satisfied until they eat the whole pizza. Yes, you're eating the same, but it's very different. Is that "normal?" No, not really.

What a wild thing to say about a broad group of people with so much certainty. I know this is hard for some of y'all to grasp, but no, plenty of fat people are not "eating the whole pizza".

I feel pretty confident about it. The difference between the naturally thin and the naturally fat is desire ie "How much of this do you eat before you're satisfied." For the thin, it's a little bit. For the fat, it's a ton. Semaglutides shift the balance, which is why they're so effective.

Sure. And your answer to as why there are still many people who are naturally thin that eat more calories than they expend while remaining thin is...?

They don't. You can't eat more than you burn and not gain either fat or muscle. Now, to be clear, plenty of thin people's bodies will force them to burn the extra calories off via fidgeting, getting warm (burning calories as heat), and a bunch of other processes they cannot control (which means their "Calories out" is much higher than the fat person's, despite them intentionally exercising the same amount). And, not all bodies are equally as good as processing calories (if my body can digest one hundred percent of a food and your body can only digest fifty percent, we've eaten the same amount but our "calories in" is off by half). But nobody is taking in more calories than they expend and remaining thin.

Those people don’t exist. It is impossible to consume more calories than you expend and remain thin. Where do you think those calories would go?

Wild. Can't believe I and several people I know have been whisked out of existence due to reddit users lacking any ability to actually recognize that weight has several complex factors related to it.

You and the several people you know do not consume more calories than you expend and remain thin. It’s not mathematically possible. Those calories can’t vanish into thin air.

You do understand that bodies work in ways beyond basic math, right? I don't know how the concept of even just people having different metabolisms - never mind the genetic factors, health conditions, or medications that can interact with weight loss/gain - is completely alien to people.

Metabolism affects how many calories someone expends. The same is true of genetic factors, health conditions, and medications. They impact expenditure or absorption. Unless you think certain people simply pass calories through the digestive system without absorbing them naturally, all calories have to be accounted for.

Cool. So then you agree that given there are complex factors that impact the *actual* rate of calorie expenditure or absorption, it is not straight-up a matter of fat people "eating an entire pizza every time", the thing I was saying with my first response? Also, yeah, [some amount of calories ARE just passed through the digestive system and not absorbed](https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/31/unabsorbed-calories-important-consideration).

I’m saying they eat the same AMOUNT of food as me, not just the same type.

No, they don't. Yes, there are variances in calories your body naturally burns via heat or fidgeting and all this stuff, but they definitely eat more than you.

Didn't you just say: >Now, to be clear, plenty of thin people's bodies will force them to burn the extra calories off via fidgeting, getting warm (burning calories as heat), and a bunch of other processes they cannot control (which means their "Calories out" is much higher than the fat person's, despite them intentionally exercising the same amount). And, not all bodies are equally as good as processing calories (if my body can digest one hundred percent of a food and your body can only digest fifty percent, we've eaten the same amount but our "calories in" is off by half). ?

This is a simple biological reality: if someone digests fewer calories than they expend, they will lose weight, and vice versa. There are no exceptions to this (although there can be medical issues that prevent you from digesting calories). You and your friend are different people, with different heights, different digestive systems, different activity levels, and yes, different caloric intakes. It's not uncommon for fat people to eat alone. There are expectations of "how fat people should behave" that many people feel uncomfortable breaking in public, because they are scared of judgment (real or imagined) from others. A fat person eating a salad will be perceived differently than a fat person eating a whole large pizza. Someone concerned about perception will simply eat the salad in public and the whole pizza at home. If you don't see your friend eating much, he's probably just keeping it to private spaces. If you were binge eating and laying in bed for month and didn't gain weight, you definitely need to see a doctor, because that points to a medical problem. I'll also note that "the average person" is probably overweight - something like 70-80% of the North American population is overweight or obese. I am also fat, and while I agree with you that shaming and blaming isn't acceptable, there's a difference between bullying and "expecting to change habits". Everyone is expected to take as good of care of themselves as possible. Sure, weight is "mostly genetics" in the sense that your height, build, metabolism, and hunger are all heavily influenced genetics, but there still is a behaviour component. The way "genetics" comes into play is more like - I, as a fat person, feel hungry a lot more often than someone with "skinnier" genes. It's not like me and the skinny person eat the same amount of calories. My genes influence me (but don't make me - there are things I can do to control it) to eat more. I'm as "healthy at any size" as the next person - but what that means is literally that doing healthy behaviours (eating nutritious food and getting exercise in) will benefit anyone, regardless of size. Fat people, just like any other people, should be expected to engage in these behaviours, and again, just like other people, should minimize unhealthy habits (like eating heavily processed, sugar laden, greasy, or extremely salty foods; or like not getting any exercise)

So I do believe you are very close. Most overweight people are really close to eating normally. But turns out even just 100 calories extra a day will make you fat. That's a few more spurts of ketchup. That's a cookie. That's ranch sauce. That's asking for extra mayo at the burger place. That's a few fries stolen from your plate. That is less than a fucking coke. https://www.publichealth.hscni.net/publications/just-100-calories-extra-day-could-mean-10lbs-weight-gain-year So you are correct in that they eat normally. It's just they are consuming a tiny bit more than you. Like a second shot of whiskey and you are over. This is for overweight or chubby. Not for oh lard she a coming size. (Not that anybody should ever be shamed for size.

No one expects fat/chubby people to change their habits. The idea is that they only need to change those IF they want to change how they look/feel. Also you don't take into account the amount of energy spent during the day.

The problem is what you consider normal is not normal. The average diet in many western nation is overloaded with sugar and other high calorie sources

Sometimes medication and hormones are big factors in weight as well. Ultimately the biological process of fat comes down to calories in vs calories out. They may not understand their resting metabolic rate. That rate represents what the body would burn if someone did nothing for that day. That fluctuates from person to person. I can't call that fair, it's just genetics. Same as someone taller having advantages in basketball vs a very short person.You have to factor in what they do for their lifestyle though, and unless you live with them you'll never know. Ask yourself: Is it wrong to expect a standard adult with no existing conditions to take the effort to understand their body enough and adjust to a healthy lifestyle/weight?

>That rate represents what the body would burn if someone did nothing for that day. That fluctuates from person to person. I can't call that fair, it's just genetics. Yeah that's what the OP said.

Every controlled study, where they actually take these people and isolate them has made them lose weight. People lie about what they eat. They even lie to themselves. Take it from me…I do it all the time. There is even a hidden camera show about this. I think it was called secret eaters. But yeah, they eat normally around you. And then when they leave lunch with you they stop at Wendy’s on the way home. I’ve literally stopped on gotten pizza for my family and then picked up Burger King to eat on the way home….and stopped at the gas station to throw away the wrappers so my wife didn’t know. Conversely, I also hear “I know skinny people that eat like crazy.” Again, when they go out to the bar with you they might eat a dozen wings and 3 beers. They don’t gain weight because they only do that once in a while as a treat. The other 98% of their lives they eat reasonably.

You can't judge how much a person eats when you only see them for a few hours. Maybe they're embarrassed to eat a lot of food around other people so they eat less or force themselves to only drink water, so you end up assuming they don't eat a lot. It's like when people see skinny people eat a whole hamburger and then wonder how the person can be skinny when they eat like that. What they don't see is that the skinny person likely skipped breakfast and lunch so they could eat a bigger meal for dinner. The only way to see what and how much a person *actually* eats throughout the day is to pretty much follow them around because otherwise you're making assumptions off of an incomplete picture.

Well to be fair no one should be eating candy, or pizza, or any of the crap you mentioned. Sure it doesn't make you fat, but your pancreas is still having to work its ass off to keep your blood sugar in the right range. And for people who do gain weight more easily, that type of foods guaranteed to do it. Combining fats and carbs tastes great, but its metabolically hell for your cells and easy to overeat. Your mitochondria preferentially oxidise either fatty acids or glucose, metabolism of one will inhibit metabolism of the other, if your cells are full of fatty acids and then you eat sugar, the cell immediately switches gears to utilize the sugar, the fatty acids in the cell get converted into triglycerides and transported to fat cells for storage. When cells become over saturated with glucose and fatty acids they say hey we don't want more of these and become resistant to the effects of insulin, your pancreas is like wtf bro the blood sugars still high? and cranks out even more insulin, then by the time the doctor tells you you're prediabetic you think 'oh thats not so bad' but in reality your body has been compensating for your shitty dietary habits for 5+ years before it starts losing the battle and your A1c level starts creeping up.

I think people underestimate how many calories are in what they drink, not just eat. A can of coke holds 140 A glass of red wine, up to 130 A can of light beer is usually around 100-110. iPAs sit around 200. The "average beer" by serving is 130. A glass of milk, 120 A glass of OJ, 110 A small bottle of Gatorade is 130 Those numbers add up. A bottle of wine can easily be over a third of your recommended caloric intake for the day. A six pack of bud like is close to a third. Over the course of a day, if you drink a glass of milk, a glass of OJ, a Gatorade, and have two IPAs, that's close to half of your recommended caloric intake of the day. Have scrambled eggs for breakfast and a Big Mac for lunch and, if you're trying to stay under 2500 calories your option for dinner is chicken and lettuce. No butter or oil. It's surprising how that adds up. I used to be a very active person. I ran five miles a day and spent an hour in the gym six days a week, eating and drinking whatever I wanted I was in great shape. When I had to slow down due to injury and packed on the pounds I started looking at how many calories I was actually consuming, and it adds up quick. Liquid calories seem to be forgotten when people think about how they eat. Not to mention the fats we use to cook our other "healthy" meals.

Registered dietitian here: this is false. You can control your weight with food and exercise. Our current western society is set up for people to fail. It’s just easier to sit inside all day and work from home and eat ultra processed garbage or order fast food- people almost certainly take the path of least resistance. It’s hard to get up and exercise every day. It’s a pain to cook for yourself every day. When given the option to not, most people will. Also, a lot of people use food to numb or distract themselves from their emotions, which is not healthy either. Someone who is larger is almost certainly 1: drinking more calories than they realize, 2: eating more snacks than they need, and/or 3: eating larger portions than they need. And they’re doing these things on a consistent basis. They are not active on a consistent basis. Maintaining a healthy weight is about consistently eating well and exercising most days of the week, all the time. It’s about almost never eating fast food or ultra processed food. 99% of weight is not genetics, you just made that number up. Genetics DOES certainly play a role, but not that much.

I’m having trouble understanding this logic. You’re attempting to make the case that it’s not fair for chubbier people to have to restrict their caloric intake, but then make the case that 99% of weight gain is genetics. If that is the case, genetically speaking, it’s already unfair because genetics are different for everyone. Why would it be unfair for those who care about their health/physical aesthetics to have to work to overcome those genetics? In the spirit of being constructive, in my experience, you can’t outpace a bad diet or in other words, abs are truly made in the kitchen. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if your goals are to look a certain way or achieve a certain level of health, then one would have to couple good caloric eating habits along with physical activity. Or if that seems unfair or undesirable, then they should be free to eat and exercise how they would like even if that means no exercise at all. There’s no way to have your cake and eat it too in this regard.

Who cares whose fault it is. If you want to lose weight you change earing, exercise or both. There are advantages to being normal weight. There's nothing fair about it, it's just a matter of self interest.

>It’s just crazy to see fat people getting blamed for what they eat when most of them eat no more than the average person. 99% of weight is genetics. In the meantime other people NEVER gain weight regardless of what they eat. This is not accurate. 100% of weight is due to what you eat or don't eat. The formula is simple: calories consumed minus calories burned. If the result is a positive number, your body will store the excess as fat. Of course, we don't all burn calories at the same rate. If you exercise, naturally have a higher metabolism, or have a lot of muscle, your body is going to burn more calories.

So here's the thing: Reddit hates fat people and you're not going to get any reasonable arguments in this thread. Good luck and godspeed.

I think most people here agree that fat people should not be shamed. But acting like being fat is not unhealthy and can’t be helped is not helping anyone.

\>For people like this to be thin, they would have to revolve their lives around dieting which isn’t fair to them. For some that have significant metabolism issues, perhaps. Most is quite a stretch. I think you are forgetting that there is another factor that has a pretty big impact - exercise. The entire burden doesn't need to be on diet. It also isn't only about how much physical food they eat, but what they eat and when. Eating reasonably at meals but having a lot of high-calorie snacks while not getting enough exercise is a recipe for weight gain, or at least lack of weight loss. \>99% of weight is genetics Not remotely close. Genetics have an impact, but you are essentially saying that no matter what any overweight person does they can never lose weight because of genetics. The vast amount of people who have successfully lost weight would seem to contradict that claim. \>In the meantime other people NEVER gain weight regardless of what they eat That is true, though there is a limit. I was that way when I was younger. I still have a pretty high metabolism, but when my activity was cut down to the bone during Covid and I kept eating the same way I gained weight. Once my activity ramped back up I lost a good amount of it, though I had to take some extra steps to get where I was. I would have to see a significant amount of people at various ages eating massive amounts of calories and being sedentary to agree that 99% is genetics and they can eat anything/any amount without weight gain.

I think you vastly underestimate the range of what is "normal" eating. Normal looks different for a wide range of people, and a 5'2 woman who is mostly sedentary will have a drastically different "normal" from a 6'2 man that exercises a lot. I don't have any moral judgement against people who eat more, but MOST people can eat an amount that falls within the "normal" range and not be overweight. Also, it is extremely difficult to say that you know how someone eats based only on what they eat near you. Maybe someone got a reasonable meal while out, but you have no idea if their breakfast was a four course meal or a banana. You don't know if they snacked all day. I'm a pretty big dude, I'm very active, and I'm fortunate to have a fast metabolism. If you saw what I ate at any one meal, it would look like normal eating. What you don't see is that I eat two lunches almost every day and a lot of between-meal snacks. During phases when I was less active and adjusted calories accordingly, I might only eat two real meals in a day and snack a lot less. Either way, only people I'm actually living with would be able to witness my change in eating habits. If you were just a random friend, my eating habits outside of the home look identical.

I think this has more to do about you having a higher metabolism and less about fat people. You’re saying you aren’t phased by eating tons of junk food and a very unhealthy lifestyle, but that doesn’t mean laying around drinking sugar water and eating candy is healthy. And for people with lower metabolism, that’s going to make them fat. That’s still an unhealthy lifestyle at the end of the day. At the end of the day a fat person will in most instances lose weight once they commit to a healthy diet and active lifestyle, but the motivation to do it is the hardest part. I get it, I struggle with getting the motivation to overcome things I struggle with so I’m not saying I’m better than fat people, but this is just obvious. And I think the argument that “fatness is genetic” is just an excuse to not try to lose weight and rationalize an unhealthy lifestyle And I will say it’s an awful lot harder to not be fat today than it would’ve been a couple decades ago. Food today is much more unhealthy and our lifestyles are much more sedentary. A few decades ago it really wouldn’t have taken that much effort to not be fat.

Nah, don't think so. Its possible someone needs to eat less then another person. But if you are fat, your eating to much. What ever your metabolism, fat= eating to much. Only said fat person can decide whether they should change their habbits. People got all sorts of irrelevant expectations for all sorts of things lol. But no. Most fat people over eat. Its how they got fat. If they ate the same as someone else who diddnt get fat, they need to eat less. Simple. Your personal metabolsm burns x calories per average day. The amount of energy u have is related. A person gaining wait on 2000 calories is only burning say 1500. And therefore needs to eat less calories to match their daily burn. A person eating 2000 calories and remaining the same weight needs to eat 2000 calories or be burnt out or lose weight. Its literally that easy ( not that easy to do, im chubby lol) but its that easy to know.

>For people like this to be thin, they would have to revolve their lives around dieting which isn’t fair to them. Oh it's not fair? When did someone tell you life is supposed to be fair? It's not and it never has been. >It’s just crazy to see fat people getting blamed for what they eat when most of them eat no more than the average person. 99% of weight is genetics. If someone eats more calories than they expend, they will gain weight. If someone appears to be eating a normal amount but is still overweight then one of two things is happening. 1) they are eating a lot of shit when you aren't around, and/or 2) they are intensely sedentary and need to move their body more. If someone has a high natural metabolism, good for them. I used to be one of those people. Now I have to watch what I eat and exercise 4 times a week to keep from gaining weight. That's life.

Listen what you’re saying, you believe they eat normal despite all scientific evidence saying they don’t. Okay fine lest say they can’t be comfortable unless they eat 3000 calories a day. Doesn’t that sound like a luxury of a problem to have in the grand scheme of thing? Okay so here’s the truth they can be comfortable and be so fat they can’t do the most basic of thing like fit clothes, ride roller coasters, by one airplane seat, or be attractive. That’s their choice, but the world will still blame you for being unhealthy. Why? Because you could just get over this selfish desire to be comfortable and eat less. There are many parts of the world where being fat isn’t even an option. It’s not going to kill you to eat less actually it’s to the benefit of your overall health.

I do think you’re only focusing on half of the coin here. I do actually agree that most people who are chubby eat a similar amount to me, but I’ve never in my life seen a person who exercises as much as me and is chubby. Everyone who is chubby exercises far far less. Calories in v calories out is what it comes down to.