This is anecdotal but I recall reading some science somewhere to back it up. During a fast or if I am cutting weight heavier women become more attractive to me.
That's a pretty funny anecdote. :) I am in the middle of a moderated dirty cut [0] right now myself and here's what I've noticed:
* I'm the one who feeds our cats. And they also end up losing weight when I'm on a cut, even though I didn't intend for that to happen.
* I randomly find myself surfing Japanese euro-foods photos on IG, creating screenshot collections on my phone, and sending them to family members who love food.
* I have to act more like the traditional/archaic effeminate archetype or I'm screwed--I have to compensate for the harshness somehow. So I'll spend more time making art, listening to music I like, going easier on my body, loving on pets, etc.
Anyway...you got me smiling, thinking about this stuff. Thanks.
I'm prone to aggressively planning dinners with friends and browsing restaurant websites whenever I skip lunch at work. Always takes me a while to recognise the fever that's overtaken me.
That's funny, an acquaintance of mine has been losing a bunch of weight with keto+intermittent fasting, and mentioned for some reason his libido goes through the roof in ketosis.
I grew up in Vietnam. There were similar positive attitudes towards overweight bodies. The country was ravaged by wars and famines. Overweight bodies mean prosperity. It's changing now in Vietnam, however. They're converging to views of other countries.
One thing to note is the way people acquiring body fat was somewhat different. They don't consume sugar and highly processed food. They eat a lot of normal foods. They have body fat but often strong and muscular.
Side note but I found out recently Vietnam has the lowest rate of obesity in the world, far less than many poorer nations. I attribute it partially to their cuisine which has tons of flavor with herbs, not much fried overly fatty/carby foods.
Maybe not fatty (I couldn't say either way), but definitely carby. It's possible that Vietman's single most recognizable cultural export is rice noodle soup.
Not true. There's a difference between complex carbohydrates provided by fruits, vegetables meat and other unprocessed food. Simple carbohydrates like are shorter and break down faster providing less energy per food unit consumed. Complex carbohydrates are longer and take longer for our bodies to breakdown giving more energy over a longer period of time.
Foods types have different hormonal impact on our bodies. Lots of variables at play. So if you eat pure fat vs. protein vs. carbs you are going to get different outcomes in the body.
The paper you linked does not say what you think it says. It merely claims that, due to a lack of proof otherwise, calories don't evade thermodynamic laws.
It also says the exact opposite of what you seem to believe, which is that diets with different macronutrients compositions have different weight outcomes despite having the same number of calories.
But the paper is clear to state that only about a third of the difference can be attributed to composition.
And that difference is basically how hard the body works to break down the nutrients.
There is no magic food that makes it impossible to gain weight. And at the end of the day, a calorie is a calorie. Want to control your weight? Control your intake.
I don't know what you think you're saying. A third of the total effect size is a lot. Nobody denies that the volume of food is going to be a significant driver of your weight change. The issue being debated is that the composition matters, and it does.
And for what its worth, I'd imagine the effect size to be even stronger for weight gain.
That's fine. The point of those particular statements is to say that they are not only factually incorrect, but not even self consistent, which is intrinsically snarky. We're not in a formal debate.
The total effect was statistically significant, but still not great. The difference is about 1 or 2 pounds over a couple of months (when intake was controlled).
The conclusion of the study was stated in the study. It says what it says. And what it says is that calories are pretty much fungible.
The difference between statistically significant and meaningfully different is an important distinction. It's not the one you're making. The 1 or 2 pounds is out of the average prediction of 6 pounds, which is set by the arbitrary conditions of the particular setting. The correct way to think of it is a third of the total effect size.
The study is NOT saying the macronutrient composition controls, in any general condition, 1 to 2 pounds.
> Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet.
Note:
* Thermodynamically, the amount of energy in a calorie is fixed
* The differences in these energies cannot explain weight loss changes driven by macronutrients as found in other studies
For the purposes of satiety you are correct. For the purposes of bodyweight, a calorie is a calorie. How that bodyweight is stored (fat vs muscle) is dependent on exercise + whether the calorie is from a fat, carb, protein or alcohol (the four macronutrients).
Satiety vs calories is everything. If you give people “all you can eat” bland boiled potatoes with no butter or salt and nothing else, they will not overeat. They will lose weight.
The same goes for rats. Give them all they can eat of bland nutritional rat pellets and they’ll maintain body weight. Give them Doritos and McDonald’s, on the other hand, and they’ll gain weight like crazy.
It should be a surprise to nobody that capitalism has optimized junk food to be as addictive and non-filling as possible.
I'm pretty sure chongli is correct about the plain boiled potatoes. How many can you eat before you're sick of them? It's easy to test for yourself, go peel and boil some potatoes right now.
You will be surprised, but wont feel full from diet like that. Nor you will feel full from vegetables only. (I like potatos and used to eat them a lot, you wont feel good if you eat only them.)
Potatoes are actually one of the most satiating foods, especially compared to other staples. They are low in protein, but only have about 17g of carbs per 100g, with bread being almost 50g.
It could be that potatoes make you feel full short term, but people who overeat in the first place, left to their own devices, will eat more than they should
In your first linked study for example, they say the participants were given isoenergetic portions and then saitery was measured 2 hours later, it wouldn't be surprising if that wasn't representative of longer term weight loss
> Satiety vs calories is everything. If you give people “all you can eat” bland boiled potatoes with no butter or salt and nothing else, they will not overeat. They will lose weight.
Yes, but they will also get sick from malnutrition. They will also become passive, unable to fulfill their job and family responsibilities. They will also have hard time regulate their mood.
There is unstated requirement in loosing weight game that should be more prominent I guess: "while not making that person much more sick and dysfunctional"
It was used as an example, not a recommendation. The point is that food these days is more pleasurable than ever and people eat for pleasure. It’s perfectly possible to have a healthy but bland diet. Nobody wants to do that though.
> It’s perfectly possible to have a healthy but bland diet
It stops being bland once you start putting there everything you need - including some salt that you actually need.
Moreover the make you fat still improvement over past when people were getting sick from this or that missing in food. Not just because hunger, but because people did not knew what everything is needed.
The history of dietary guidelines is quite interesting in that regard, there were sicknesses that are basically forgotten by now that were due to something missing in food.
Carbs metabolize differently and faster then fat. So when you eat sugar, it gets converted into energy available fast and then stored when not used. When you eat fat or protein, you have less new instantly available energy, but you can use it longer.
That makes massive difference in bodyweight management.
Also satiety, ability to stay active and normal mood is super important for your ability to keep bodyweight and diet. One problem with focus on calories is that it ignores other human needs and other nutrients body needs and make it impossible to keep up long term.
My experience as a runner has taught me that indeed a calorie is just a calorie. I’ve been everywhere from mostly plant based to mostly meat based to mostly junk food based without significantly impacting body weight through any of those shifts. The real important part is the speed that different foods enable you to consume calories and an awareness of caloric intake in general.
Same here. I’ve been ripped eating nothing but jack In the box. But it’s classic HN dissonance, like how “PHP will sink your project” and other silly things like that
It just sounds nice to say “you’re fat because you eat a lot of candy” but when I was In the track team we ate at all you cam eat pizza buffet every weekend
At one point in time I was road cycling about 12,000 km a year, and can confirm that with a sufficiently aggressive metabolism and daily calorie burn regimen, you can shovel in highly calorie dense foods with no adverse effects. Look at the calories and ingredients in the energy gels and snack bars marketed to the road cycling and endurance runner market segment.
In fact I had to consciously eat many more calories per day, in calorie dense foods, just to not lose weight and become weaker.
A calorie is a calorie, except that different kinds of calories that you eat will almost inevitably cause you to change the amount of calories you consume and the amount of calories you burn.
> This has more to do with far less sedentary lifestyles than sugar and processed food. A calorie is a calorie.
This antiquated trope is like HSV; it just won't go away.
Edit:
To clarify; consider the effects of {hypo,hyper}thyroidism, which include weight-gain and weight-loss, respectively. Regardless of diet.
Now consider the fact that what you eat affects how the endocrine system functions, similar to how thyroid disease wreaks havoc with it.
That's just one example, and I'm no expert, but have read some books on the subject. Another I vaguely recall is the pituitary gland getting damaged or otherwise malfunctioning causing uncontrolled weight-gain regardless of diet.
It's these edge cases of malfunctioning human bodies that helped illuminate how its energy storage is moderated with hormones. It didn't take much to confirm different foods trigger different hormone responses once scientists knew what hormones to look for.
That's not how it works. Due to the laws of thermodynamics, people don't gain or lose weight "regardless of diet". Some medical conditions can reduce metabolic rate or increase hunger, but even so for every person there is a calorie intake threshold below which they will lose weight.
Completely agree. This is a very succinct summary of the situation.
I've written it down in some more detail, including why it might feel like it what GP says (summary: many people consume way more calories than they use, but they mostly leave the body undigested and when they cut down on calorie intake they doesn't cross the threshold you mentioned.)
> Due to the laws of thermodynamics, people don't gain or lose weight "regardless of diet". Some medical conditions can reduce metabolic rate or increase hunger, but even so for every person there is a calorie intake threshold below which they will lose weight.
No, AIUI there are metabolic syndromes where instead of losing weight, they'll just get sicker and die, even while gaining weight.
My understanding, based on stuff I've read and talks by the likes of UCSF's Lustig on youtube, is that in some cases people can be effectively starving themselves to death internally while gaining weight eating a normal diet because most the energy consumed is being stored in fat. When you lower the caloric intake, they don't lose weight, they just keep getting sicker and can eventually die without the appropriate hormonal medication.
If memory serves, one extreme example of this was a young girl with a small brain tumor whom after having it removed started putting on weight with nothing changed in her diet or lifestyle, no matter what they changed she wouldn't stop getting fatter - she just got weaker/sicker if they removed calories, while still getting fatter. They determined a region of her brain was damaged in the operation, IIRC it was the pituitary gland, and started medicating her with the necessary hormones to take its place and everything was back to normal. I'm pretty sure it was covered in one of the Lustig talks on youtube.
These are really fascinating failure modes that illustrate how the body has complex control systems for energy storage and energy release. The orthogonal thing to appreciate is that what foods you consume influence these control systems without removing the relevant organs. We can look at the extremes of brain damage and organ removal to see how the hormones have the final say over where the energy goes for better or worse. The more complicated part is figuring out which foods have what effects. Currently fructose seems to be the primary concern. A calorie is definitely not a calorie; fructose calories appear to be toxic.
Just watch a talk by Dr. Lustig, literally any talk will do. This one is pretty recent, and while it's more focused on linking sugar with cancer it still touches on the same general information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpNU72dny2s
My bandwidth is severely limited where I'm at, so I can't easily go digging through youtube videos to find the other I mentioned with the brain tumor patient. All of Lustig's talks have been insightful in the past however FWIW.
Of course "a calorie is a calorie". That is how the unit is defined. Nobody is disputing the laws of thermodynamics.
That doesn't mean each calorie in what we call 'food' is as accessible to the body's metabolic processes as a calorie in other food. If i wrap a pellet of food inside a non-digestible shell, it will still burn in a bomb calorimeter or will still have about the same caloric measurement in constituent macro-analysis.
This doesn't mean calories are a useless model of energy uptake from foods, just that they are not perfect.
We also have to take into account that the food industry has not been exactly neutral with regards to this metric. If calorie counting is a thing, then they will game the imperfectness of the metric in any way possible to get the desired 'low' score on the label while still maximizing your addictive consumption cravings regardless of how fat it will or will not make you. So we can/could expect the 'calorie' as a unit of measure to become less and less acurate as a result of this gamign of the metric.
But, again, this still doesn't mean that there is no relation between food intake, energy expenditure and weight gain as some would like to portray.
If your consumption pattern is making you fat, reducing consumption while changing nothing about the diet composition or timing (yes, when and how you consume also has an influence on your metabolism) will still make you gain less weight or even make you lose weight depending on the ratio change.
The reason that previous obvious statement is still vilified is that there is an enormous industry around consumption and managing consumption. It is not by coincidence that the advice from last century about consumption moderation 'eat less' has largely been replaced by an 'eat different' message.
Finally, there is an enormous hypocrisy in creating a 'market' system that evolves through rewards the most ferocious and amoral predators that can push whatever 'food' optimized for maximal consumption addiction, and then turning around to the 'consumer' and proclaiming 'personal responsibility' and 'moderation'.
A calorie is a calorie only in the tautological sense.
Paper and wood pulp are carbohydrates, but you cannot get any energy from eating those.
Petrol is 12kcal/g, more calorie dense than fat at 9kcal/g, but you can't get any energy from eating it.
"Ah, I mean the digestible things" I hear you say; well then - we've already established that "a calorie is not a calorie" if you need to add exceptions. But, with this exception:
Different kinds of foods have a different calorie extraction/absorption profile. paper/petrol have 0; pure sugar has 100%, most things defined as "food" are high on that scale, but usually not 100%; It also takes nontrivial energy to digest some foods. This is often lumped up into "atwater factors", the values of which seem to vary by 20-80% among different individuals and the same individual at different times.
The statement that "a calorie is just a calorie" is incredibly useless in the context of human metabolism.
I guess this view was just a lack of education about nutrition? One can get super fat from the cheapest things imaginable. Sugar and carbs. I guess in hard times even that was difficult to come buy.
Wouldn't a sufficiently nourished body look strong? Plenty of lean muscle mass, low body fat?
Even the cheapest things are, by definition, not available in famine. Being fat is pretty clear indicator that you have not been recently suffering from famine.
You can be malnutrished and fat, but that is different situation. War and famine typically means it is impossible to find enough calories no matter what source. It means that sugar is expensive and so are carbs.
It seems that in Polynesia, South Pacific and traditional Hawaii, the leaders in society were ideally fat and massive. My guess is that these were the people who were better suited to survival on long voyages across the Pacific.
It's not helped by the abandonment of fresh traditional foods and their replacement with highly processed imported foods, such as canned spaghetti and corned beef. Polynesian countries are also large importers of cheap fatty cuts of meat that aren't eaten in more developed nations, such as turkey tails and lamb flaps (both of which are delicious, but incredibly fatty).
The traditional Polynesian diet is quite healthy, fresh fish, root vegetables like yams and taro (as well as their leaves), and coconuts. You have to eat a lot to get fat eating that kind of food. One thing I noticed when travelling Fiji (not geographically Polynesia, but culturally) is that outside of the cities this kind of diet is fairly common, and obesity is a lot less common.
Most Samoans and Tongans I know back in New Zealand have terrible diets. They basically eat white bread, tinned spaghetti, corned beef, instant noodles, and rotisserie chickens. I had a mate who would for dinner would put back a whole chicken and 5 packs of noodles; or a loaf of white bread, 2 tins of spaghetti and a tin of corned beef. He worked in demolition and did boxing as a sport, so he burned the calories, but it was completely lacking in proper nutrition, just carbs and sodium.
Malayali (Kerala, India) culture has the common developing world fatness = prosperity mentality to some degree (minus the Indian love toward asceticism), but we have the added factor of having the defining movie star of my parents generation (And pretty big star still) being a rather pudgy guy (Mohanlal!) and that does shape people’s views on things.
It’s a funny interplay with stars that they shape their appearance to fit societal expectations but at the same time shape them.
You can see a similar parallel in the Telugu film industry too! Most of the big stars in my parent's time were pudgy(chiranjeevi, NTR, ANR, for example). Most of today's stars on the other hand are rather lean and fit like you'd expect.
I'm guessing the positive associations with weight for women is due to promoting fertility. If a woman is too thin, she can't conceive. You have to have some extra calories to have a baby.
The American obsession with thinness means that some women can "cure" their fertility problems by gaining five pounds.
That's just another way of saying the culture does this thing. If you are inferring that I am personally blaming individual women and implying they are neurotic, your inference is in error.
My sister had serious fertility problems. She read many articles on the topic over the years and we talked about me possibly serving as a surrogate for her should she be simply unable to have a child of her own. She forwarded me some portion of those articles, so I am somewhat well read on the topic of fertility issues for American women.
It takes about 25,000 stored calories to support a pregnancy. Being underweight suppresses ovulation. Anorexic women can outright lose their periods.
I suspect this fact probably helped women pass themselves off as male soldiers and male pirates historically. Such professions are pretty physically demanding and I suspect it may have caused a lot of women to have fewer periods or no periods while passing themselves off as male, thereby helping them to hide their gender.
My oldest son has pointed out that we are probably underestimating the number of women who did that because, by definition, those that fully succeeded were never identified and died as male. A recent-ish story supports that suggestion.
A friend of mine whose parents immigrated from Poland before WWII told me that in the old country fat women were valued as wives because their weight was seen as proof they didn't have tuberculosis.
62 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leblouh
https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/news/a3513/forcefeeding...
* I'm the one who feeds our cats. And they also end up losing weight when I'm on a cut, even though I didn't intend for that to happen.
* I randomly find myself surfing Japanese euro-foods photos on IG, creating screenshot collections on my phone, and sending them to family members who love food.
* I have to act more like the traditional/archaic effeminate archetype or I'm screwed--I have to compensate for the harshness somehow. So I'll spend more time making art, listening to music I like, going easier on my body, loving on pets, etc.
Anyway...you got me smiling, thinking about this stuff. Thanks.
0. https://www.friendlyskies.net/intj/mdc-moderated-dirty-cut
That is pretty interesting! Do you think it is pheromone based, aesthetics, other root causes?
One thing to note is the way people acquiring body fat was somewhat different. They don't consume sugar and highly processed food. They eat a lot of normal foods. They have body fat but often strong and muscular.
Maybe not fatty (I couldn't say either way), but definitely carby. It's possible that Vietman's single most recognizable cultural export is rice noodle soup.
You can’t get muscle unless you move.
Not true. There's a difference between complex carbohydrates provided by fruits, vegetables meat and other unprocessed food. Simple carbohydrates like are shorter and break down faster providing less energy per food unit consumed. Complex carbohydrates are longer and take longer for our bodies to breakdown giving more energy over a longer period of time.
But keep the downvotes going since it insults you so much
It also says the exact opposite of what you seem to believe, which is that diets with different macronutrients compositions have different weight outcomes despite having the same number of calories.
And that difference is basically how hard the body works to break down the nutrients.
There is no magic food that makes it impossible to gain weight. And at the end of the day, a calorie is a calorie. Want to control your weight? Control your intake.
And for what its worth, I'd imagine the effect size to be even stronger for weight gain.
"I don't know what you think you're saying"
Let your reasoning speak for itself. The unnecessary snark diminishes the point you are trying to make.
The conclusion of the study was stated in the study. It says what it says. And what it says is that calories are pretty much fungible.
The study is NOT saying the macronutrient composition controls, in any general condition, 1 to 2 pounds.
> Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet.
Note:
* Thermodynamically, the amount of energy in a calorie is fixed
* The differences in these energies cannot explain weight loss changes driven by macronutrients as found in other studies
Is anyone here under ten percent body fat and a muscular physique? I really doubt it.
The same goes for rats. Give them all they can eat of bland nutritional rat pellets and they’ll maintain body weight. Give them Doritos and McDonald’s, on the other hand, and they’ll gain weight like crazy.
It should be a surprise to nobody that capitalism has optimized junk food to be as addictive and non-filling as possible.
They're very starchy and high in carbs, and very low in protein.
So you can eat tons of them and still not feel full.
If you reach satiety your body and brain won't want to eat more.
If you are sick of something, you will just switch to something else.
Sources: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Petocz/publicatio...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6267283/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01956...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01956...
It could be that potatoes make you feel full short term, but people who overeat in the first place, left to their own devices, will eat more than they should
In your first linked study for example, they say the participants were given isoenergetic portions and then saitery was measured 2 hours later, it wouldn't be surprising if that wasn't representative of longer term weight loss
Yes, but they will also get sick from malnutrition. They will also become passive, unable to fulfill their job and family responsibilities. They will also have hard time regulate their mood.
There is unstated requirement in loosing weight game that should be more prominent I guess: "while not making that person much more sick and dysfunctional"
It stops being bland once you start putting there everything you need - including some salt that you actually need.
Moreover the make you fat still improvement over past when people were getting sick from this or that missing in food. Not just because hunger, but because people did not knew what everything is needed.
The history of dietary guidelines is quite interesting in that regard, there were sicknesses that are basically forgotten by now that were due to something missing in food.
That makes massive difference in bodyweight management.
Also satiety, ability to stay active and normal mood is super important for your ability to keep bodyweight and diet. One problem with focus on calories is that it ignores other human needs and other nutrients body needs and make it impossible to keep up long term.
It just sounds nice to say “you’re fat because you eat a lot of candy” but when I was In the track team we ate at all you cam eat pizza buffet every weekend
In fact I had to consciously eat many more calories per day, in calorie dense foods, just to not lose weight and become weaker.
This antiquated trope is like HSV; it just won't go away.
Edit:
To clarify; consider the effects of {hypo,hyper}thyroidism, which include weight-gain and weight-loss, respectively. Regardless of diet.
Now consider the fact that what you eat affects how the endocrine system functions, similar to how thyroid disease wreaks havoc with it.
That's just one example, and I'm no expert, but have read some books on the subject. Another I vaguely recall is the pituitary gland getting damaged or otherwise malfunctioning causing uncontrolled weight-gain regardless of diet.
It's these edge cases of malfunctioning human bodies that helped illuminate how its energy storage is moderated with hormones. It didn't take much to confirm different foods trigger different hormone responses once scientists knew what hormones to look for.
I've written it down in some more detail, including why it might feel like it what GP says (summary: many people consume way more calories than they use, but they mostly leave the body undigested and when they cut down on calorie intake they doesn't cross the threshold you mentioned.)
Here's my attempt at explaining it a few months ago: https://erik.itland.no/dieting-a-small-but-important-detail-...
No, AIUI there are metabolic syndromes where instead of losing weight, they'll just get sicker and die, even while gaining weight.
My understanding, based on stuff I've read and talks by the likes of UCSF's Lustig on youtube, is that in some cases people can be effectively starving themselves to death internally while gaining weight eating a normal diet because most the energy consumed is being stored in fat. When you lower the caloric intake, they don't lose weight, they just keep getting sicker and can eventually die without the appropriate hormonal medication.
If memory serves, one extreme example of this was a young girl with a small brain tumor whom after having it removed started putting on weight with nothing changed in her diet or lifestyle, no matter what they changed she wouldn't stop getting fatter - she just got weaker/sicker if they removed calories, while still getting fatter. They determined a region of her brain was damaged in the operation, IIRC it was the pituitary gland, and started medicating her with the necessary hormones to take its place and everything was back to normal. I'm pretty sure it was covered in one of the Lustig talks on youtube.
These are really fascinating failure modes that illustrate how the body has complex control systems for energy storage and energy release. The orthogonal thing to appreciate is that what foods you consume influence these control systems without removing the relevant organs. We can look at the extremes of brain damage and organ removal to see how the hormones have the final say over where the energy goes for better or worse. The more complicated part is figuring out which foods have what effects. Currently fructose seems to be the primary concern. A calorie is definitely not a calorie; fructose calories appear to be toxic.
Just watch a talk by Dr. Lustig, literally any talk will do. This one is pretty recent, and while it's more focused on linking sugar with cancer it still touches on the same general information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpNU72dny2s
My bandwidth is severely limited where I'm at, so I can't easily go digging through youtube videos to find the other I mentioned with the brain tumor patient. All of Lustig's talks have been insightful in the past however FWIW.
That doesn't mean each calorie in what we call 'food' is as accessible to the body's metabolic processes as a calorie in other food. If i wrap a pellet of food inside a non-digestible shell, it will still burn in a bomb calorimeter or will still have about the same caloric measurement in constituent macro-analysis.
This doesn't mean calories are a useless model of energy uptake from foods, just that they are not perfect.
We also have to take into account that the food industry has not been exactly neutral with regards to this metric. If calorie counting is a thing, then they will game the imperfectness of the metric in any way possible to get the desired 'low' score on the label while still maximizing your addictive consumption cravings regardless of how fat it will or will not make you. So we can/could expect the 'calorie' as a unit of measure to become less and less acurate as a result of this gamign of the metric.
But, again, this still doesn't mean that there is no relation between food intake, energy expenditure and weight gain as some would like to portray.
If your consumption pattern is making you fat, reducing consumption while changing nothing about the diet composition or timing (yes, when and how you consume also has an influence on your metabolism) will still make you gain less weight or even make you lose weight depending on the ratio change.
The reason that previous obvious statement is still vilified is that there is an enormous industry around consumption and managing consumption. It is not by coincidence that the advice from last century about consumption moderation 'eat less' has largely been replaced by an 'eat different' message.
Finally, there is an enormous hypocrisy in creating a 'market' system that evolves through rewards the most ferocious and amoral predators that can push whatever 'food' optimized for maximal consumption addiction, and then turning around to the 'consumer' and proclaiming 'personal responsibility' and 'moderation'.
Paper and wood pulp are carbohydrates, but you cannot get any energy from eating those.
Petrol is 12kcal/g, more calorie dense than fat at 9kcal/g, but you can't get any energy from eating it.
"Ah, I mean the digestible things" I hear you say; well then - we've already established that "a calorie is not a calorie" if you need to add exceptions. But, with this exception:
Different kinds of foods have a different calorie extraction/absorption profile. paper/petrol have 0; pure sugar has 100%, most things defined as "food" are high on that scale, but usually not 100%; It also takes nontrivial energy to digest some foods. This is often lumped up into "atwater factors", the values of which seem to vary by 20-80% among different individuals and the same individual at different times.
The statement that "a calorie is just a calorie" is incredibly useless in the context of human metabolism.
Wouldn't a sufficiently nourished body look strong? Plenty of lean muscle mass, low body fat?
https://www.diabetes.co.uk/in-depth/i-have-seen-so-many-fune...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2008/03/20085251...
The traditional Polynesian diet is quite healthy, fresh fish, root vegetables like yams and taro (as well as their leaves), and coconuts. You have to eat a lot to get fat eating that kind of food. One thing I noticed when travelling Fiji (not geographically Polynesia, but culturally) is that outside of the cities this kind of diet is fairly common, and obesity is a lot less common.
Most Samoans and Tongans I know back in New Zealand have terrible diets. They basically eat white bread, tinned spaghetti, corned beef, instant noodles, and rotisserie chickens. I had a mate who would for dinner would put back a whole chicken and 5 packs of noodles; or a loaf of white bread, 2 tins of spaghetti and a tin of corned beef. He worked in demolition and did boxing as a sport, so he burned the calories, but it was completely lacking in proper nutrition, just carbs and sodium.
It’s a funny interplay with stars that they shape their appearance to fit societal expectations but at the same time shape them.
The American obsession with thinness means that some women can "cure" their fertility problems by gaining five pounds.
Or it can be because the way our bodies are portrayed in media and fashion world?
My sister had serious fertility problems. She read many articles on the topic over the years and we talked about me possibly serving as a surrogate for her should she be simply unable to have a child of her own. She forwarded me some portion of those articles, so I am somewhat well read on the topic of fertility issues for American women.
It takes about 25,000 stored calories to support a pregnancy. Being underweight suppresses ovulation. Anorexic women can outright lose their periods.
I suspect this fact probably helped women pass themselves off as male soldiers and male pirates historically. Such professions are pretty physically demanding and I suspect it may have caused a lot of women to have fewer periods or no periods while passing themselves off as male, thereby helping them to hide their gender.
My oldest son has pointed out that we are probably underestimating the number of women who did that because, by definition, those that fully succeeded were never identified and died as male. A recent-ish story supports that suggestion.