/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10866452
Because of the propaganda of the nutri-multis. And the weak minds of men

>>10866452
some people just prefer the short term pleasure of eating lots of food

Since the fatties won't stop eating.

>>10866452
Not much science can do to control the habits of fatasses

>>10866452
lardasses eat too much now gibs nobel

>>10866452
Science hasn't solved it because there is nothing to solve. Obesity is caused by personal choice unless you have hypothyroidism, which is quite rare.

>>10866452
Why has the node method for calculating voltages in a circuit failed to resolve the Palestine-Israel Gaza strip crisis?

>>10866452
It's resolved. The cure is eating the right amount of calories.
Forcing people to take the cure isn't a science task.

>>10866452
Doctors are too cowardly to prescribe plant-based diets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ

>>10866452
What is there to resolve?
Just create a calorie deficit, i.e. consume less calories than your body requires for you daily functioning, and you will start losing weight, your body will start burning fat to compensate.
You can do this by eating less and keeping your current activity level, or by eating the same amount but increasing your activity level, or by both eating less and becoming more active.
If you are eating trice a day, try eating twice. If you are eating big portions, try making them smaller. Don't overeat, e.g. don't eat until you are drop dead full, aside from maybe special occasions. If you are trying to eat less but can't because the stomach rumbling drives you crazy, learn to ignore it, you want the body to start burning fat which it won't do if it can get all the energy from the food you have ate.
If you are exercising at a gym, don't just exercise for 10 minutes and spend 50 minutes sitting on a bench giggling at your phone. Get on a treadmill, set it to run for 60 minutes and find speed+incline setting that keeps your heartbeat high, e.g. 160-175bpm for 20-30 y.o., 150-165bpm for 30-40 y.o.. You will easily burn 700-1500 calories on it, depending on how overweight you are (the heavier you are), which is a lot as you generally need to consume 2000 calories daily to maintain your current weight.

>The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge

Not really sure how this can relate to solving obesity

To apply the scientific method you have to start with an unknown.

We know why there are fat people. Because of net caloric intake fundamentally. There are more complicated explanations involving hormone imbalances that result in overeating.

Eventually someone in the pharama industry will make a pill that makes you not want to eat.

But saying its a failure of the scientific method is a poor choice of words. Because the scientific method doesn't solve problems per se, it tries to answer questions.

>>10866573
>Eventually someone in the pharama industry will make a pill that makes you not want to eat.
That's already existed for a very long time. They're called diet pill (amphetamines).

>>10866571
Oh, forgot to mention, if you decide to take eating less to the extreme, like eating just once a day, make sure you still get all the required vitamins and minerals either from your food or from supplement tablets. Also note that malnutritioning yourself so much is probably a bad idea if your body is still growing, e.g. if you are younger than 22 or so.

>>10866452
Because its not a scientific question, its a societal one.

>>10866452
It has. However a solution isnt a very popular one (calories in, calories out), if scientific method can somehow resolve the problem of people not wanting to use unpopular solutions, and make them want to use them then it wont be just obesity solved, but energy crisis, climate change, migration etc

>>10866452
>>10866479
>>10866483
>>10866496
>>10866504
>>10866507
>>10866508
>>10866552
>>10866571
>why aren't all animals exactly the same
get ye back to evolution 001, and never confuse science for theory again.

>>10866452
Because science is too busy ensuring no one can eat just one.

>>10866691
You need to have and IQ of at least 90 to post here

>>10866691
Just because your body might process food at a slightly different rate than everyone else doesn't mean it can violate thermodynamics.

>>10866452
Obesity is the result of science.

>>10866452
>Scientific Method
>VERSUSSS
>OBESE ON HOTWhEELS!!

R E T A R D
R E T A R D

U CAN PURCHASE
5000 CALORIES
FOR 15$ DOLLARS

THAT IS
MORE THAN TWICE YOUR DAILY CALORIE FOR SEDATED LIFE
FOR TWO-THREE HOURS OF MINWAGE SLAVERY

>>10866452
It has. But our socioeconomic system including its politics and corporations don't operate by / make decision via the scientific method.

It's mostly a systems issue because the psycho-biological (human nature) elements to it can also be prevented, attenuated and resolved if the internal logic would aim for maximized health and wellbeing.

>>10866452
>>10866458
>>10866479
>>10866483
>>10866496
>>10866504
>>10866507
>>10866508
>>10866571
>>10866573
>>10866611
>>10866676
>>10866691
>>10866711
>>10866715
Because it's much easier to blame the disease on a moral failure of the sufferers than finding the cause and a cure. Nothing has changed since the biblical times.

>>10866892
We already know what the cause and cure is. This isn't a scientific issue.

>>10866902
I do but I'm 99% sure you don't. Certainly it wasn't published yet as far as I'm aware.

>>10866902
I do but I'm 99% sure you don't.

>>10866892
>cause
eating too much food
>cure
eating less food

Cured it mate. Put down the fork and you'll be disease-free.

>>10866892
Stupid fatty drop the burgers and eat more vegetables.

>>10866892
If you're addicted to food I don't view that as a moral failing, it's more a consequence of evolutionary biology, but the only cure is to eat less. You can do that on your own by watching your caloric intake or with the help of drugs like amphetamines, those feel pretty nice too so that might replace the pleasure reward you get from excess food consumption.

>>10866892

Turns out it's stupid fucking hard to get people to do hard things.

So unless we literally TIED poor people's wellfare checks to their BMI, there is zero immediate incentive to do the hard thing.

This is why fit, muscular, skinny people are praised. Because doing so in an age of plenty requires dedication and self control.

>>10867162

We're addicted to screwing.

That doesn't mean first world men rape women and each other in the streets nor do we jerk off en masse in public.

Self control is a hot commodity and many people suck at it.

>>10866452
Why is nobody addressing the actual issue?

Homo sapiens sapiens' autistic toy-building set us apart as soon as fire was captured. Now our spot as the dominant species is secured exclusively by our ability to sit the fuck down and stare at a screen for hours. There is no evolutionary advantage to burning calories except for not being a fat fuck for greater reproductive success.

Recall that that reproductive success isn't just about looking sexy, it's about surviving long enough to reproduce. That means doing well in school (sitting) keeping a job (sitting or standing) having hobbies (maybe?? not sitting?? but mostly code, music, movies, cars, HUMAN THINGS) which more or less require us to sit and concentrate. Unless you're into camping or throwing balls or body modification. There aren't zero reasons to be active but in a 24-hour day we humans have other options that make up 95% of our choices, so in an unbiased draw we are only moving 5% of the time. It's the other way around for other mammals.

Mandate a 10 hour work week and give everybody a skateboard, obesity would disappear overnight. We can't just ask every human to constantly imagine there's a predator chasing them and that the grocery store doesn't exist in order to stay healthy.

tl;dr robots steelin ur jobs.

>>10867229
>doing well in school
There's actually a lot of evidence that better educated people have lower rates of obesity, like p <0.05 in every single one of the models I've created for statistics/econometrics courses in uni, and many other economists in the health sector have had the same results. Some say that it's due to learning about proper diet, but I'm pretty sure that it's because people who have the willpower to schedule time to study and grind through courses have better discipline than someone with a BMI > 25%, though there are exceptions.

tldr don't eat 4 big Macs for every fucking meal

>inb4 economics is not a science

>>10867269
>>inb4 economics is not a science

whut?

>>10866452
The obesity rate is directly proportional to the corruption in society.
The obesity rate is directly proportional to the mental health of society.
Address corruption and mental health and obesity will drop to natural numbers of less than 3%.

it's in use to proliferate the situation.

>>10866892
In biblical times they recognized gluttony and sloth as mortal sins

Look, be fat or don't, I don't care, but own your decision, nobody owes you shit

>>10867356
You heard the anon, don't play coy.

Many talking shit itt are young and will be fat in ten years. Brainlets claim it is simple math. There was a study that measured carbon dioxide from the breath of wild monkeys and lazy zoo monkeys. It was determined that they burned the same amount of calories. There are cases of people who lost control of weight after having shit transplants. Plenty of us know the guy who teaches judo for ten hours a week and still manages to be fat. Somthing's going on here. It wasn't like this 20 years ago so Idk if we can blame tv and food availability. Do your job /sci/.

>>10866452
We already know the solution the only problem is that men are weak willed

I was fat, started to eat less and move my ass a bit 3 times a week. Now I weigh 60kg 16% bf, 172cm btw. JUST STOP EATING.

>>10867690
Fatass

>>10866929
>>10866942
>>10867162
>>10867168
>>10867229
>>10867269
>>10867514
>>cause
>eating too much food
No. I know the cause I know for 100% that it is not too much food. In fact extreme hunger is a symptom of the disease.

>In biblical times they recognized gluttony and sloth as mortal sins

They also recognized leprosy as one.

>>10867759
Not really.

>>10867798
So eating less food doesn't make you lose weight? Wow what a discovery, i assume skinny people in poor areas are just immune to some imaginary disease you just made up.

Definetly makes more sense than your body storing excess energy in fat cells.

Cope more fatty

>>10867269
BMI isn't % it's just a number calculated via mass in kg/(height in m squared), no percentages here mate, thats body fat.

>>10868124
>Wow what a discovery, i assume skinny people in poor areas are just immune to some imaginary disease you just made up.

No longer true anymore. It doesn't correlate with well either, Korea and Japan are not affected, north africa and the middle east are.

>Definetly makes more sense than your body storing excess energy in fat cells.

It doesn't make sense that people would suddenly want to overeat. It makes sense that people who are unable to burn their own fat overeat.

>>10868208
well=wealth

>>10866452
Because people want to keep eating twinkies.

>>10868208
Imagine being this retarded. Korean and Japanese diets are well balanced and full of vegetables.

Food portions there are a lot smaller than in Burgerland. Eat less weigh less.

Reminder that a big coke in McDonald's at Japan is smaller than a small coke in McDonald's at Burgerland.

>>10868169
Fuck my bad, I thought it wasn't a percentage but for whatever reason I typed it anyways without thinking.

>>10866452
It doesn't matter how much data you have if the public continues to eat nothing but fast food.

Sugar is cheap fuel

>>10868262
>Korean and Japanese diets are well balanced and full of vegetables.

Because their bodies are not making them feel like they need to eat more calories right now! or they are going to fucking die. Nobody would buy those massive portions of utterly bland food in Japan.

>>10866571
>recommending overweight people perform a high-impact activity like jogging for 60 minutes who not to mention almost certainly have garbage core strength and bad posture.
Recommending shit like this is why nobody loses weight.
btw, HIIT is a better option. Although it should be said anyway that you can't out-run a bad diet. One slice of pepperoni pizza undoes an entire session on the treadmill. Portion size is truly key.

>>10867798
>They also recognized leprosy as one.
No they didn't, my little plebbit. I don't recall Dante writing about a circle of hell wherein the lepers of history are punished for their leprosy. Leprosy was never a cardinal sin.

>>10866452
PUT
THE
FUCKING
FORK
DOWN

there, solved

>>10867798
Stop lying to yourself fatty

>>10867690
> Plenty of us know the guy who teaches judo for ten hours a week and still manages to be fat

Maybe cause he goes home and eats like shit? Exercise has almost nothing to do with weight loss that's just a meme. It's all about caloric consumption, don't eat so much calories.

>>10869016
amerimuts eat with their bare hands

It has nutritional dogma just doesn't like the answer because it would lose them the favor of their grant writers

https://siimland.com/randle-cycle-explained-why-you-shouldnt-combine-fats-and-carbs-together/

>>10868262
>muh vegetables
I dont doubt that its very hard to put on weight eating vegetables but paleo or even carnivore diet is just so much better, that is if you are not a retard with self imposed mental illness.

When I talk meat I dont mean deep fried chicken from your local fast food joint, I mean lean meats properly cooked at home.

>>10866691
Nice strawman fag

>>10869024
Your contribution is useful. Body builders eat shitloads though. Now I shoot down caloric consumption. Some people get negative benefits from milk and others don't. Some get vitamin D from sun in five minutes while it takes others five days to get same amount. There are 4 kinds of gut flora and only one type can be the majority. Certain chemicals have been shown to effect hormone production. Thyroid activity has a range of normality and is not a set number. Hgh as well. Somthing has happened in recent history and it is not simply that people eat too much. Even if so, why do people eat too much now when they had no desire to do so previously? Fuck if I know anything but this is for /sci/. Im sure another board is more appropriate for fat bashing, which is what a lot of this thread is.
>>10869102
I know a handful of fatass vegetarians. I don't think there is anything simple about this subject.

>>10867798
>They also recognized leprosy as one.
so you're not just fat you're also a tard

>>10868997
>>10869291
I checked Wikipedia and it seems to agree it was believed to be the result of sin, and I'm not willing to research it any further.

Because scientists aren't the issue, everyone knows how not to be fat.
It's a combination between economic, cultural, and willpower problems. In America at this point it's primarily economic as made provable by the relation of real wage and obesity rates.

>>10866452
i know that there is such thing as metabolism and skinny genes because i have those myself. but i haven't ever met a fatass that wasn't a complete lying piece of shit and didn't consume biblical amounts of food, beer, drugs, that i would never be able to consume myself because it would either be literally painful or my brain would send me every signal to stop

fat people have a very high percentage of lazy fucks and nutters, that's for sure

>>10867798
>In fact extreme hunger is a symptom of the disease.
Because fatasses are addicted to excessive amounts of rich food and are never sated, tard.

>>10869211
>Your contribution is useful. Body builders eat shitloads though. Now I shoot down caloric consumption.
Yeah, because they're putting on literal dozens of pounds of muscle and expending four times as much energy as regular people do, even active ones.

It's quite litterally nothing more than calories in, calories out. The factors that change are:
>how much you eat
>how much you burn through metabolic processes
>how much you burn through exercise

For most people, the second value is much larger in magnitude than the third, which is why diet helps them the most. For athletes and such, the third value can get larger than the second.

>>10869499
Because their fat cells are unable to release fat. The granaries are overflowing, but the cells begging for food get told to eat cake instead.

>>10869389
there's a big, big difference between a sin and a CARDINAL sin, which is what what said. Obviously everything bad is going to be attributed to sin, but the cardinal sins are more primary, more deadly, and more intimately woven into the human condition.

>>10866576
Now the question is, do we prescribe those enough? Are there secondary effects?

>>10868396
>feel like they need to eat more calories right now! or they are going to fucking die.
>feel like
This is the key. You're not actually going to die. Get some willpower you fucking sausage.

>>10868208
>It doesn't make sense that people would suddenly want to overeat.
You might be the tiniest brained brainlet in the entire history of /sci/.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity

>>10869506
But who measures calories in the toilet? Shit has to be a big factor that isn't being figured in.

>>10869807
>But who measures calories in the toilet?
Indigestible fiber is excluded in calorie calculations.

>>10869816
Shit is excluded. There is often still usable food in shit.

>>10869829
The stuff that passes through you undigested is the indigestible fiber.
If you have bowel disease or are one of those eating disorder patients who intentionally abuses laxatives then you might take in fewer calories than normal.
This kind of speculative nitpicking over irrelevant deltas is retarded. Industry listed calories are a perfectly fine estimate for how much energy you'll taken in from food. When you lock fat people in a hospital and force them to eat a set amount of calories, just like magic, they start losing weight in a way very close to the calorie based predictions for their weight loss. It isn't complicated.

>>10866571
Don't tell fatties to get on a treadmill, their knees are going to explode.

>>10869838
It isn't complicated if you're simple. Even if people got fat and lazy over night. What's up with that? I'm not buthurt. Im not too fat. But I know the name of the medical problem that I have. A lot may not. All that shit is based on an average and nobody's average irl. Of course I know a few people who put down the pizza and got off their asses and magically weren't fat. I think I know more who put in ridiculous effort and had nearly zero results.

>>10869886
>I think I know more who put in ridiculous effort and had nearly zero results.
I would, without hesitation, bet everything I own that if you took one of these fat people and locked them in a hospital for a few months on a 100% controlled calorie intake they would lose about as much weight as you would predict based on calorie calculations.

>>10866504
>Obesity is caused by personal choice
Not my choice that evolution is a scumbag that made our brains only capable of happiness if we indulge in sugar and fat.

>>10869990
after one weans them self off of sugar, too much usually makes them sick. You're just being a baby

>>10869952
One of them? Sure, but not all of them. I know my ATCH and IGF1 and HGH and blah blah. Most people don't. You couldn't get me to fit the average in a hospital without cutting off some limbs. It's fun to talk shit about fat fucks but id rather not have to look at so many of them. There's something wrong here.

>>10869990
>brains only capable of happiness if we indulge in sugar and fat
If that were actually true heroin addicts wouldn't be emaciated.

>>10870012
>Sure, but not all of them.
What are you waiting for? Find the one person on the planet with the superhuman ability to cultivate body mass in the absence of calories and you could find the cure for world hunger! Guaranteed Nobel, come on son!

>>10870033
Not in the absence of, but some invest calories better. Such as André René Roussimoff. You can't very easily starve off enlarged organs and bone density. Do i get a prize?

>>10870306
>some invest calories better
>starve off enlarged organs and bone density
>Do i get a prize?
No, because you're making inane and irrelevant nitpicks.
First of all, if you have so little body fat that the only remaining thing you have making up your weight are your organs and skeleton then obviously you don't have an obesity problem.
And regarding the idea "some invest calories better," let's pin this down to actual numbers to see how much this really matters:
>One study noted that one standard deviation of variance for resting metabolic rate (how many calories are burnt by living) was 5-8%; meaning 1 standard deviation of the population (68%) was within 6-8% of the average metabolic rate. Extending this, 2 standard deviations of the population (96%) was within 10-16% of the population average.
>Extending this into practical terms and assuming an average expenditure of 2000kcal a day, 68% of the population falls into the range of 1840-2160kcal daily while 96% of the population is in the range of 1680-2320kcal daily. Comparing somebody at or below the 5th percentile with somebody at or above the 95th percentile would yield a difference of possibly 600kcal daily, and the chance of this occurring (comparing the self to a friend) is 0.50%, assuming two completely random persons.
>To give a sense of calories, 200kcal (the difference in metabolic rate in approximately half the population) is approximately equivalent to 2 tablespoons of peanut butter, a single poptart (a package of two is 400kcal) or half of a large slice of pizza. An oreo is about 70kcal, and a chocolate bar in the range of 150-270kcal depending on brand.
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
So congratulations, you've raised awareness of how bones aren't fat and there's around one half of one percent of a chance your metabolism is so low and someone else's is so high that the difference between the two of you is one and a half of pic related.

>>10870372
Can I at least have the pop tart?

Nice job.

>>10869761
You can, if the disease is too severe, as I wrote, it is common, it just goes unrecorded.
>>10869772
I don't dispute obese people overeat, I'm arguing it's a symptom and not the cause

>>10870637
People want to overeat when they are lazy and have poor self control.

In ye old days over eating was not a problem, because getting fat was general pretty great because you could survive a likely period without food for longer. And there would rarely ever be enough food to get fat on anyhow.

In modern society it’s just bad. Everyone knows you shouldn’t over eat. Everyone knows it’s unhealthy and people won’t fuck you. But some people are lazy and have poor self control.

>>10870640
You're not supposed to need a lot of self control in order to eat normally.
>e getting fat was general pretty great because you could survive a likely period without food for longer. And there would rarely ever be enough food to get fat on anyhow.

Explain modern Japan, then.

>>10870670
Better culture of self control. Americans are lazy and impulsive.

>>10866892
nice work anon
7/10

>>10870670
Japan is getting fatter too. They exercise at work. That's cool. They have McDonald's. There are tall ones and fat ones.

>>10866504
What poor choices did these toddlers make?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW_e8iFwL_s

>>10870841
Parents feeding them too fucking much?

It’s not a great mystery

>>10866452
People are morons with shit willpower. Here in the UK the working class is fat because they're thick as shit
>'Eating healthy is expensive!'
>*orders a kebab*

>>10866452
Because you can't beat FREEDOM

Because human weight regulation is complex as fuck. A part happens in the brain, a part happens at fat level. The body plays three movements for everyone we make. The pathways that regulate hunger and fat storage are getting complicated every day and you can't just get some fatties to experiment on it.
The best thing that we had is know that its possible to lose weight throught diet manipulation and exercise. Its a fucking primitive method, but hey, it works more or less well. The other treatments resorts to plain mutilation.
>>10871261
>willpower
That's a very puritan way to look the issue.

Obesity is a consumption/lifestyle induced disease, not a scientific problem to be tackled.
Short of Chinese-style social credits program, fat people will stay fat.

>>10871273
>The best thing that we had is know that its possible to lose weight through diet manipulation and exercise.
That's really the only thing that ever works in the end. The amount you eat and exercise will completely determine more or less how fat you are. Even metabolic issues only account for 10% extra calories or whatever. If you eat more calories than you burn, you'll get fat. End of.

All the other ways of looking at weight loss are just about convincing people to actually do this.

>>10871293
>That's really the only thing that ever works in the end.
For now, with current acepted medical science. That's the safest method know.
In fact with current science we can do things like trick some receptors in brain to trick it to belive the fat levels are stable and in the setpoint that the brain has preset. They had they share of issues though.
We know some cocktails that can speed up the metabolism, and some chemicals that activate decoupling. First ones are pretty hard on cardiovascular system. DNP is dangerous because its effective dose is near the fatal dose.
And both produce tolerance, so we are square.
>The amount you eat and exercise will completely determine more or less how fat you are.
No, that's not completely true. I don't mean that CICO doesn't work, but that doesn't take account the failsafes that the body makes to protect the fat levels already has. Consider that, metabolically speaking, a diet is the same as suffering starvation. The body tries to do loads of tricks to protect your fat and get you fatter, like induce metabolic slowdown, induce depression, cravings, etc. etc. That's an issue for post obese folks. Their metabolism never reach baseline again. Yes, part of this is because of less mass they carry, but other path is the body fighting the (in its view) starvation.
Also, weight loss doesn't remove fat cells. These little fuckers aren't inert. They do tricks to force the body to make you eat and fill them again. That's why post obese folks are hungrier and have better recividism if they lose weight and get surgery to remove fat cells.
Its a pretty messy topic really. Saying that it's only "willpower" is näivete at best. Willpower is expensive and can't be used always.
>All the other ways of looking at weight loss are just about convincing people to actually do this.
We have tried that for decades and hasn't worked. People will not make it. They don't want to lose weight.

>>10870637
>it is common, it just goes unrecorded.
That makes no sense at all. How would you have any way of knowing that were true if there aren't any records of it? You can't just decide something's common because there *ISN'T* data on it, that's completely insane, much like the rest of the arguments you make whenever this topic comes up on /sci/.

>>10871332
>but that doesn't take account the failsafes that the body makes to protect the fat levels already has
This was already address, over and over again you fucking retard.
This is what your "b-but muh metabolism" bullshit amounts to:
>>10870372
>there's around one half of one percent of a chance your metabolism is so low and someone else's is so high that the difference between the two of you is one and a half of pic related.
Dishonest piece of shit. Just stop already.

>>10871356
>This was already address, over and over again you fucking retard.
Yes. Keep telling people to make behavioural changes and hope they make it.
Clearly It hasn't worked pretty well.

>>10871356
It seems you are talking shit to yourself. You have all the right letters green? How old are you? You're going to get fat, talking all that smack.

It was Wednesday morning. I woke up laying in bed at the sound of police, ambulance and firefighter alarms.

I went outside to look what was going on. I only saw some fat people standing on stage with massive crowds around them for some reason. I noticed my wide-eyed neighbor and asked what was going on.

>"They actually did it!"
>"They actually solved it!"

I didn't understand and tried to get a straight answer of what was happening. While I tried further questioning a loud droning sound was heard coming from the sky.

With my mouth agape I looked up while thousands of spaceships descended into our atmosphere. All seeming to arrive from different angles and being looking distinct from one another.

One of the bigger spaceships echoed unintelligible metallic sounds. The metallic sounds slowly combined to form a coherent English message.

>"We are truly humbled to be in the grace of this apex species, all of us have worked for eons trying to find the answer, but we are mere children exposed to your brilliant light"

At this point I'm extremely disoriented and don't know what to believe anymore. I frantically look at the stage where the fat people stood. I notice one of them is a kid that I went to school with.
I immediately run towards him, noticing that he has a very smug smile on his face. I'm starting to become scared as I start to remember I have bullied him in the past. I grab him by the collar while pleading him with fear in my eyes to explain what is going on.

He looks at me and utters the words: "I gained weight despite not having eaten anything for a week".

"No..."

Broken I look up to the rotund multi-chinned faces of the people on the stage as the first beings from the sky start to approach them.

"Oh praise thee! Reversers of Entropy!"
"Oh praise thee! Breakers of Thermodynamics!"
"Oh praise thee! Savers of the Universe!"

I fall to my knees and start sobbing uncontrollably. They were speaking the truth all along.

>>10871403
>puritanism: the post

>>10871332
Nothing you said contradicts the point that if your fat you just need to eat less.

Yes, you got arse about with tricking your body to have a higher metabolism, and yes being hungry is stressful sometimes.

In the end. Eat less. You lose weight.

>>10871403
Bullcrap. That never happened.

>>10866452
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BD4oExxQguTgpESdm/the-unfinished-mystery-of-the-shangri-la-diet

STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM PROCESSED FOODS
Process your own foods.

Not that hard

>>10871403
Based

>>10871403
I chuckled

>>10871409
He isnt saying that you will not lose weight if you eat less. Read carefully.

>>10866892
It's not a moral failure. Nobody ever suggested it was a moral failure. Humans are naturally inclined to eat as much as they can because we evolved to.

The problem is that this is a solved problem with a solution. Eat less food or get more exercise. I go on hikes regularly. I love getting out of the house and seeing nature. I also happen to have a geology degree because I enjoy it so much.

Find an outdoor activity you can enjoy. Good exercise and a proper diet will solve any obesity problem on Earth and I swear to God there is not a single soul on this planet that doesn't have the time to eat properly and exercise.

Got a job that takes 12 hours a day 7 days a week? Fine, you sleep 8 hours a day and have 4 hours for exercise. Got 15 kids that take every waking hour? Take them along on your exercise routine. Playing vidya for 19 hours a day and sleeping for 5? Play for 17 hours a day and get out of the house for 2.

The only person holding you back is you.

>>10871441
I find pretty hilarious not calling a moral failure, yet ending with motivational-tier crap.

>>10871447
But it's not a moral failure. If you want to be fat, be fat. There's no moral failure there. Just be fat. If you don't want to be fat though, there's a simple solution.

Saying 'I don't want to be fat waaaaaaaaaaaaaah." but then complaining that people judge you for your own failure to lose weight is laughable.

>>10871458
>if you want to be fat be fat
We both know thats not how it works in real life.

>>10866452
It hasn't

the scientific method can't force people to eat healty
its a cultural, social, political and corporate problem

>>10871462
Idiots will always judge you. You'll be judged for being Chinese, you'll be judged for not being Chinese. You'll be judged for being atheist, you'll be judged for not being atheist. And so on.

Find better friends.

>>10871385
>It seems you are talking shit to yourself.
No you dummy. You don't seem to understand how punctuation works. There's clearly a colon before the second post, showing it's being used *in support* of the argument against the anon who keeps claiming differences in metabolism or other non-calorie factors are a big deal.
If Anon A claims 2+2=5 and I respond with
"Like Anon B already pointed out here:
[Anon B's post number]
>[Argument Anon B wrote which shows why Anon A is wrong]
You stupid fuck."
That would mean I'm calling Anon A a stupid fuck, not Anon B.

>>10871409
>Nothing you said contradicts the point that if your fat you just need to eat less.
I never said that you don't need to eat less. I said that's more complicated than that and, in the end, you should not count on simple behaviour modification.

>>10871570
>That would mean I'm calling Anon A a stupid fuck, not Anon B
Now you are calling us both stupid fucks. I comprende. Didn't see those little dots there. My dominant eye is damaged at the brain hose and it just makes shit up instead of admitting blindness.
So people are just eating alot huh? Why everyone shooting people?

>>10871602
>So people are just eating alot huh?
100% Correct. It's not even a question of less physical activity like you hear brought up a lot in speculation on obesity epidemic causes. Literally just an increased amount of food energy supply and the way animals (humans included) will tend to just keep eating whatever's placed in front of them. See:
>>10869772
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
It explores and rules out the "less physical exertion" hypothesis and shows how obesity rates by over time are predictes very effectively from food energy supply increases alone.
>Why everyone shooting people?
Violent crime is lower today than it's ever been. We just get more in your face news media 24/7 creating the impression of increased violence.

>>10866452
It's caused by viruses.

End of mystery.

>>10871627
Yeah, i was saying that about the lazy monkey breath up there. Violence is better than ever but buthurt shooting seems fashionable. I agree with everything you say. I just see a challenge in trying to fuck with a powerful interlocutor. I can win the stuffed elephant when dude tries to guess my weight 100 pounds too low. Can't I blame du pont or something?

>>10866453
/thread

>>10871664
Fuck you

>>10871663
>>10871664
>>10871672
It's caused by herpes and the endovirus.

>>10866452
I'm fat. I'm not a virgin. I never paid for sex.

Am I better than the rest?

>>10871418
>"Starve yourself" doesn't work because its pragmatic efficacy relies on your fat cells being willing to relinquish lipids before your body cannibalizes muscle tissue and otherwise starts doing serious damage to itself, which your fat cells can just refuse to do if you're metabolically disprivileged.
>I will delete comments suggesting diet or exercise.
lol, holy shit. The entire point of fat storage is for the body to USE it. What a fucking brainlet. Imagine being this far up your own ass that you invent an entire alternate reality version of biology that allows you to believe you shouldn't diet or exercise even though you're overweight because your body will start "cannibalizing muscle tissue."

>>10871716
No. You're going to get herpes from a blanket because your perv friend Jack's off too much on it. Then you'll get a case of the 'voices only you can hear but somehow only tell you to ruin your life". Bam full on schizophrenia.

>>10871749
Your car has more than one component. You can't replace your tires by fueling up with gasoline. You can't supply your body with what it needs to go by starving yourself.

>>10871753
Fat doesn't contain everything you need. If it did it would put a larger work load on your organs and poison them.

>>10871750
Another fat dude here. I'm married to a Japanese bitch. I get a bj every Thursday.

Fasting is healthy if you're healthy in the first place.

It's not healthy for muscular or fat people. It'll damage muscular people's kidneys.

>>10871753
>You can't supply your body with what it needs to go by starving yourself.
Bullshit. Obese people have been documented living without food for absurdly long amounts of time. NASA even put serious research into using obese people for the specific reason that they'd be able to last many months without food in a torpor during very long distance spaceflights.
One obese man lasted over a year without eating food. He was fine afterwards too. Zero calories, zero protein. Just water and the occasional Flintstones tier multivitamin.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf
>CASE REPORTS
>Features of a successful therapeutic fast of 382 days' duration
>W. K. STEWART M.D., F.R.C.P.E., M.R.C.P. Lond.
>LAURA W. FLEMING B.Sc.
>University Department ofMedicine, Dundee DD1 4HN, Scotland
>Summary A 27-year-old male patient fasted under supervision for 382 days and has subsequently maintained his normal weight. Blood glucose concentrations around 30 mg/100 ml were recorded consistently during the last 8 months, although the patient was ambulant and attending as an out-patient. Responses to glucose and tolbutamide tolerance tests remained normal. The hyperglycaemic response to glucagon was reduced and latterly absent, but promptly returned to normal during carbohydrate refeeding. After an initial decrease was corrected, plasma potassium levels remained normal without supplementation. A temporary period of hypercalcaemia occurred towards the end of the fast. Decreased plasma magnesium concentrations were a consistent feature from the first month onwards. After 100 days of fasting there was a marked and persistent increase in the excretion of urinary cations and inorganicphosphate, which until then had been minimal. These increases may be due to dissolution of excessive soft tissue and skeletal mass. Prolonged fasting in this patient had no ill-effects.

>>10871756
>Fasting's not healthy for muscular or fat people. It'll damage muscular people's kidneys.
False. That's a bullshit excuse fatties love to pretend is true so they don't have to bother trying to put down the fork.

>>10871773
How the fuck?

How many calories did he burn a day?
2000? That's 250g of oil a day.

382 x 250g = 95kg of fat

He burned off all that fat over the year?

>>10871756
>fasting damages the kidneys
Caloric restriction should also damage the kidneys then.

Everyone calls everyone an idiot itt and no closer to the epiphany.

>>10871750
But am I better than the rest or not? I'm fat, I'm not a virgin and I never paid for sex. Answer honestly.

>>10867229
I have a job that requires me to move all day.

>>10867269
I bet the cost of food is a huge factor in that. Something heavily processed that's calorie dense with less nutritional value is less expensive.

>>10867690
I think I read something on buzzfeed about glucocorticoids and how it affects ghrelin production or whatever.I bet screen time even plays a factor, and also, maybe if that judo guy didn't have a batshit crazy wife he wouldn't be such a fat fuck.

>>10871805
>How many calories did he burn a day?
>2000? That's 250g of oil a day.
>382 x 250g = 95kg of fat
>He burned off all that fat over the year?
He actually lost a little over 125kg.
What trips people up when they try to do these weight loss estimates is 2000 calories would be the amount burned each day by someone already at a healthy weight. If you're starting out at 456 lb (207 kg) in contrast and you're a 6'0 man, age 27, then you'll actually be burning something more like 3800 calories per day *to start with*. The other thing you could get tripped up on is you would need to decrease your calculation for how many calories the subject's body is going to burn the more their weight decreases.
I've seen a similar issue with people believing you could eat the same exact amount of extra calories compared to your *current* intake and weight and that doing this indefinitely would result in you continuing to gain weight indefinitely, when really you would need to decrease how much additional weight this would add the more your weight increases because weighing more means more calorie burning and eventually you would reach a weight where what you're eating is now the maintenance amount rather than a caloric surplus.
Ironically the extremely obese have the greatest ability to shed off massive amounts of weight in the shortest amounts of time because their mass has way higher upkeep requirements than a healthy sized or underweight person would have.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf
>Patient A.B. aged 27 years, weighed on admission 456 lb (207 kg).
>Results
>During the 382 days of the fast, the patient's weight decreased from 456 to 180 lb. Five years after undertaking the fast, Mr A.B's weight remains around 196 lb.

>>10866452
>crisis
it's no crisis.
we're just trying to kill the poor&stupid asap
t. ritchie richer

>>10867690
>Many talking shit itt are young and will be fat in ten years.
Bullshit, absolute bullshit. I'm 32 and am still at the same 18.5 BMI (140lb / 6'1) I've been at since back when I was in high school.
> Somthing's going on here. It wasn't like this 20 years ago so Idk if we can blame tv and food availability.
What the fuck are you talking about? Food availability has definitely been increasing, in DIRECT proportion to the obesity epidemic. Not sure why you're assuming that isn't the case when the data for greater food availability is publicly accessible and not in any doubt. See:
>>10869772
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity

>>10871873
>Everyone calls everyone an idiot itt and no closer to the epiphany.
There is no "epiphany" to be had when the answer is objectively just "eat fewer calories."
It's like if everyone called you an idiot for not understanding the "mystery" of how to solve the alcohol-related cirrhosis of the liver "crisis" when you've already been told 50 times that the solution is to stop drinking so much alcohol. And then you complain we're "no closer to the epiphany," as though any epiphany needed to be had in the first place.

>>10871941
I would think fasting like this would damage your gut microbiome. Surely a lot of the bacteria there would starve off..

>>10866452
How many people in the US do you think properly use the scientific method?

Because it's mostly due to stress caused by the city lifestyle.
It's a systematic problem, we'll solve it when we change the city patterns of behaviour, USA it's mostly doomed, but other countries could manage it with good urbanism and better working conditions.

>>10866452
It has, and no one listened. It is called "diet and exercise."

>>10871418

Fatties want a solution that does NOT involve changing what they eat or the amounts that they eat.

Fatties refuse to believe that
(calories out > calories in) = weight loss

>>10871989
>I would think fasting like this would damage your gut microbiome. Surely a lot of the bacteria there would starve off..
Loosely related, but one of the interesting details about that 382 day fast is the subject started going 37-48 days between bowel movements.
But that said, most of the "gut microbiome" stuff you hear about nowadays is extremely speculative nonsense and marketing fads. Fortunately you don't see probiotics / prebiotics getting shilled for and stuff in various products as much as they were a decade or so ago. I was really pissed off when they started adding that trash to the Boost shakes I use sometimes to make sure I get my nutrition and calories / protein covered when I'm too lazy to go get a proper meal. All it did was *start* giving me stomach problems whereas the formula before that stupid fad sat perfectly well with me.
Also bacteria isn't exactly fragile. The first couple of seconds after this guy started eating again I'm pretty sure his intestines were crawling with brand new bacteria if the preexisting inhabitants were no longer active during his fasting period.

>>10872060
>Fatties refuse to believe that
>(calories out > calories in) = weight loss
Yeah, or they dishonestly try to put as much attention as possible on retarded exception scenarios that probably don't apply to them to begin with and would amount to plus or minus a hundred calories even if it did apply to them.
It's like they're inside a house that's burning to the ground but they don't even try to leave and instead keep arguing "fire isn't the whole picture" because they can point to small parts of the house that haven't yet ignited.

>>10866452
The scientific method doesn't fix things; it's used to study them.

>>10872060
>Fatties want a solution that does NOT involve changing what they eat or the amounts that they eat.
And this is bad because...?

>>10872458
They'll die.

>>10872514
Everyone will die some day.

>>10872458
>And this is bad because...?

Because changing your diet is almost the ONLY way to lose weight if you are a fatty.

It IS possible to NOT change you diet and lose wight IF you raise your metabolism and this is usually done by exercising. A Fatty would have to Olympic athlete levels of exercise to counter the normal fatty diet and still lose weight.

>>10872443

fantastic observation and very well stated.

>>10872590
>Because changing your diet is almost the ONLY way to lose weight if you are a fatty.
Read again what the hell I am asking before posting.

>>10872665
>Read again what the hell I am asking before posting.


Then start doing Olympic athlete levels of exercise and you will lose wight.
4-6 hours of strenuous exercise daily should do thew trick.

>>10872676
>someone ask about a potential solution to obesity that doesn't involve behavior change like deliberate caloric restriction or deliberate exercise
>someone ask why asking for this is "bad"
>idiot rants about doing deliberate calorict restriction or deliberate exercise
The state of /sci/

>>10866452
It did solve obesity, it's the people that aren't listening

>>10872693
Then, by definition, is not solved.

>>10872686
>>someone ask about a potential solution to obesity that doesn't involve behavior change like deliberate caloric restriction or deliberate exercise
>>someone ask why asking for this is "bad"
>>idiot rants about doing deliberate calorict restriction or deliberate exercis

Fine... METH... become a meth addict. I have never heard of a single obese meth addict.

There!, that is your fucking solution, artificially raise your metabolism beyond that of a crack-head.

>>10872702
>doing meth
And what happens if you retire the meth, assuming the fattie didn't develop addiction to it?

>>10872706
Study these extremely complex equations:
(Calories in > Calories out) = gain weight
(Calories in < Calories out) = lose weight

>>10872718
But I could eat ice cream all month and knock off 10 pounds. ??

>>10872718
Oh, you mean deliberate calorie restriction that implies behaviour modification. For the rest of your life
Wow, I never thought of that!

>>10872723
You can if you eat ice cream under calorie restriction. It doesn't care about what you eat really.
There's a trend literally called IFYM.

>>10866452
Because people have the liberty to eat as much as they please. Obesity is a personal choice.

>>10872723
>But I could eat ice cream all month and knock off 10 pounds. ??

You can eat ANYTHING and still lose weight if you burn off the calories.

The Eskimos eat fucking whale blubber and do not get fat BECAUSE their metabolism has to be raised to keep them warm.

>>10872735
>Obesity is a personal choice.
Puritanism is not a scientific response.

>>10872730
>Oh, you mean deliberate calorie restriction

God Damn it fatty, NOT eating an entire cheese cake for lunch every day is NOT "calorie restriction", it is how you got to land whale size!

>>10872754
>restrict your calorie intake is not restricting your calorie intake
The state of /sci/

>>10866452
> live in a culture that views all structure as being an outdated system ment to keep men in power
> live in an economy dedicated to training everyone to buy first and think neverand which forces the vast majority of its members to sit at a desk for most hours of most days, barely making enough to make it by so that they have neither the time nor will to cook real food and live in constant fear that they will loose their job all so a tiny segment of the economy can get so rich their minds can't understand how much money they have.
> live under a government built for compromise at a time when partisanship has hopelessly split the voting population
> live at a time when people actively reject scientific findings because they have become disenfranchised with society and education as a whole
...
> Why hasn't science solved a problem of self-control in the face of plenty?

>>10872759

The absolute mental state of fatties.
I want to eat 12,000 calories a day and lose weight but I refuse to eat less or exercise.

You want to defy the very laws of nature.

>>10872765
>evil sjw made fatties
what

>>10872752
>Puritanism is not a scientific response.
So you believe that people are obese involuntarily?

OP didn't ask an entirely scientific question, so it doesn't warrant a scientific response. Fact is, people have the choice to adopt healthier lifestyles. There is a scientific way to losing weight, however, and its all about limiting calorie intake.

Stop blaming other people for your obesity and lose some weight, fatty.

>>10872772
Except what I said isn't that.
OP isn't asking about raping CICO (that's impossible unless you are a fucking God). OP is asking for a solution that doesn't involve doing that in a deliberate way for the rest of your life.
It sounds silly, except that there's attempts to create that solution.
Of course you can't understand that since obesity is view with a puritanical outlook. Fatties should pay for their crimes, you know ;^)

>>10872780
Let me guess: You never have been fat, right?

>>10872788
I was fat during most of my time at elementary school, but I never went around blaming other people for it, faggot.

>>10872794
You talk like every other hungry skeleton I knew in my life.

>>10872786
>doing that in a deliberate way for the rest of your life.

But YOU are missing the picture. You are living your life WRONG, you are a fatty and unless you change your diet or exercise fanatically, returning to your diet will just make you fat again.

You absolutely MUST change your diet... you have ALREADY eaten a lifetimes worth of cookies, cakes, etc.

>>10872798
>implying that the people you knew weren't significantly healthier than you and you were just too fat too realize that you can maintain a slim physique without starving yourself
>>10872801
>You are living your life WRONG
Yes.
>you are a fatty and unless you change your diet or exercise fanatically, returing to your diet will just make you fat again
An occasional hamburger or pizza slice won't do you harm. You can make healthier options that are more satisfying, more nourishing, and more delicious.
>You absolutely MUST change your diet
Absolutely.
>you have ALREADY eaten a lifetimes worth of cookies, cakes, etc.
Unless you're going to die soon, then no, you
did not.

Your attitude sickens me. I hope you never cry about fat-shaming outside of the internet, you loser.You should be smart enough to know that you're a fatty and will continue to be a fatty only because you chose to be one.

Get a life, faggot.

>>10872801
You are so dense.
We both know about that. I'm not negating that to you, but its not what OP is asking.
We both know that you need deliberate caloric restriction to make you thinner. Nobody has negated that.
What OP is probably asking is why even we know that, obesity isn't solved. The answer is simply because this method is primitive as fuck. Most people will never make a permanent change to begin, and also its the fact that your body plots against you. So, unless you literally keep on line thighly, you will regain body weight again.
Scientists are working in a permanent solution to obesity (read as you want, behaviour modification, manipulate body weight regulation to makes us more resistant to weight gain, etc, etc.) but the issue is complex as fuck.

>>10872825
>issue is complex as fuck.

NO it is NOT!
(Calories in > Calories out) = gain weight
(Calories in < Calories out) = lose weight

People can NOT consume thousands of extra calories a day and not gain weight.

Stop eating out every meal and
put the fork down fatty!

>>10872835
Then why people aren't getting thinner if the issue isn't complex as you said?
I bet you answer will be based on some kind of appeal to character or will, but instead of a psychological one will be a moral judgement.

>>10872820
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>10872838
>Then why people aren't getting thinner if the issue isn't complex as you said?

Because they would rather eat pizza, burgers, pizza EVERYDAY than eat a balanced diet.
It REALLY is just a matter self restraint, and sadly, very few people have it.

>>10866452

>>10872855
So we are square again.
>>10872869
>@AntiFemComics
>>>/pol/

>>10872880

>>10872734
>>10872744
I was meaning that ice cream will make me shit so bad that i be crapping out all my food while it isn't fully digested. Ive even seen my allergy pills in the toilet. I think that shit is one of the missing X factors.

>>10872887
>>>/pol/

>>10872950
The issue with these factors is that are highly individual, and they always break cico because cico operates in the assumption that you metabolism hasn't any kind of disorder, like diabetes or hypothyroidism. And even with these evidence suggest they only impact like a 10% only.
The most probable thing that you will do in this case is some kind of overcompensation for the lost calories in your shit.

>>10872961
Idk how it is for other fatties, but i be shaking, sweating, spinning and blacking out hungry if I don't scarf 60 bucks worth of food to maintain my, not quite sexy, figure. And my strength diminishes if I don't keep my standard layer of fat. I know that I officially have a medical problem but I found out by coincidence after the fact. I wonder how many don't know. And then there is the lazy potato eating fucks that give all fatasses a bad name.

>>10872983
Its pretty normal to feeling a bit weak after losing weight, especially if you don't exercise. Its not a medical problem. Its just some lost muscle that goes away with the fat, plus the effects of metabolic slowdown.

>>10873001
Idk how others feel. I have a medical problem the size of Texas and get all my hormones and shit from a bottle.

>>10871342
I didn't say it's BECAUSE there isn't data. Just because something isn't oficially recorded doens¨t mean the information cannot be obtained.

>>10871408
Cope more. The amount of times I've heard the whole "I gained weight without eating anything" retardation from amerilards is enough for a lifetime already.

>>10871441
>Geology
not science or math

>>10871755
Only on Thursdays? What a pathethic fat fuck.

>>10871877
You're only better than yourself when you were a virgin. You're still a lardass, be better than that.

>>10873434
Yeah. That still makes you outlook of the issue very puritanical.

>>10867738
This

>>10868208
It makes sense that people are suddenly able to overeat

>>10871923
>cost of food
To an extent, yes. If you cook in bulk/cook for the entire family you can get good deals on vegetables, chicken and other healthier foods. It actually comes out to be a little cheaper. However, many people don't think that way. I think that the convenience of just being able to go through a drive through, pick something up/get delivery or just heat something up in the microwave plays a bigger role. That and the healthier foods will taste rather bland compared to fast/processed foods because they have literally been engineered to taste as good as possible

>>10866452
>Why has the scientific method failed to resolve the obesity crisis?

Easy, follow these rules:
1. ALL your food should come from a farm NOT a factory.

If you need to lose wight then follow this rule:
2. If you did not make it, you do not eat it

That is it.

Holy mother of landwhale cope in this thread.
Eat less calories than you use. Burn more calories than you ingest.
ta-da

>>10873620
I feel like you are the same one or two fags throughout.
This>>10873571
Kind of shit makes a lot more sense.

>>10871403

>>10866452
there is: just stop eating

>>10873662
>This>>10873571
>Kind of shit makes a lot more sense.
No it doesn't. Your weight is determined more by the calories you eat than anything else. You can eat way too many calories of "healthy" / "natural" food too.
Reminder the biggest predictor for type 2 diabetes is your weight, not what kind of food you eat.
>Most people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese: more than 85% of people with type 2 diabetes in southeast Scotland in 2005 had a body mass index (weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared) of over 25. Recent evidence indicates that high waist circumference may be an even better indicator than body mass index (BMI) of increased risk of type 2 diabetes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635590/
Reminder you lose weight even on a vending machine snack diet if you limit calories.
>Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.
>For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
>His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
>The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
>For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
>His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
>I feel like you are the same one or two fags throughout.
Or maybe he sounds like everyone else here because what we're all telling you is actually the right answer.

>>10873863
>there is: just stop eating
^^^^^^THIS.
How something so simple can be twisted around into nonsense like this...
>>10871418
>"Starve yourself" doesn't work because its pragmatic efficacy relies on your fat cells being willing to relinquish lipids before your body cannibalizes muscle tissue and otherwise starts doing serious damage to itself, which your fat cells can just refuse to do if you're metabolically disprivileged.
>I will delete comments suggesting diet or exercise.
...Is one of the most depressingly retarded instances of regularly occurring self-deceit I have ever seen.

You fatties wamt an answer?

Microplastics.

Tell me what the medua doesnt talk about
What is impossible to get rid,of?
What is literally everywhere except tge air we breath as long as it isnt too windy.
What
closely
resembles
A
lipid?

Fuckin
Microplastics

Are you fatties happy?

>>10871403
I chortled

>>10873939
So much effort into saying what everyone already knows. No fatty is benefiting. Everyone knows that shit. Everyone. It is that simple but you are retarded as the day is long if you're going to act like that's all there is to it.

>>10871403

You CAN gain weight without eating anything or drinking anything with calories.

People on water diets CAN gain weight if they consume some salt, they then gain weight by water retention.

This weight gain will go away as soon as the excess salt is used, then the extra water will be released.

>>10871403
Good quality content, keep up the good work

>>10874034
>what everyone already knows
You clearly don't know it because you keep on going back to saying shit like
>No fatty is benefiting
Or
>you are retarded as the day is long if you're going to act like that's all there is to it
Every fatty who learns to accept it's calories and not the other delusional exceptions they want to distract themselves with does benefit. You only don't benefit when you keep on dismissing calories and focusing on the +-100 calorie metabolism variance like what's already been covered here:
>>10870372
>So congratulations, you've raised awareness of how bones aren't fat and there's around one half of one percent of a chance your metabolism is so low and someone else's is so high that the difference between the two of you is one and a half of pic related.

>>10874199
Tag you because you are last and not bumping this jungle of worthlessness. Psychology or environmental, there is an issue with obesity. High IQ dummies itt beat the drum. OP would do better to inb4: thermal dynamics, and cannot be greater than sum of parts. If there is "mental illness" there are likely cultural or environmental factors. This thread is more math than science and I don't see any claiming magic, only those accusations. I am over 40 years old. There was one fat kid in school. I get around enough to observe possible anomalies. There are also those who complain of never being able to gain weight. Chemicals can put put breasts on men, parasites exists. Society has issues. Food and weight loss are each huge industries and likely to fuck with people. Im not fat enough to be called fat but I pity those who are actually trying to keep track of caloric intake. That seems like slavery for an impossible task master.

DAILY REMINDER THAT ALL FAT PEOPLE ARE CUMBRAINS

THEY SEEK SHORT TERM PLEASURE

>>10866452
How do we explain Samoans? Seems like obesity is a part of their culture.
Were they always like this even before "Da Evil Whitey" introduced processed foods?

>>10874267
>That seems like slavery for an impossible task master.

How fucking hard is it to say to yourself "I can only have two slices of pizza for lunch", instead of eating an entire large pizza.

How hard is it to say yo yourself "one snickers bar is a good snack" instead eating an entire 6 pack of snickers bars.

There is no "impossible task" to NOT stuffing your stomach till it is painfully full at EVERY meal.

Also plain water SHOULD be your main drink.

>>10874362
>be isolated island
>need auschwitz genes to even survive
>all skinny people die out
>suddenly gets modernized

>>10866576
based and fat-pilled

>>10873456
But I'm better than incels that are not fat though. Why didn't you answer honestly?

>>10866892
You're right, we should put electrical implants in the mouths of fatties to give them a shock if they eat over a given caloric threshold. There, I've cured obesity!

>>10869590
Their fat cells can release the energy, but the body doesn’t do that when you keep flooding your bloodstream with simple sugars. It takes the excess energy from their overindulgence and stores it as fat.
Stop eating and snacking excessively so that you have an energy deficit, and your body will start using those metabolic pathways again.

>>10869389
Something being the result of sin is divine punishment. Having leprosy itself wasn’t sinful, but what you did to be punished with it was.
Leprosy was never a sin.

>>10872590
oh god, when she slips the brush into her fat. i nearly retched.

>>10872443
Fucking based observation

>>10866452
It all started with Ancel Keys, and no one wants to admit they're wrong

>>10866571
>What is there to resolve?
>Just create a calorie deficit,
t. 120 iq

>>10873528
No, it doesn't. People weren't starving all the time.
>>10874551
retard
>>10874574
No. The mechanism that switches the cells from absorption to release is broken. People only crave sugar to compensate. (and sugar consumption dropped worldwide, because people are trying, but it isn't working)
>>10874580
In other words exactly like obesity.

>>10873528
No, it doesn't. People weren't starving all the time. + as I said, Korea + Japan vs. Middle East+North Africa
>>10874551
retard
>>10874574
No. The mechanism that switches the cells from absorption to release is broken. People only crave sugar to compensate. (and sugar consumption dropped worldwide, because people are trying, but it isn't working)
>>10874580
In other words exactly like obesity.

>>10875358
I guess I shouldn't be but, I am astonished reading around in here.

>>10871850

Type 2 diabetes is also bad for your kidneys.

>>10866892

Changes in the gut microbiome due to pharmaceutic iatrogenesis you colossal FAGGOT

>>10875358
>No. The mechanism that switches the cells from absorption to release is broken.
Are you gonna provide a study to back that up? Or are you just going to keep asserting this without any sources like a schizo?
Because it’s pretty established that all fatties eat excessively and snack constantly, which undeniably floods their system with sugars. It’s also well known that the body preferentially burns free sugars over its fat reserves. The only exception is people with diagnosed metabolic or genetic disorders, but those have established causes.

>>10875404
>diagnosed
Not the Anon. How about undiagnosed? I don't know what fatties do when I'm not watching but I know a few who seem to get a raw deal where they need to try harder. My bitch wife got fatter and I was even a huge dick, watching her like a hawk. She counts points and has her whole day's worth of eating set up the day before. I'd feel sorry for that cunt if I didn't hate her for other reasons. I'm 3 or 4 inches taller but I eat like ten times more. What the fuck is her problem? She is Asian btw. I see people thinking that they are special. She walks and takes the train and all that shit and I couldn't see her secretly eating because why would she be counting calories when she could just tell me she was. Oh, doctors can be stupid and lazy like anyone else.

>>10875385
Yes, let's get a poop transplant, the new panacea, curing everything from cancer to mental illness...
>>10875404
I said, I will not publish it. First, big pharma would be faster, and I'd get nothing, second, I'm sure peope would try to sue me to shut me up if they found out who I am and I'd get nothing, third, people would learn to avoid the cause and I'd get nothing.
>>10875427
this

>>10875385
Yes, let's get a poop transplant, the new panacea, curing everything from cancer to mental illness...
>>10875404
I said, I will not publish it. First, big pharma would be faster coming up with something that also works and getting it approved, and I'd get nothing, second, I'm sure some people would try to sue me to shut me up if they found out who I am and I'd get nothing, third, people would learn to avoid the cause and I'd get nothing.
>>10875427
this

>>10875451

Fucking right it will cure everything shit is the magic keys to the kingdom my main man. If only you could have known the wide variety of applications shit really has beyond being a food source for you.

>>10875451
>I said, I will not publish it. First, big pharma would be faster coming up with something that also works and getting it approved, and I'd get nothing, second, I'm sure some people would try to sue me to shut me up if they found out who I am and I'd get nothing, third, people would learn to avoid the cause and I'd get nothing.
>I conclusively know a disease exists, but I’m not going to publish anything about it because I won’t be the one to get a patent on the drugs for it and people will prevent the causes of their crippling illness (because fuck making contributions to the world, I like money and am no better than big pharma)
Schizo it is then

>>10875427
If she thinks the doctor fucked up then she should get a second opinion. Otherwise, she might just have a slow metabolism and needs to lower her energy intake more. She might also be falling for some common traps like drinking fruit juices or not counting snacks because “they’re insignificant”.

>>10875461
Not him.
I think this guy had a documentary where mom needs emergency shit transfusion. Idk why. Daughter shit makes her fat. They explain all the ins and outs. I hope that last sentence was funny.

>>10875469
>She might also be falling for some common traps.

Nah. It sucks to be her. I try to eat like a pig behind her back so she doesn't need to see how easy I have it. Whatever. Some people are fat.

>>10875469
>fuck making contributions to the world, I like money and am no better than big pharma
You wouldn't do anything else if you could. I'm not fucking Jesus.

>>10866452
>Why has the scientific method failed to resolve the obesity crisis?

Because it is NOT a science problem.
MOST people are not obese, obesity is a diet problem.
PUT THE FORK DOWN !

>>10866452
>Why has the scientific method failed to resolve the obesity crisis?
https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/everything-you-know-about-obesity-is-wrong/

>>10875751
>https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/everything-you-know-about-obesity-is-wrong/

The Huffington Post does not have a public comment section on for their articles.

I have found that news sites that do this are almost 100% feminist liberal progressive run and REFUSE to read any criticism of their works.

So I tend not to go to such sites.

>>10872786
>Of course you can't understand that since obesity is view with a puritanical outlook. Fatties should pay for their crimes, you know ;^)
Yes anon, and I should be entitled to indulge in a 30 pack a day alcoholism habit and get free (taxpayer funded) liver transplants. Don't be a Puritan about it bro, just give me your liver. I deserve it. Why should I have to change MY behavior when science and taxpayers can undo my self-inflicted damage for me?

>>10875772
>not have a public comment section on for their articles.
Looks like you can read and leave comments right there under the article. is that public? But yeah as in Ariana Huffington.

>>10875772
>these planets
did nasa invent le flat design?

Government regulation is more affordable to large industry. Independent food providers have been pushed to panhandling at farmers markets. The cost of simple basic ingredients cannot compete with mass production of prefabricated food. Even home cooking is usually combining two or more complicated factory made foods with maybe some old fashioned ingredient. Calories in calories out. Ok but, this is something that has achieved terminal velocity. Much more unlike how it was at the turn of the century.

>>10875519
That fatty wasnt even trying, she could easily take her.

>>10875519
why did the white girl started clapping her hands ?

>>10867690
Not young anymore, still not fat. You can get btfo'd.

>>10871956
>>10876001
Confused the word "Many" with "Every."
32 isn't that old either.

>>10866452

cus science is a faux word to describe the life of a lonely faggot called the scientist

>>10866892
[heavy breathing]

It's not that hard for a behaviorist to treat an obese child with Prader Willi(generic disorder where your brain never tells you you're full)
>Feed on a schedule
>Monitor access to food, get human rights committee approval to have locks on pantry and fridge
>Reward following a diet and exercise
>Maintain some form of intervention indefinitely

The issue is that typical adults would not consent to, and could not afford, this kind of therapy.

Celebrities like J Lo basically hire trainers, life coaches, and chefs to force themselves to have self control.

>>10875817
>Looks like you can read and leave comments right there under the article.

Where? You lying bastard.
Do not sprout shit unless you can prove it!

>>10875985
>why did the white girl started clapping her hands ?
No idea. But the fatty attacked her and she was defending herself.

People don't want to put in the effort required to lose weight.

Everybody knows what to do but it's too hard (or something)

>>10876345

I lose weight at will, and fast, with no help from pros.

All you need is an internet connection and a gym card. If you want to know what to eat and not to eat then literally just post your diet on any forum and you will have the answer in 15 min.

>>10867690
Our environment has become more and more goitrogenic over the latter half of the 20th century. Thinking of obesity in itself as a kind of disease (and worse yet some sort of moral failing) rather than a symptom, is really not helping things.

>>10876487
Under. Do you know wich way under is? Idk dude. Maybe we have different internets or something.

>>10876487
>I demand evidence that what is on the page is on the page
Just scroll down to see the discussion, are you fucking insane? Are you able to do that, or should I post you a screenshot?

>>10876565
Thanks.

>>10876565
>Thinking of obesity in itself as a kind of disease (and worse yet some sort of moral failing) rather than a symptom, is really not helping things.
It's a symptom of eating too many calories. And that's not some subjective decision to interpret it that way. That's just what it actually is.
>Our environment has become more and more goitrogenic over the latter half of the 20th century.
>goitrogenic
You think the obesity epidemic has been caused by more people having thyroid problems? Seems unlikely to me. The amount of food energy available has gone up in a way that aligns perfectly well with the obesity epidemic's emergence, whereas alternative theories blaming something else like thyroid activity getting suppressed and metabolism slowing down compared to the past wouldn't make much sense as an explanation unless you saw the amount of food energy available was remaining flat in spite of so many people becoming overweight / obese.
>>10869772
>https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity

>>10866452
Just wanted to pop in to say that all the epic posters BTFO the fatties are fatties themselves, otherwise they wouldn’t be here.

>>10876994
>Just scroll down to see the discussion, are you fucking insane? Are you able to do that, or should I post you a screenshot?

You cock sucking lying bastard.

Here is an image of the bottom.
No comment section or discussion section?

>>10877762
>It's a symptom of eating too many calories. And that's not some subjective decision to interpret it that way. That's just what it actually is.
Eating too many calories is the symptom. Your interpretation is subjective.

>>10877776
Ok, figured it out.

In order to see Huffington Post comments you have to allow trackers.
That is a huge FUCK NO!

I do not want google tracking me on every website I visit.

If you can read Huffington Post comments then google and anyone else is following site you visit.

FUCK NO!

There's a difference between finding a solution and having a solution put into practice successfully.

>>10877776
>You cock sucking lying bastard.
The comment section is right below that. I suppose you have some kind of script blocker or something else that prevents it from loading.

>>10866452
Because science can't slap the cheeseburger out of your hands, you disgusting fat body.

>>10877784
>Eating too many calories is the symptom.
It's not. Food energy supply went up and obesity rates went up. You put food in front of an animal and they will eat it. Even the rats used as controls in scientific experiments tend to be overweight in spite of nobody trying to make them overweight. They get that way simply because they have ad libitum access to food, just like people do.
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/14/6127

>>10877810
have sex

>Why has the scientific method failed to resolve the obesity crisis?

Cause, it was the scientific method that engineered the obesity crisis so the medical and diet industry can reap the riches. Just like how they engineered the opioid crisis.

The scientific method is a tool, that can be wielded for good or evil.

>>10877880
Put down the fork.

>>10877975
im trying ok

>>10877810
No this is not normal. Animals don't eat more than they ned to. They are also affected if they do. Even horses need to be muzzled now so that they don't eat more than what their digestive system can handle.

Bring back communism. AKA Having money but nothing to buy with it.

>>10878135
>No this is not normal.
Yes it is.
>Animals don't eat more than they ned to.
They do. I showed you the link already here:
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/14/6127
These weren't rats researchers were trying to make overweight. They're the general population of *control* rats used in all sorts of different experiments. They tend to be overweight because animals will eat more than they need to when access to food isn't limited.
>Even horses need to be muzzled now so that they don't eat more than what their digestive system can handle.
There are ancient Roman writings demonstrating grain overload among horses was already a known problem thousands of years ago.
>>The pathology of laminitis is not fully understood, but one factor thought to precipitate the illness is excessive carbohydrate intake, or 'grain overload'. This form of causation was obviously recognized in antiquity (Mul. Chir. 655 ab ordeo, 734 a crudiate ordei; cf 732 'quae fit... ex crudiate praesentis cibi').
https://books.google.com/books?id=s2d9DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA265

>>10878228
>Yes it is.
No it isn't. What is described in the link isn't normal.
>There are ancient Roman writings demonstrating grain overload among horses was already a known problem thousands of years ago.

No, I mean horses grazing so much that they would risk colic.

>>10871923
>Something heavily processed that's calorie dense with less nutritional value is less expensive.
Oh, it's that myth again. If you want to go incredibly cheap, rice, beans/lentils, eggs, fresh greens, and chicken are far cheaper and filling than any processed food and incredibly easy to prepare.

>>10878244
>What is described in the link isn't normal.
When you make access to food unlimited animals become overweight. Not sure what your problem is here or what you're imagining "normal" means. You could call any animals being overweight "abnormal," but it's not uncommon and it's not a modern oddity. Animals in the wild don't get zero effort access to unlimited amounts of food. Animals in captivity who do get access to unlimited amounts of food unsurprisingly end up eating more than they need and become overweight as a consequence.
>No, I mean horses grazing so much that they would risk colic.
I have no idea what distinction you're trying to make here. The point is grain overload was a known and common problem with horses thousands of years ago. And the amount of grain overload causing laminitis isn't less than the amount causing colic.

>>10878277
I mean I'm not talking about grain overload or laminitis (a foot disease). I'm talking about horses overeating whilw grazing grass.

>>10878289
The point isn't laminitis. The point is there's documentation available, written by ancient Romans, that demonstrates horses eating more than they need to was already a known problem thousands of years ago.

>>10878277
>When you make access to food unlimited animals become overweight.

So the fatty is no more than an animal, unable to control his own eating.

Wow... this kind of thinking quickly leads to to the idea that since animals can be owned and worked, so can humans.

>>10878321
>So the fatty is no more than an animal, unable to control his own eating.
I never claimed fat people can't eat less. Not sure where you're getting that from.
My point was just that you can clearly see the obesity epidemic isn't some mystery you need to come up with conspiracies about modern food poisoning you and destroying your metabolism or whatever other bullshit anons here are trying to claim, and it coincided proportionally to the increasing amount of available food energy supply in exactly the way you would expect given weight gain is caused by eating too many calories.
>Wow... this kind of thinking quickly leads to to the idea that since animals can be owned and worked, so can humans.
I have no idea what you're trying to communicate.

>>10878511
Your are missing my point. We have grocery stores, big fat whoopy, that does not mean there is therefore ANY excuse for obesity.

We have liquor stores and we have alcoholics.
Putting a liquor store on every block will NOT lead tot he average person becoming an alcoholic.

Obesity like alcoholism is a moral and mental weakness.
I pity them, but I do not claim they "have a disease".
No they have moral or mental problem.

>>10878563
>that does not mean there is therefore ANY excuse for obesity
I'm not saying it's an excuse for obesity. I'm saying the food energy supply increasing is clearly what led to the obesity epidemic rather than other explanations people try to come up with like modern food screwing with your metabolism or whatever else fat people are trying to blame it on.
>We have liquor stores and we have alcoholics.
>Putting a liquor store on every block will NOT lead tot he average person becoming an alcoholic.
Alcohol's a bad example for the point you're trying to make. It's super-similar to the overweight / obese problem.
71.6% of the US is overweight, with 39.8% being overweight to the point of clinical obesity.
56% of the US are actively drinking alcohol on a routine basis, with 30% drinking to the point of alcoholism.
And making alcohol more available does in fact result in greater rates of alcohol consumption:
https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article/44/5/500/182556
>The majority of studies reviewed found that alcohol outlet density and hours and days of sale had an impact on one or more of the three main outcome variables, such as overall alcohol consumption, drinking patterns and damage from alcohol.
None of this is an argument that these people have no control over their own behavior. All I'm doing is pointing out these are the obvious and straightforward reasons for the problems they cause and that you don't need to come up with tortured alternative explanations about environmental thyroid toxins or hormones in tap water.

>>10878595
Just because you CAN over eat, drink excessively, take drugs, etc. DOES not mean you should.
It is 100% a personal choice.

I pity the moral weak who need to feel good ALL THE TIME, they end up the exact opposite.

I am ADAMANT against spend one tax payer dime on these morally weak decadent people.

Our tax dollars should be spent on the public good not wasted on the morally weak.

If an alcoholic needs a liver, then he is LAST on the list to receive one because he destroyed his own on his life choices.

If a fatty has diabetes then he is LAST to revive insulin, he got the disease by his stupid life choices.

>>10878624
> Just because you CAN over eat, drink excessively, take drugs, etc. DOES not mean you should.
I never said you should.
Not sure why you even started replying to my posts in the first place. You make it sound like I'm trying to excuse fat people when I'm doing the opposite and disputing their bullshit explanations that try to paint obesity as anything other than a condition caused by eating too many calories.
Also stop reddit spacing. Not because I'm calling you out as being from reddit so much as because it looks dumb. You don't need to use double line breaks here, the post widths on most machines are going to stretch out and make it look like a bunch of weird little one-off lines filled with pointless empty space.

>>10878595
>energy supply increasing is clearly what led to the obesity epidemic rather than other explanations people try to come up with like modern food screwing with your metabolism or whatever else fat people are trying to blame it on.
I know for a fact there is a factor that does exactly that and you cannot solve it by simply eating less, nor you can solve it by a specific diet, either.

>>10871403
kino

>>10878277
>When you make access to food unlimited animals become overweight

>It is 100% a personal choice
Some humans are not overweight and eat an amount that satisfies them. I do not believe that every slimmer person is struggling on a daily basis to make the right choices. Some fatties have no regard for what the eat but, it is probably the average fatty that puts the most thought, (one way or another) into food choice.

>>10879235
>cannot solve it by simply eating less

Obesity CAN be solved by eating less, it is that SIMPLE.
(Calories out > Calories in) = weight loss

Why do fatties insist the laws of nature do NOT apply to themselves?

>>10879511
There is no law of nature that prevents obesity from being a real thing.

>>10878135
>Has clearly never encountered an animal with an unlimited food supply

>>10879687
>There is no law of nature that prevents obesity from being a real thing.

YES! Yes, there is if
(Calories out > Calories in) = weight loss
You WILL lose weight. 1
00% guaranteed, other wise you would defy the conservation of energy law, you would need to literally make energy and we could then use you for a perpetual source of free energy.

Losing weight is NOT magic or hard just consume less calories than you burn
(i.e. put the fork down, fatty)

>>10875777
>blaming the addict

>>10879511
>(Calories out > Calories in) = weight loss
Can you name the basic mechanisms that affect calories out?
PROTIP: It is more than how much you move

>>10879906
>m-muh exceptions
1.5 packets of pop tarts. There's your extreme case (one half of one percent of a chance) difference in metabolism between two different random individuals where one is abnormally low metabolism and the other is abnormally high metabolism.
>>10870372

>>10879902
You don't need to blame them to agree we shouldn't give 30 pack a day alcoholics taxpayer funded liver transplants.
You're enabling addicts and ultimately harming them far more by rewarding their self-destructive behavior.

>>10879972
>rewarding their self-destructive behavior
I'm just saying that having a (junk) food trolley going past an addict leads to a very predictable outcome.

>>10879962
Eat nothing but simple carbs for a week and measure your metabolic rate
Then fast for a week and measure your metabolic rate
While fasting your 'calories out' (and i don't mean (Ci - Co)) will be far higher

>>10879902
All addicts need to take responsibility for their addiction in order to recover.

>>10879741
No law states that it has to be fat what gets burned first, it's perfectly possible to burn your body and die while being still fat.

Also, the effects of law of conservation of mass and energy are so tiny they are meaningless for the human body, it amounts to a microgram per week maybe. Virtually all the weight loss comes from the mass getting excreted, not from the conservation of mass and energy.

Well, my position has budged just a little.

>>10880209
>it's perfectly possible to burn your body and die while being still fat
No it isn't you lying sack of shit. That's the entire point of fat storage and the reason a very fat man can go over a year without eating and still be fine afterwards:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf
>CASE REPORTS
>Features of a successful therapeutic fast of 382 days' duration
>W. K. STEWART M.D., F.R.C.P.E., M.R.C.P. Lond.
>LAURA W. FLEMING B.Sc.
>University Department ofMedicine, Dundee DD1 4HN, Scotland
>Summary A 27-year-old male patient fasted under supervision for 382 days and has subsequently maintained his normal weight. Blood glucose concentrations around 30 mg/100 ml were recorded consistently during the last 8 months, although the patient was ambulant and attending as an out-patient. Responses to glucose and tolbutamide tolerance tests remained normal. The hyperglycaemic response to glucagon was reduced and latterly absent, but promptly returned to normal during carbohydrate refeeding. After an initial decrease was corrected, plasma potassium levels remained normal without supplementation. A temporary period of hypercalcaemia occurred towards the end of the fast. Decreased plasma magnesium concentrations were a consistent feature from the first month onwards. After 100 days of fasting there was a marked and persistent increase in the excretion of urinary cations and inorganicphosphate, which until then had been minimal. These increases may be due to dissolution of excessive soft tissue and skeletal mass. Prolonged fasting in this patient had no ill-effects.

>>10880209
>it's perfectly possible to burn your body and die while being still fat.

This is true, IF the person had been eating food of such low nutritional value that he had very low nutritional reserves and then went on a PURE water fast. Otherwise a water fast with a multivitamin would allow the person to fast till the fat reserves were drained.
Fat is stored calories for body to use when it needs calories.

>>10878140 What about something new instead? (Some model based on science and health.)

So, are you guys telling me that the human centipede wouldn't actually work?