/sci/ - Science & Math

When looking at other studies investigating correlations between diet and bmi, one would expect to find the conventional "fat people eat more junk" results, which is partially true, but it actually seems that the underwieght tend to be the most gluttonous, but just fly under the radar. It bothers me, because they are often seen as more "disciplined" and "moral" when it appears that they are the opposite.

What would account for this? I considered that underreporting and small samples of underweight individuals may partially mediate results, but most papers tend to control for this.

>>12005953
>If you don't constantly gorge yourself on junk food you wont get fat.
Gee thanks for telling me.

>>12005962
Nice job missing the point you fucking retard, did you not see that the underweight people had the highest frequency of junk food consumption overall?

The study also found that even when excluding the extreme weight categories, there was a modest negative correlation between sweets consumption and BMI.

You idiots need to rethink the causes of obesity.

Let me guess, it's in the genes?

Piss off.
You're fat because you eat a lot without burning it. That's just thermodynamics.

Because "junk food" isn't a well-defined term.

obviously because people who eat a lot of junk food generally don't eat a lot of real food
i have an underweight friend who lives on junk food, but he doesn't eat real food so he doesn't gain weight

>>12006021
Shut the fuck up you absolute retard. Yes it's in the fucking genes, technically everything can be related back to the complex interplay of genes and epigenetics. Go read a fucking science textbook.

Also, please explain how the underweight group surpassed all other categories in junk food consumption, including the most morbidly obese category?

Find a brain cell or fuck off.

>>12006022

They actually define it pretty thoroughly. Did you even read the article?

"There is significant variation among BMI categories for sweet and salty snack consumption, but this variation suggests a negative relationship between snacking and BMI. Those with BMIs in the normal range average 1.3 sweet snacks over 2d, while the overweight, obese and morbidly obese in the restricted group average 1.2, 1.1 and 1.1 sweet snacks over 2d, respectively. Likewise, those with normal BMIs consume an average of 1.1 salty snacks over 2days, while overweight, obese and morbidly obese consume an average 0.9, 1.0 and 0.9 salty snacks, respectively."

I am actualy not surprised, junk food has low nutritional value and will not actualy make you full.

>>12006032
If it's in the genes then genocide is an obligation.

Don't try to push for fat acceptance.
We'll just let evolution get rid of unwanted genes

>>12005953
It's not about frequency but amount. When some anorexic goes out to eat a salad that's not in any way equivalent to el mutto ogro going to eat 3 liters of soda, 2 burgers and 17 packs of fries by himself.

Perhaps more importantly, it's a survey which makes it basically worthless as science. A normal human bean is more likely to count a work lunch and take away breakfast as "meals away from home" or salad or sandwich as fast food while a tub'o lard won't even think snacking is eating and that "I only eat fast food once a week tops" when in reality they gorge themselves on subway with 3 extra portions of mayo and cheese for a totally 150 calories healthy bread

Your weight is directly correlated with how much you stuff your face anyways, it doesn't really matter if you eat 2 kilos of pasta home or a high class dinner out, what matters is the quantity.

>>12006051

>g-genocide i-i'm so e-edgy h-ha ha

In that case the underweight should also be eliminated. But I'm sure being the scrawny pathetic fuck you are, that wouldn't bode well for you.

Also I'm not fat. Pic related.

>>12006073
Letting bad genes die off is just nature. Nothing personal.

Your fat genes is just unfavorable

>>12006052
While that may apply for those who are extremely obese, that isn't the case for the moderately obese. The underweight still eat them under the table apparently.

Explain that.

>>12006082
>The underweight still eat them under the table apparently.
The survey doesn't measure quantity of food eaten, it measures amount of times they go out. It might come as a surprise but a thin person isn't going to order 2 burgers with everything super sized while a fat person will.

>>12006078

If you want bad genes to die off so bad then why haven't you commited suicide yet? It's a start at least.

>yOUR fAT gENes aRE jUST unFAVORable
>forgets that humans literally evolved to store fat as a means of survival


Just how braindead are you, exactly? Continue to seethe.

>>12006096
>forgets that humans literally evolved to store fat as a means of survival
Stop the mental gymnastics and do actual gym.

>>12006095

Even still, the underwieght population had a higher incidence of consuming sweets, and fried things. Another study finds a similar result: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1976131715000808#bib13

>"underweight children (12.1%) were more likely to choose pizza and hamburgers as their favorite snack compared with overweight/obese children (6.6%) (p = .002). Regarding exercise frequency, underweight children were less likely to engage in daily exercise (39.3%) compared with normal weight (46.7%) and overweight/obese children (45.7%) (p = .002)."

>>12006103
Young downie, did you not see the picture of my arm earlier? I'm willing to bet that I'm slimmer than you.

I'd love to see how much of a diseased cretin you are. Throw yourself in front of a train, genetic dead-end.

>>12006112
Just shut up and go to the gym, ya fat fuck

>>12006103
>>12006103

>OP: states fact of evolution
>You: stop da mental gymnasticz!!!


You must be liberal.

Self-reported, which is always sketchy. They also found vegetable consumption was negatively associated with higher BMI. Fewer veggies means they’re eating something else probably higher in calories. But I do think the endocrine system of many obese people is tanked.

>>12006121

>hurr durr ill just spam that same word cause i am incapable of reading articles without pretty pictures

Go learn how to read a research study, downietron.

>>12006107
>higher incidence of consuming sweets, and fried things
And lower volume. Underweights might buy some candy and snack on it but fatties just chug it by the bag full, of course they eat it less when a bag lasts for 10 minutes.

I don't know why you are sperging out, eat less if you want to be less fat.

>>12006136
Yeah, but the study found that the BMI group that ate the fewest vegetables were the underweight ones.

It's not that obesity and junk intake aren't related, rather it's that the skinny ones paradoxically seem to exhibit worse diets.

Self-reporting is liable for error (especially if conducted in-person), but if that were the case then would the most extreme weight category also have low values from dishonesty?

>junk food frequency
>not total caloric intake
Food is food is food; just eat less of it you fat fucks.

>>12006143

I am sperging out because (assuming the study results are being interpreted correctly) it would appear that the group that is most condemned for bad eating actually eats better than the group praised as being more self-disciplined (underweight). I think it is terribly fucking unfair, and I hate injustice.

>eat less if you want to be less fat.
It doesn't work that way for everyone. Also, I'm not fat. Just sjw.

>>12006139
You """study""" is nothing more than surveys, bitch.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19246357/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14522729/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19752544/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18635428/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18326601/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20416018/

There.
Actual biological study over the association of your diet and lifestyle to your body weight instead of self-reported surveys

Now go and workout, lardass

>>12006157
>assuming the study results are being interpreted correctly
You are the only one not doing that, the correct interpretation is that fatties lie on surveys and that they consume significantly bigger portions. There is nothing magic about fast food, if you go out and eat a cheese burger then that's 263 calories, if you eat 10 then that's 2630 calories and if you eat a homemade sandwhich of 500 calories then that's how much you ate. Fast food is bad because it makes overeating easy, which is what fatties are doing, not because the food magically makes you fat.

>>12005953

It is possible that the results may be confounded by the fact that overiweight/obese people may subconciously eat more fatty foods than they think

A study by Harvard found that when presented with a buffet, the heavy subjects chose more unhealthy options than the lighter subjects. Both groups stated that they preferred similar amounts of the same types of food and understood nutrition, but that wasn't the case when they actually chose foods at a buffet.

It's an interesting article: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/one-big-difference-between-overweight-and-lean-people_n_570e790fe4b08a2d32b8a56d

>>12006166

>The correct interpretation is my pure speculation bordering on conspiracy and clouded by confirmation bias/disgust towards a certain group.

>>12006186
>eating food makes you fat
>conspiracy
It's called thermodynamics.

>>12006160

All of those studies are looking at the correlation between diet and weight in the specific context of weight-loss/gain. Not one of them looks at average calorie consumption/food choices within the different categories of BMI, which is what I am addressing.

Use your last functioning neuron to bring me empirical data showing that thin people actually eat less and healthier compared to fat people, then I may take you seriously.

>>12006200
No one here is arguing that skinny people eat healthier, they just eat less.

Eat less.

>>12006200
Thermodynamics, if you find a fatty that somehow generates energy out of nothing then you just hook him up to a dynamo and collect billions and your nobel prices.

>>12005953
so what makes ppl fat metabolically speaking?

>>12006200
That's called common sense.

>>12006198

Thermodynamics, glucose storage, and metabolic rates work to different extents in different people depending on their genetic profiles. This is biology 101. Yes, for some people fatness is simply due to an excess of calories, but for many more, their weight status isn't as easily managed by meal restriction.

To assume that weight-gain/weight loss potential is universal across billions of people is as intelligent as assuming that we all have an equal cancer risk. Fuck off.

>>12006211
>Yes, for some people fatness is simply due to an excess of calorie
All people, there isn't a single fat person who eats like a skinny one, they are physically impossible to exist. Thermodynamics unfortunately trumps biology.

>>12006211
The only way for a skinny person to remain skinny at the diet triple the size of normal, is to have extreme metabolic rate.

Extreme enough to keep him awake for days on end, sweat a lot, unable to stay calm, and of course, shit out a lot.

Otherwise, that skinny person is skinny because he eats just enough of what he can burn

>>12006209
>>12006204
>>12006212

Explain this please.

>https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/109/2/411/5261249
>“…Among MDCS participants, higher added sugar intake was associated with older age, higher energy intake, and higher intakes of all different sugar-rich foods and beverages but also with a lower BMI."

>>12006226
Self- reported survey in an uncontrolled environment

>>12006226
If a person has high BMI then hes eating more, if he has low one then hes eating less or exercising more. If you can't come to this conclusion from a study it either means the study is wrong or your interpretation of what the study says is wrong, well go with the later since you have demonstrated basic lack of understanding and seem to think fat is somekind of free energy tissue that breaks the conservation of energy.

>>12006230
Actually I am suggesting that there may be shared genetic effects of sugar/salt cravings paired with low BMI (i.e people genetically prone to thinness may also be prone to increased unhealthy cravings). Great job misunderstanding the point yet again.

>>12006236
see
> Yes, for some people fatness is simply due to an excess of calories, but for many more, their weight status isn't as easily managed by meal restriction.
This is factually wrong statement, the only way this could possibly be true is
1) you are intentionally lying in an effort to troll the thread
2) you actually believe fat breaks the conservation of energy

Which is it?

>>12006230
>>12006229
>>12006217
>>12006212
>>12006211
>>12006209
>>12006208
>>12006205
>>12006204
>>12006198
>>12006166
>>12006160

How do you pin-headed idiots contend with these results?

>https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/109/2/411/5261249 “…Among MDCS participants, higher added sugar intake was associated with older age, higher energy intake, and higher intakes of all different sugar-rich foods and beverages but also with a lower BMI."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1684256/ “Virtually all forms of weight control behavior were reported more often in heavier people.”

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8889626/men with low sugar intakes still had a higher mean BMI than men with high sugar intakes. BMI and extrinsic sugars energy were still negatively but weakly correlated (r = -0.10; P < 0.05) after adjusting for age, smoking, energy, fat intake, and dieting/under-reporting. In conclusion, there is little evidence in this cross-sectional survey that either sugary fatty foods, or diets high in sugars, are associated with obesity."

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9822942/In men, BMI was also negatively related to the intake of sugar products (for example, table sugar, preserves, sugar confectionery), both when soft drinks were included and excluded.

>https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/103/5/1344/4633907 "All meta-analyses showed inverse associations between confectionery consumption and the combined outcome of overweight and obesity. In other words, individuals who reported higher confectionery intakes had lower odds of overweight and/or obesity."

>>12006243
If a person has high BMI then hes eating more, if he has low one then hes eating less or exercising more. If you can't come to this conclusion from a study it either means the study is wrong or your interpretation of what the study says is wrong, well go with the later since you have demonstrated basic lack of understanding and seem to think fat is somekind of free energy tissue that breaks the conservation of energy.

>>12006242

See >>12006243 and provide empirical counter-evidence or fuck off entirely.

>>12006245


See >>12006243 (You) and provide empirical counter-evidence or fuck off entirely.

>>12006246
Conservation of energy and thermodynamics, you can't prove it wrong with a self report survey about peoples eating habbits.

Do you believe fat breaks conservation of energy?

>>12006236
Explain why you think there would be a connection between the two. Off the top of my head having some deal of ancestry from hunter gatherer groups where on-site consumption of sugary foods foraged from the local environment like honey and fruits seems like an ok explanation. I don't really want to read the thread so apologies in advance if you've already explained some of your thinking.

Another thing to add which would be a problem: You see lots of variation in body composition within closely related human populations with shared recent ancestry. For instance the irish have been agriculturalists for thousands of years now and yet you can find a large number of families with predisposition towards obesity when exposed to modern food as well as many skinny individuals with a long line of skinny ancestors. I don't understand then the genetical component if there isn't an evolutionary explanation.

>>12006250

>I don't understand then the genetical component if there isn't an evolutionary explanation.

But there very well could be one. People who prone to exerting more energy than they can store may be hardwired to seek out particularly calorie-rich and energy-dense foods in order to increase their chances of long-term survival. This could manifest in the underweights' tendency to overindulge in sugary/fried foods at a higher rate compared to the norm.

People who don't store energy well ---> more likely to consume energy-rich foods to compensate.

>>12006249

Do you have a study that effectively proves that fat people eat less? Or are you incapable of seeing past your anecdotal perspective?

>>12006258
That's called high metabolism and no.
Research has shown that majority of healthy people have completely normal metabolism. Same applies to obese. We all burn at the same rate

>>12006262
>Do you have a study that effectively proves that fat people eat less?
Fat people eat more and thermodynamics and conservation of energy aren't "anecdotes" , they are the rules that govern our physical reality and i can assure you fat isn't exempt from their grip.

>>12006262
You don't know Thermodynamics, do you?

Three things:
1) The study didn't count calories, just number of snacking and eating out incidents. Without knowing the average calorie count for each incident, it's pretty much worthless.
2) Self reporting is known to be an absolute shit way of collecting data. Even though they know participants are lying, they still use the bad data.
3) The underweight people in the study may have an absorption deficiency. One of my friends is like this. Her body is fucked up and unable to extract the same amount of nourishment from her foods as others. Fatties think this would be a wonderful condition to have since they could stuff their faces all day and be thin. It's not. She deals with all manner of symptoms of malnourishment and has to watch what she eats in order to ensure she consumes enough so the percentage her body digests will sustain her.

>>12006267

>Fat people eat more

Still waiting for that empirical evidence, sonny.

>>12006266
>>12006258
His logic seems initially sound to me desu. What evidence do you know of that suggests there isn't significant variation in the rate of conversion of food>>>energy in humans?

Also for the first poster again I really don't understand how this would be selected for, or rather being more flexible how do such heterogeneities in metabolism and energy budgeting arise in fairly closely related populations if metabolism is so crucial to fitness? Probably easy enough to answer with some population genetics but I don't know how to represent the problem adequately to tackle it.

>>12006274
>USA has the highest food import in the WORLD
>also has the highest Obesity

>>12006274
Are you blind or stupid, conservation or energy and thermodynamics. The only way that doesn't qualify as empirical evidence is if you think fat breaks those rules which is something you need bit more evidence than just "this bloke said he didn't eat that many burgers honestly"

>>12006266

Except basal/resting metabolic rate isn't the only factor that contributes to weight gain, dumbass. Also, there are many different types of metabolism. Be more specific.

>we all burn at the same rate

Lol either your a 5th grader or a schizo-autist. Learn to do research.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4535334/ "No single value for RMR is appropriate for all adults. Adhering to the nearly universally accepted MET convention may lead to the overestimation of the RMR of approximately 10%for men and almost 15% for women and be as high as 20%–30% for some demographic and anthropometric combinations. These large errors raise questions about the longstanding adherence to the conventional MET value for RMR."

>>12006270

You don't know biology, chemistry, or the basic idea of variation, do you? Energy expenditure and usage varies widely among different groups. How low IQ do you need to be to not understand that? There is a reason why physics and biophysics are different fields.

>>12006295
Thermodynamics trumps biology, no matter how hard you yell "BIOLOGY!!!!" you can't make free energy appear. It's physically impossible to eat little and be fat, it doesn't matter what animal or human you take, it's a simple fact of this reality, thermodynamics forbids it.

>>12005953
It's simple. Metabolism and insulin level.
The last is the key. It control how much glucose to take from blood, obese people tend to have disfunctions about it.
These graphs mean nothing if you don't say what diseases the people in subject have. If underweight people can eat junk food without getting fat, it's just good for appearence not for health. They can still have diabetes and heart diseases. If you tend to be fat is good. Your metabolism is slow but it means it doesn't waste NOTHING, you can build great muscle mass but you Must control diet (this even force you to be more healthy, which is good).
Underweight people have fast metabolism, a lot of wastes, much effort to build mass and since they can't see they are turning in land whale, they have a fucked up diet, like your graphs say. They are unhealthy.

>>12006278
But that doesn't mean the ones who are obese are actually the ones eating the most food. If you up the standard intake in any population, then yes, you would see a total increase in BMI, but looking at correlations on an INDIVIDUAL LEVEL, one may find that the ones eating the most/worst aren't actually the largest.

>>12006291
>The resting metabolic rate per kg body weight was lower in the obese than in the normal-weight persons. However, expressed per kg fat-free body mass, energy expenditure under resting conditions in the obese was higher than in the normal-weight.
Uh huh

>>12006045
except that's a pretty shitty definition of "junk food". carbs/fat for a fat person are functionally identical to their definition of junkfood because all the negative longterm health effects you get from eating "sweet and salty snacks" you also get from simply staying fat.

also we can see here that skinny people barely eat more "junkfood", even though fat people are way more disincentivized being already suffering from the longterm negative health effects of overeating, which is nearly equivalent to the negative health effects of eating sugary foods. so they get double fucked here, and still eat nearly just as much "junkfood"

>>12006304
Average Daily Intake Per Capita (Kilocalories)
United States 3750
Japan, 2,800

>>12006306
Pretty much what you expect, fat is basically inert so having more of it lowers your per kilo consumption but at the same time your heart and muscles have to work lot harder to keep the entire hulking mass alive so when you remove the extra stuff you got a higher consumption.

>>12006306

Yeah, that literally proves you wrong. Your original assertion was that "we all burn the same", and the results of that article literally state the opposite. Jesus Christ you chimps are braindead.

>>12006316
It says there that the body of you lardasses are working full time just to keep you alive. And you reward them by stuffing more junk for them to filter, store, and remove

>>12006311
Once again, that is an average derived from very large populations of people. It doesn't look at the specific associations between food and weight.

Bring me a study that looks at individual correlations between all BMI categories and energy intake, assuming you understand basic research.

>>12006320
It's Daily Intake per Capita

>>12006319

That's literally not what it says, you ultimate downie. The greater resting metabolic rate of obese persons is likely due to larger amounts of total body mass (which is indeed associated with increased metabolic rate in non-obese individuals). That doesn't necessarily mean that they expend more energy relative to their own size, however.

>you lardasses

Do I need to post a pic of my arm again? I make you look like a ball of whale fat.

>>12006331
>that doesn't necessarily mean that they expend more energy relative to their own size, however.
It means they expend more energy period, which means if they were eating like a normal person they would lose weight rapidly but they aren't, they are eating much more to gain weight instead.

>>12006323

"capita" is still derived from the average collected from large swaths of individual data. It is still a generalization. Learn statistics. Also, can you provide the link to that paper?

>>12006339

Clearly you know nothing about how human metabolism works, it often adjusts in accordance with food intake, physical activity, and stress. If an obese person were to start eating like a normal person, they would still have a harder time keeping weight off, as their metabolic rate would likely slow in accordance with their decreased energy intake.

>>12006331
Yes they do.
You think that the body of lardass like you can survive with the same heartrate, respiratory rate of normal people?
No, those need to work extra hard and would need extra fuel to keep working.

Therefore they burn MORE

And this grows exponentially if you could actually try moving and lift your fatass off the couch.
To why you aren't losing weight is totally magic

>>12006352

See >>12006350

I'm still trying to figure out if your a 3rd grader with autism, or a highly intelligent chimp who just learned the internet.

>>12006350
There was a morbidly obese guy who literally crash diet and ate only supplements for a year. He became normal since then
So I guess not

>>12006350
>they would still have a harder time keeping weight off
Thermodynamically impossible, needs a source on perpetual motion claims

>as their metabolic rate would likely slow in accordance with their decreased energy intake.
See
>>12006291
which proves otherwise, fat people have higher metabolic rate than a thin person.

>>12006356
see
>>12006352
Fat people consume more energy merely by existing, it's physically impossible to stay fat while eating normally.

>>12006356
>>12006363
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri%27s_fast
>n 1965, Barbieri, then a 27-year-old from Tayport, Scotland, checked into the Maryfield Hospital in Dundee. Initially only a short fast was planned, due to the doctors believing that short fasts were preferable to longer ones. Barbieri insisted on continuing because "he adapted so well and was eager to reach his 'ideal' weight".[1]:203[2] For 382 days ending on 11 July 1966, he consumed only vitamins, electrolytes, and zero-calorie beverages such as tea, coffee, and sparkling water, although he occasionally consumed small amounts of milk and/or sugar with the beverages, especially during the final weeks of the fast. He quit working at his father's fish and chip shop, which closed down during the fast. Barbieri's starting weight was recorded at 456 pounds (207 kg) and he stopped fasting when he reached his goal weight of 180 pounds (82 kg). After his weight loss, he moved to Warwick and had two sons. Barbieri died in September 1990.[2]

Tell me more, lardass
Tell me more

>>12006360
>>12006359
>>12006352
>>12006339
>>12006323
>>12006319
>>12006312
>>12006311
>>12006309
>>12006306
>>12006299
>>12006279


UPDATE: None of you have yet to provide me with any scientific data countering my point, despite multiple chances to do so.

Thanks for the anecdotes and confirmation biases though. Fucking retards.

>>12006372
Stay Body Positive.
See you at the Zoo x-ray scanner

>>12006366
Yes, quit stuffing your face and you lose weight. That is indeed the point. A human needs about 2000 calories a day, a kilo of fat contains 3500 so you can live off 120 kilos of fat about 200 days, add in "just a bit of sugar" into the mix and that's a 400 days of no eating.

This is the level of over eating we are talking about here, literally eating an extra years worth of supplies.

>>12006372
Thermodynamics isn't an anecdote, you have yet to prove it wrong.

>>12006366

>unironically thinks one case study on an extreme test found on wikipedia can overthrow validated studies with sample sizes in the 100,000s that control for an array of variables and employ different methods of statistical analysis

At this point, I'm going to assume you fall into the highly intelligent chimp category.

>>12006342
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake

>>12006380
Yes, I'm sure the best way to lose weight is to keep eating.
Retard

>>12006375

>Cannot comprehend that a thin person can have sympathy for a targeted group of people
>spirals into brainlet rage and stale zoo jokes

I'm confident that I am thinner and in better health than you'll ever be. See >>12006073.

>>12006386

I literally never suggested that chimp boy. Obviously If most people starved themselves to the extreme, then they would likely lose a great deal of weight, however once they resumed a normal intake their bodies would adjust accordingly and begin to revert to their baseline body mass, which varies significantly.

You gave an extreme example of caloric deprivation when this thread is looking at variations within well-nourished populations, idiot.

Fuck off.

>>12006397
>Stop Fatshaming me

>>12006410
Oh suuuuuuure enlighten us
Enlighten us over what is the best way to lose weight?

Let me guess, have better genes?
LMAO

>>12006410
There doesn't exist a human whos baseline bodymass is fat.

The “sugar makes you fat” propaganda has been circulating for decades now and everyone thinks you get fat by eating sugar/carbs - but in reality the conversion of sugar to body fat (lipogenesis) is highly inefficient, 10 times less efficient than storing food fat into body fat.

For all intents and purposes; sugar/carbs do not make you fat.

>>12006419

>Oh suuuuuuure enlighten us

I have literally been providing empirical data compiled by valid sources with large sample size, what have you done, chimp?

>Enlighten us over what is the best way to lose weight?

This thread wasn't intended to discuss modes of weight loss you fucking retard, it was merely pointing out that underweight people consumed higher amounts of junk food compared to people of every other category, including the morbidly obese. Read the title

>Let me guess, have better genes?

"better" is a very subjective word and highly dependent on environmental conditions of the time, but any who, genes do play up to 40-60% of the variation in body weight. You'd have to be disabled dog turd in order to think that weight is constant across the entirety of the human population.

>LMAO

Yes, I find you entertaining as well.
Just how many kinds of braindead are you exactly?

>>12006423

Quote when I ever said that or hang yourself.

>>12006431
>people consumed higher amounts of junk food compared to people of every other category, including the morbidly obese. Read the title
This is a false statement, they self report visiting fast food places more often which isn't the same as actually visiting them more often and certainly not the same as actually eating more.
Quit lying.

>>12006431
Why are you avoiding the question?
Surely you don't think that fat is forever, now do you?

>>12006434
It's simply factual statement, your next move would have been too imply people just "naturally get fat" this isn't the case however. All humans baseline bodymass is normal or thin in case of serious medical conditions which are extremely rare. All fat people and most thin people eat the wrong amount.

>>12006436

Look at the fucking bottom picture in the original thread. It clearly shows that the underweight group had a mean higher junk food CONSUMPTION compared with every other category. Are you also visually impaired in addition to being mentally defunct?

>>12006451
It's a self-reported survey. Move along

>>12006451
>higher junk food CONSUMPTION
No it doesn't

It says they self report eating more meals in a fast food restaurant, it doesn't imply they actually eat more and it doesn't prove they actually go there more often. Learn reading comprehension you animal

>>12006452

It's more empirical evidence than what you have ever provided. The dunning-kruger effect is strong in you.

If you want more data, see>>12006243
I would suggest actually reading the studies rather than going off of your knee-jerk reactions.

>>12006458
Shut the fuck up already
You're fat because you eat a lot
You lose weight by not eating and burning it
It's sooooo simple

Stop the excuses and work out, fatfuck.

>>12006458
Self reported study doesn't counter thermodynamics or conservation of energy.

>>12006453

>The internet chimp calls me an animal
>lol

You cannot disprove that they are eating more either though. Learn how to find trust in research more than your own personal views. I would ask you to cite a study finding a positive association between caloric intake and BMI, but I know you are quite challenged in that department.

The title literally says consumption, not visitations you moronic shard of shit. Prove me otherwise, do't give your crappy speculations. If you can't do that, then get the fuck out.

type 2 diabetes
high blood pressure
heart disease and strokes
certain types of cancer
sleep apnea
osteoarthritis
fatty liver disease
kidney disease
pregnancy problems, such as high blood sugar during pregnancy, high blood pressure, and increased risk for cesarean delivery (C-section)

These are what's waiting for you.
Stop denying the truth and learn to love and respect your body.

>>12006471
It means that your """study""" is absolute crap and should not be used by anyone

>>12006462
>>12006474

Here is a picture of my arm, you massive retards. Betting that I'm slimmer than any of you.

>>12006471
>You cannot disprove that they are eating more either though
Don't need to disprove something which hasn't been proven. And thermodynamics proves they are eating more, that's just a fact.

>I would ask you to cite a study finding a positive association between caloric intake and BM
Thermodynamics and conservation of energy. Do you believe fat breaks these? You have been proven wrong countless times, pretending to be retarded just makes you look silly.

>The title literally says consumption, not visitations you moronic shard of shit
And the actual amount is measured in visits, not calories or kilos, which proves my point about your reading comprehension.

>Prove me otherwise
Beyond the obvious thermodynamic rules of the universe see
>>12005953

>>12006484

>lol

>noooo the hecking titlerino why could it lie to me so!!!

>>12006486

And thermodynamics proves they are eating more, that's just a fact.

The fact that you unironically think taking the basic definition of a set of laws with complex dynamics and generalizing it onto billions of people without regard to genetics or other mediating factors really says a lot lmao.

>And the actual amount is measured in visits, not calories or kilos,

So what are they doing, just visiting and then walking away without buying anything? You just keep proving how inferior your critical thinking ability is.

>pretending to be retarded just makes you look silly.

Projection.

>>12006477
Find a better one then, oh wait that's right, you don't know how to do that.

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/103/5/1344/4633907"In a Polish study, Jodkowska et al. (36) showed an inverse association between the consumption of sweets (chocolates, candies, lollipops, and jellies) and overweight. Overall, 39.4%, 45.4%, and 15.1% of overweight adolescents consumed sweets ≤1, 2–6, and 7 times/wk, respectively, compared with 21.0%, 50.0%, and 29.0%, respectively, for their nonoverweight counterparts (for comparison of the 2 groups, P-overall < 0.001) (36). "

>>12006499
>The fact that you unironically think taking the basic definition of a set of laws with complex dynamics and generalizing it onto billions of people without regard to genetics or other mediating factors really says a lot lmao.
Point out a single human that breaks laws of thermodynamics, ill wait. Even a single one will net you a nobel price and billions of dollars. I will personally invest a trillion to this gene that creates free energy

>So what are they doing, just visiting and then walking away without buying anything?
Thin people are probably eating little and fat people a lot and since it's self reported fat people are pretty much proven to lie and not understand their own eating so they probably visit lot more too.

I wouldn't be surprised if over 50% of the posters here are overweight.

>>12006506
lards come here to post threads like this all the time

>>12005953
That study is laughably bad. For example; Self-reported, quantities not accounted for, a meal away from home = fast food (wtf?), it was only over 2-days.

Terrible study, straight into the rubbish it goes.

>>12006505

Never said that thermodynamics doesn't apply to humans, rather that it's effects interact with other processes in the human body to enact different effects in different people. You have the scientific knowledge of a middle aged high-school drop out.

In all honesty, do you actually believe that humans would all be the exact same bmi if they ate the same diet and amount? Because that is what you are implying right now.

>Thin people are probably eating little and fat people a lot

Once again, you delve into the realm of pure speculation with no factual evidence whatsoever.

Simply give me a study that shows fat people eat more than thin people, or shut the fuck up.

>>12006508
OP isn't a lard doe

>>12006514
>effects interact with other processes in the human body to enact different effects in different people
Sure, but the fact remains, it's physically impossible to be fat and eat normal amount of food.

>bmi if they ate the same diet and amount?
They would vary by a bit but yes they would be more or less the same, certainly not vary by 10 BMI. Extreme minority would be underweight due to parasites or other similar disease or disease like effects. There would be 0 fat people.

>>12006511

The study never said that meal away from from home doesn't = fast food. they literally made distinctions between the two.

It is true that the study didn't use the most rigorous methodological procedures, however it is still telling that the thin people reported consuming more fast food over a two-day period, while most of the other categories didn't significantly vary. Clearly there is a trend of some sort, and it shouldn't be ignored.

>>12006514
>Simply give me a study that shows fat people eat more than thin people, or shut the fuck up.
It's thermodynamicaly impossible to be fat while eating normal amount, ergo you must eat more to become fat. The only way you can't accept this as truth is if you think fat breaks thermodynamics.

>>12006524

>physically impossible to be fat and eat normal amount of food.
First off, "normal" varies by the individuals own metabolic/chemical processes, and second you are straight up wrong yet again. Thyroid, liver, and absorption abnormalities can all contribute to increased body weight in a person eating a lower calorie diet.

>They would vary by a bit but yes they would be more or less the same
You are an idiot if you actually believe that. Anyway, feel free to provide a source that proves your point, though I know you never will.

>>12006530

>iTs thERmODymicaLLy iMPOssibLE

In your own words, explain how.

>>12006540
>First off, "normal" varies by the individuals own metabolic/chemical processe
Normal for normal people obviously, average of non fat people if you want for instance.

>Thyroid, liver, and absorption abnormalities can all contribute to increased body weight in a person eating a lower calorie diet.
Wrong, it's simply thermodynamically impossible.

>You are an idiot if you actually believe that. Anyway, feel free to provide a source that proves your point, though I know you never will.
Feel free to provide a source for fat breaking thermodynamics. Thermodynamics says it would be so which means it is.

>>12006543
You can't extract 5000 calories of energy from 1500 calories of food. If you are eating 1500 then you aren't going to get fat. You can have some kind of disease that prevents you from absorbing all 1500 but there is no way to get more than there is. Even a child understands this concept.

>>12006530
>>12006524


At this point, the entertainment factor from speaking with you has worn off. I'm going to go game now. It is clear that you will listen to nothing more than your ignorance and bias. Review the articles or conduct your own search. I'm done wasting my time spoon-feeding you chimps.

Also see:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics

You rtards literally contradict yourselves.

>>12006550
>calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

>>12006550
Yes you got blown out when you couldn't prove thermodynamics wrong which is obviously a futile effort. What ever makes you cope with that is fine by me.

>A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics
You literally can't be this stupid, the link just straight up proves my point (again)
It literally states that you can't gain 5000 calories from 1500 but you can end up not utilizing all the calories given if you have a problem with metabolism which can happen when you eat improperly. It's again impossible to gain weight when you eat normally. So if you eat a technically sufficient amount but it's all fat then you might lose more weight than someone who eats the same amount but on a more easily digestible and varied diet. The same isn't true in reverse where a fatty gains weight despite not eating any extra, that is simply not thermodynamically possible.

>>12006570
>>12006550
And since you probably can't understand even that explanation or the links material here is the short form in a way even you can understand

Person A eats 1500 calories and loses 2 pounds
Person B eats 1500 calories in wood and loses 10 pounds because he can't digest wood at all despite it technically containing that amount of calories

This is OK with thermodynamics and is what the article states

Person A eats 1500 calories and loses 2 pounds
Person B eats 1500 calories of "magic food" and "just metabolism bro" and gains 10 pounds

This isn't thermodynamically possible. You can extract less energy than the maximum because of metabolic reasons but you can never extract more than the maximum. The only way to gain weight is to eat more

>>12005973
this board is populated by fifty year old men who think this stuff is edgy

>>12005953
probably self-reported
probably does not account for size of meal
probably does not account for activity level of person
probably does not account for age

Must be some pretty amazing genes to be able to btfo the laws of thermodynamics

idk about this study, but many of the studies that examine dropping testosterone levels also adjust for fitness and obesity, and the declline is still there. people just repeat the canary though, that we should all exercise more, when clearly the problem is deeper than that and there are thigns that are likely systematically poisoning us.

>it's all in muh genes
>except brain development, performance and IQ you fucking racist

Its all so tiresome

>the amount of calories you ingest is what matters not the quality of the food
Woah, who would have thunk. You can obviously eat 5 bags of 2k cal chips per day and be skinny, while stuffing yourself with a wide variety of "healthy" food will make you a fat fuck.

>>12006643
Imagine being born to >6ft tall parents, and your biological family is tall in general, but getting kidnapped in a third world cunt as a kid and having to live in the streets with poor nutrition during your development phase. You probably won't even make it past 5'5 even with genes that, in ideal conditions, would allow you to grow over 6ft tall. The same happens with the brain, except not only bad nutrition can affect it to reach its peak performance, but also deficient education, illness, trauma, stress and a bunch of other environmental factors.

If you raise one person genetically inferior in comparison to the other under the same conditions it's very possible that the genetically inferior person won't ever surpass the other, in whatever you test them at that they have genetic disadvantage.

>>12006652
IQ studies conducted in Europe post war among orphans and other starving children growing up indicated only a small change in IQ.

Also

>Implying niggers that get enough nutrition growing up to roflstomp whites in sports somehow failed to get the correct nutrition for brain development.

Your bullshit arguments have been debunked decades ago.

>>12006652
Care to clarify the IQ difference between poor whites and blacks in America who are all on diets of TV dinners and coke?

>>12006273
absolutely based and the only correct post in this thread.

>>12006652
>but also deficient education, illness, trauma, stress and a bunch of other environmental factors.
why do you think environment is so overpowering?
how many fucking genes do you think are associated with intelligence?
you cant just arbitrarily make long list and say, "look long list mean important"

It's all about the relationship to food. Emotional eating and binge eating leads to obesity not junk food per se.

>>12006243
>sugar intake
Not sure what point you're trying to make with this one. Endurance athletes typically have high carb diets and weigh little because they burn so much.
>weight control behavior
yes, non-fat people have healthy eating habits and therefore don't have to diet, this should be perfectly obvious
>added sugar
No I see where you're going. You've discovered a simple truth that, contrary to mom-science claims, what you eat matter little for weight loss. You can be fat on fancy French cooking, skinny if you eat nothing but orange juice, it's only about quantities.
>sugar again
>sugar again

>>12005957
Are you el stupido? College students ordering a burger and fries is not "lack of morality", it's lack of time.

>>12006274
you forgot to mention
>Fat people exercise less

>self reported

Breaking News: Fatties are liars.

>>12006277
>What evidence do you know of that suggests there isn't significant variation in the rate of conversion of food>>>energy in humans?
Most of the food >>> energy conversion is performed by gut bacteria not the humans. the human body merely spends the energy or stores it. the genetic difference is neglible.

now compare that to a cow, whose digestive system is so inefficient that people (niggers) literally use their shit for fuel. ...this actually sounds like an awesome study: "i'm applying for a research grant so that i can light turds (from a wide range of fat and skinny people) on fire"

>>12005953
Lmfao the error bars of >50% of the mean.
All this study says is "dunno lol".

>>12007039
>Most of the food >>> energy conversion is performed by gut bacteria not the humans
Where do the bacteria get the energy to perform the conversion from?

>>12006299
>It's physically impossible to eat little and be fat
technically, you can eat little, and exercise even less than little. that will make you fat eventually.

>>12007039
Actually, it's not that their guts are inefficient. It's more like cellulose is just that difficult to digest.
They rely on a combination of fermentation and huge amount of gut bacteria to even make use of a small portion of it.

To be fair, there is a lot of nutrients to obtain from cellulose. And beavers that munch on barks have very little concern over starvation because shit is just too nutritous. Even if they fail to digest it all, the amount of they obtained is more than enough

>>12006484
>Here is a picture of my arm, you massive retards. Betting that I'm slimmer than any of you.
lol, having dyel arms proves nothing.
let's see a pic of your stomach, we'll see if it's a six pack or a keg

>>12006504
> ≤1, 2–6, and 7 times/wk
literally the same flaw at the OP study.
times/wk =/= calorie count
these are the same fat fucks who eat an entire costco pizza on their weekly "cheat day"

>>12005953
this study is so fucking retarded
What's the chart on the bottom supposed to represent? Do these people still not eat junk food equivalents in their homes? Buying anything from any store has about 80% chance to be junk food. Just using sunflower oil to cook at home will turn any food you cook into junk food equivalent from the oil alone. The carbs are a whole another story.

The only thing that this study proves is that you can't run away from junk food even if you try because all of our modern society is built on pushing junk food so the lower classes do not starve and pull a second 1917. Conduct the same study for an upper class neighborhood that eats at high end places or has personal chefs cooking non-peasant food and you will see the difference right away.

>>12006514
>humans would all be the exact same bmi if they ate the same diet and amount?
no, because you fucking basement dwellers never exercise

>>12007050
>Where do the bacteria get the energy to perform the conversion from?
also from the food.
> human food + bacteria >>> nutrients for bacteria + bacterial byproduct
> bacterial byproduct + humans >>> nutrients for humans + human byproduct
>t. byproduct really means waste
>t. humans digest bacterial poop
also sugar doesn't rot your teeth. the bacteria in your mouth that eats the suger secretes an acid that rots your teeth
>bad breathe is literally bacterial poop in your mouth.

>>12007140
>>Where do the bacteria get the energy to perform the conversion from?
>also from the food.
So energetically, that's the same as saying converting food for the human body costs the human body energy, since that energy form the food is not available anymore to the body.

>>12006021
It is in the genes, but also how genes interact with the environment.
A lot of it is just intelligence, some probably to do with appetite, taste and metabolism.

>>12006032
number of meals does not equate to the volume of calories they're eating when they eat a meal away from home
I may have plenty of "fast food" sandwiches on my lunch breaks between classes, but two sandwiches isn't going to equate to the 8000 calorie kfc meal some people are eating

>>12005953
Which fast food company financed this study?

Modern liberal science is a joke.

>>12006643
OP never even said that you fucking autistic donkey. I think it is most logical to assume that everything is in the genes, whether we want to admit it or not.

>>12007082

Pot calling kettle black. How many times do you exercise, anon?

>>12007264
>>12007959
>>12007094
>>12007090
>>12007082
>>12007039
>>12007019
>>12007002
>>12006273
>>12006278

What I don't understand is why people get so triggered at the thought of someone being fat even if they eat very little and exercise, yet no one seems to have a problem with thin people who eat like horse and spend the whole day playing vidya.

If this were really about "laziness" and "poor habits" then you idiots would also hate lazy skinny people, but that just isn't the case.

You hate fat people for nothing more than the fact that they are fat--no matter what they do. Go jump off a cliff.

>>12006273

Out of genuine curiosity, if you get get behind the idea of thin people eating a lot, but still having trouble absorbing nutrients, then why can you not endorse the concept of a fat person eating very little but being too good at absorbing fats/proteins?

>tard logic

>>12006021
>>12006150
>>12006266
>>12006249
>>12006250
>>12006249


Yes it is in the genes retard.

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25673413/ "Genetic studies of body mass index yield new insights for obesity biology"

>>12008126
It's physically impossible to be fat while eating normally, genes can't bypass thermodynamics.

>>12006150
I really don't understand how you guys have energy to argue with these anti-CICO, rationalizing fatties.

>>12008067
You are fat because you are a sloth and a glutton.

>>12006148
>Self-reporting is liable for error (especially if conducted in-person), but if that were the case then would the most extreme weight category also have low values from dishonesty?
I don't think any group is necessarily lying, I think people are generally terrible at remembering what foods they ate and the amounts. Also, below 18.5 BMI is potentially unhealthy. My BMI is 20, I've always struggled to gain weight, and while my blood work is great, I've struggled with health issues. So being thin despite a shitty diet may not be good genetics, it may be a sign that something is wrong, causing a failure to thrive.

>>12008067
Because no one likes looking at your fat, disgusting body.

>>12006273
How did she get diagnosed with absorption problem? What's the main symptom? Does she have osteoporosis or something?

>>12008067
>You hate fat people for nothing more than the fact that they are fat--no matter what they do. Go jump off a cliff.
correct
fat people are more unattractive than skinny people

laziness is also bad, and there is an undeniable correlation between the two
if you truly feel that you are so miraculous an exception who is motivated and also fat
then you shouldnt be fat for much longer, exercise harder idiot
if you havent lost the weight, youre not eating as well as you think and you arent exercising as much as you feel

>>12008834
20 BMI is perfectly normal.

>>12008067
>yet no one seems to have a problem with thin people who eat like horse and spend the whole day playing vidya
dont exist

>>12005957
>fat people eat more
/thread

>>12007243
>converting food for the human body costs the human body energy, since that energy form the food is not available anymore to the body.
correct, machines are never 100% efficient.

>>12008067
i don't hate fat people necessarily, santa claus is great. but i do hate
1) hypocrites
2) liars
3) spreaders of misinformation
if you want diabetes, that's none of my business. just don't go "revising the curriculum" to teach little kids to become future diabetics. i can tell with the way schools are teaching communism instead of economics, that health is in danger of getting replaced by fat training in the near future.

>>12008834
>this study's participants aren't liars, they're just willfully ignorant
>thes study's administrators aren't liar's, they're just incompetant statisticians with rigor on the level of strawpoll

>>12005953
No shit. It's calories that matter, not junk food.

>>12005973
Did the study say how MUCH they were eating in terms of their caloric maintenance? It doesn't matter if you eat oreos and drink chocolate milk, if you eat 1500 calories worth and your maintenance is 2000, you will NOT gain weight.

>>12008126
>Extended Data Figure 2
>d, Histogram of cumulative effect of BMI risk alleles. Mean BMI for each bin is shown by the black dots (with standard deviation) and corresponds to the right-hand y axis.
>right-hand y axis.
>27-31 BMI
Your study literally measured borderline obese people ONLY. And even then all the "genetic factors" combined only added up to +/- 2 BMI.
thanks for even more proof that fatties are talking out their ass

>>12010810
adding pic

>>12005953
Are they standardizing the amount of food/calories in "number of meals," though?

>>12005953
Yeah, weight gain (or loss) has a significant genetic component, just like building muscle. I can't build muscle. I am not thin but also cannot gain much weight even fat (I mean, if I eat on a surplus I eventually get fat but no more than 10-20 lbs in the gut). Meanwhile there are people who eat like me and weigh 300 lbs of fat or are shredded. I am in the middle. I can't gain muscle weigh and I can't gain fat weigh past a threshold. At the threshold I don't even look fat with clothes on. Body composition is pretty much ruled by genetics rather than diet, unless it is so dangerously lacking that you die.

>>12008067
Bloody hell, who touched you?
And could you even feel it through the quivering rolls?
>even if they eat very little and exercise
>Background and methods: Some obese subjects repeatedly fail to lose weight even though they report restricting their caloric intake to less than 1200 kcal per day.
>Total energy expenditure and resting metabolic rate in the subjects with diet resistance (group 1) were within 5 percent of the predicted values for body composition, and there was no significant difference between groups 1 and 2 in the thermic effects of food and exercise. Low energy expenditure was thus excluded as a mechanism of self-reported diet resistance. In contrast, the subjects in group 1 underreported their actual food intake by an average (+/- SD) of 47 +/- 16 percent and overreported their physical activity by 51 +/- 75 percent. Although the subjects in group 1 had no distinct psychopathologic characteristics, they perceived a genetic cause for their obesity, used thyroid medication at a high frequency, and described their eating behavior as relatively normal (all P < 0.05 as compared with group 2).
Found your problem.
>underreported their actual food intake by an average (+/- SD) of 47 +/- 16 percent and overreported their physical activity by 51 +/- 75 percent.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1454084/

>>12008126
>the 97 loci account for ∼2.7% of BMI variation, and genome-wide estimates suggest that common variation accounts for >20% of BMI variation.
Woah, it's completely explained by genetics.
Those don't even come with a causal mechanism, so the effect could be changing how the body regulates the hunger and satiety signals.

Obesity is caused by snacking. It's not your meals, it's what you're eating between meals. Want to lose weight and be healthy? Don't eat snacks.

https://www.dovemed.com/healthy-living/wellness-center/does-frequent-snacking-cause-weight-gain/

>The other type of snacking is careless snacking. This is the basic criminal when it comes to putting on weight. This type of snacking arises when people tend to eat due to boredom, happiness, habit, stress, or even frustration.

Everything else is an excuse by fatties to not take responsibility for their bad decisions.

>>12010820
Is it at least real or just another instance of ice cream and sunscreen increasing the risk of shark attacks?

>>12005953
Very interesting how underweight/very skinny people eat a lot of junkfood, yet remain skinny. Also unfair

>>12011803
Also, I’m surprised at the amount of aggression in these posts.

>>12011803
They don't eat a lot

>>12012272
Obesity is from malnutrition, but overeating. We are endotherms, we basically burn our fuel in a pyre, there should be no way for us to get fat, as the body can burn as much it chooses.

>>12005953
No. It shows, yet again, that obese and underweight people are liars.

>>12006032

>>12005973
It's all empirical evidence from me here but I did notice that people who are unhealthily thin tend to eat a lot of junk food which only exacerbates their problems as their bodies don't receive enough nutrients to regulate itself causing further spiral into bulimia etc. On the other hand fat people simply eat too much and it doesn't matter if it's homemade chicken or a fast food joint. If anything their problems start during childhood when parents spoil them and stuff their faces.

>only drink water
>only eat what you cook
>buy nothing that can be eaten as-is, except fruits
Exploit your weaknesses.
As a lazy piece of shit, you need to make your laziness work for you.
If you need to cook before eating, you'll eat less.

And exercising is a big meme, if you don't already exercice odds are it's boring to you and would require constant discipline, not a good long-term solution.
Maintaining a decent baseline muscle mass is easy as shit though, just do 200 pushups and 100 squats every day, it takes only fives minutes and it'll give you a body that can do most of what you need to do without issue.

>>12013909
They are not. Their metabolism is broken.

>>12014022
They are not. The fat people's metabolism is broken. You might eat double your caloric needs and not get fat when your metabolism is healthy.

>>12013909
They are not. The fat people's metabolism is broken. You might eat double your caloric needs and not get fat when your metabolism is healthy.

>>12014033
Learn to count calories and energy consumption.
You need 2000 calorie per day
You burn 1,600-2,400 calorie per day
If you ate 4000 calorie a day, then you would need to swim for as much as 12 hours to burn it down

Not a single person in the world can eat twice their needed calorie without getting fat, you deluded twat!

>>12008079
there's normal absorption and absorption disorders, there's no physiological condition where people are too good at absorbing nutrients

>>12006032
Absolutely retarded post, genetics aren't real and everything is socially constructed. Didn't you get the memo?

>>12014073
Nonsense. People had little difficulty staying at normal weight, and they still do in places like Japan.
Way back in times when science was'nt burdemed by false morality, they tried to study obesity on prisoners who were promised an early release if they get obese. They failed, some despite eating extreme amounts of food, like 10k calories.

>>12014211
Read your own post and tell me how you can believe your own bullshit

>>12005953
Well just from the title I'd hazard a guess that while thin people often eat junk food more frequently than fatties, fatties have a higher calorific intake overall.
You've could have a burger a few times a week but eat little else and be thinner than a fatty who has a higher calorific intake to start with and eats a burger every now and then on top of it.

>>12014215
It isn't bullshit. You just got stuck on a completely misguided idea of how obesity works.

>>12014222
You mean this which outright states that you are obese because you have been overeating since youth that your body outright adapted to it and started thinking that it is your normal physiology?

>The Vermont inmate study provided the first clue to what scientists now know: fat cells grow by soaking up energy in the form of liquids and this explains most weight gain. However, the number of fat cells in the human body is largely set by adolescence, and can only change with years of overeating or caloric restriction, perhaps on account of epigentic changes. This explains – at least partly – why losing weight is so incredibly difficult for chronically overweight individuals.

Wow who would have thought that obesity is also inclined with mental illness

This is a useless study.
Self-Reported Surveys

Not actually instances of fast food but away from home meals which includes restaurants which aren't particularly unhealthy.

And most importantly doesn't actually measure the size of these meals, merely how often they occurred. A person who grabs a McFlurry is equivalent in this study to someone who gets a bucket of chicken at KFC

>>12014241
also
>No conflict of interest was declared. Dr. Wansink is a member of McDonald's Global Advisory Council,

>>12008067
I'm a skeleton because I eat once a day, probably 1,200 calories, and have done this for years. It doesn't matter to me if that meal is skinless chicken breast and vegetables or McDonalds. Try not eating so fucking much that your body has nowhere to put the energy other than into long chain hydrocarbons. You won't because you have no discipline and will continue to lie to yourself about how much you eat.

>>12014228
The study is freely available here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC292021/
The interested parts are that:
1. Not all subjects succeeded in reaching the target weight.
2. They lost weight with no difficulty afterwards.
3.They ended up with slightly more muscle and less fat than before the experiment when the overeating ended.

As for the nuber of cells, they themselves admit the method would miss very small cells. Personaly I think it might be the case that all white fat cells are diseased and brown fat is the normal state, (chimpanzees don't have white fat) and the reason why more obese people seem to have more fat cells is that a higher proportion of their fat cells is in the diseased state.

>>12014278
(Animals in general don't seem to carry much fat in any in nature)

>>12014278
That's the exact same study, dumbass.

test

>>12005957
It might be that if you eat a lot of junk food, you're eating less actual meals resulting in less calories consumed.

>>12014283
That's the point, dumbass.

Call me a retard but metabolism is a thing. I am 80 lbs and I can eat one slice of pizza and two cookies as one meal and be full and not gain weight, because I have faster metabolism.
I think metabolim slows more when you age as well

>>12014286
That obesity is intertwined with homegrown mental illness?
Fuck off. Obesity is not a disease, it's gluttony and sloth

>>12014294
The point is the study is open access, so there is zero reason to read second hand descriptions.
The point is also that it contradicts what you say.
I said nothing about mental illness, it was you who spouted something at random about it.

>>12014287
>one slice of pizza and two cookies
Was this impressive in your head, dimwitted queer ?
You're eating less than you burn, of course you don't gain weight you gigaretard.

>>12014305
Yeah, you're saying that obese people have more fat cells which was laughable bullshit.

I called it mental illness because they have been fat for so long their body began to believe it's normal. That's a mental illness if you ask me.

>>12014318
>Yeah, you're saying that obese people have more fat cells which was laughable bullshit.
No, I'm not saying that.

>I called it mental illness because they have been fat for so long their body began to believe it's normal.
That would still make it a metabolic, not mental illness.

>>12014309
I did say call me a retard in the first sentence you illiterate fuck.

>>12014331
Metabolism is a how much your body burns.
Just because you're brain increased what it believes is normal consumption doesn't mean that your body changed how much it burns.

Stop being deluded.
You are fat due to lack of disipline

>>12014294
not that anon, blah bla, etc.

Do you not know that being unable to willingly change your behavior at the detriment to your own health or function is literally mental illness?

>>12014344
And mental illness can be treated. Your point?

>>12014341
It isn't the brain, it's your cells failing to recharge enough ATP, so they turn down energy consumption (they would die otherwise) and send out hunger signals.

It is also a measured fact that metabolism increases with overeating.

>>12014347
Delusions cannot, because they are fixed and the sufferer, even when presented with evidence proving otherwise, will not believe in the evidence.

>>12014359
lul
Your metabolism increases with weight because it needed extra effort to deliver blood throughout the clogged arteries. It's a defense mechanism, not a disability

>>12014364
Ah, yes. The belief that you cannot improve yourself is totally a viable excuse.

Retard

>>12014364
So you are basically saying that you (or the anon who insists people collectively decided to ruin their health by overeating) are mentally ill?
>>12014365
It increases immediatelly, not after you get fat.

>>12005953
Fat people get fat because of overall calorie consumption. Not necessarily because of high calorie low volume food, although that does make it easier.
On a non scientific note this fits with what most fat people act out. They aren't always eating snickers bars and reese's puffs. Most fat people just eat larger portions of somewhat unhealthy food. Like getting a larger burger and more fries, an extra cut of beef and more bread etc. Just like a lot of skinny people don't necessarily eat salads all day but instead eat less portions of normal, common food.

>>12014373
Oh, you mean the short-term response to binge eating?
Yeah, that's still a defense mechanism to digest the food as soon as possible because it would be unhealthy, if not dangerous, to move on a full stomach.

It is normal and healthy response. Not an inherent disability

>>12013851
Body absolutely can't burn "as much as it chooses" and obesity is 100% from over eating.

>>12014367
Do I need to show you sources?

>>12014367
"A delusion is a firm and fixed belief based on inadequate grounds not amenable to rational argument or evidence to contrary, not in sync with regional, cultural and educational background. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or some other misleading effects of perception."
Source is wikipedia.
Now watch as you say wiki isn't a source and I provide you with a gorillion sources and you refuse to believe.

>>12014382
That is not the reason. (Why on Earth would it be 'dangerous'?) But you are right that the lack of the ability to burn calories is the cause of obesity.
>>12014394
The way it works is basically that the fat or sugar is used to charge the mitochondria membrane. Then the body can decide if it is going to be used to create ATP or discharged freely. That's what makes us endotherms.
It's caused by nutritional deficiencies which prevent the charging part. Manganese and copper are very likely, they have been experimentally confirmed to cause diabetes and bloat fat cells. Cobalt, chromium and vanadium are also potential candidates. Iron competes with the metabolism of cobalt and manganese, while zinc is known to deplete copper. The problem with chromium is that while low levels appear in obesity, there is no way to supplement it, because the form required the body is unknown. When you try supplement known substances, they don't get absorbed.
Titanium might also be essential, though it leads to limited growth, not obesity.

>>12014432
Yes, and how does that make the situation hopeless?

You're fucking pathetic. Always looking for excuses

>>12014435
>what is heart burn, indigestion, nausea, gastroparesis and appendicitis?

>>12014435
It's not lack of ability. It's outright refusal to burn calorie

>>12005957

Underweight people buy a small fast food meal and probably don't eat that much for the rest of the day anyway. They should have looked at cost of meals/calories of meals consumed rather than frequency. That study was poorly conducted if they are only looking at frequency of fast food meals eaten. Further, what about 'fast food' meals that are brought at the shops? Tend to be cheaper than eating out and most fatties rely on those as meals. Are they considered 'fast food meals'? What is the difference between a burger brought at a supermarket vs one brought at McDonalds?

>>12006583
>what is oedema

>>12014440
Do you not understand what was just read to you?
My God you are dumb, and delusional.

>>12014333
I called you a gigaretard, not a retard.
Learn to read, NERD

>>12014440
Delusion that is unshakeable means YOU CAN'T FUCKING FIX IT
Absolute retard
Go eat a burger fatty

>>12014526
Oh shut up and just tell us how to properly lose weight.

Oh wise one

>>12014527
I said retard not gigaretard you ultragigapseduoplex

>>12014530
Simple: don't eat
Be a butterfly and drink nectar

>>12014529
Keep feeding yourself that toxic excuses and maybe you can lose weight, fatass

>>12014533
I may be wrong, but it doesn't mean you win.
-I- WIN, -YOU- LOSE

>>12014539
Nice turn around fatty
Go eat a burger after that one that soaked up your tears

>>12014541
Welp, you are right time to go let Chad fuck my wife again.

>>12014543
Funny, isn't it?
We both recognize that fat is an offensive term
And yet you want to advocate for its acceptance because they "cannot help themselves" and "It's all genetics"

If you are fat, it means that you are a lazy slob.
Fatso

>>12006431
>This thread wasn't intended to discuss modes of weight loss you fucking retard, it was merely pointing out that underweight people consumed higher amounts of junk food compared to people of every other category, including the morbidly obese. Read the title
Except it literally doesnt. Only how often not the amount.

>>12014549
Anon I am not OP nor the same anon you were arguing with for the past 30 mins now.
Go take your meds, and drop the diet soda I know it says diet but it actually doesn't make you lose weight fatty.

>>12014553
Ashamed of your own post?
Great. You should be.

>>12006451
>Are you also visually impaired in addition to being mentally defunct?
Are you? It says meals. That doesn't translate into how much you eat just how often.

>>12014558
Anon, this is illegal to burn people like that.
Turn yourself over to the authorities, only jews can own people.

>>12014558
Haha you are delusional nice smug anime face fatfuck
She will never fuck you xoxo

>>12014562
>Haha you are delusional nice smug anime face fatfuck
>She will never fuck you xoxo

>>12014560
Samefag

>>12014568
THIS
Thank you for saying that, damn you are so handsome.
I hope you'll accept to go on a date with me, you are so handsome...
Someone handsome like you shouldn't be alone, let me be your girlfriend.

>>12014565
There is the soijak, when you get assblasted so hard and lose the argument you resort to that.
>>12014570
Sorry hun I already got 3 bitches

>>12014578
But Anon, no matter how much of your mighty seed your pour into female dogs, you will never have children.
Let me bear your children!
I mean, I don't have a womb or a vagina, but doctor shekelstein can make me a true woman!

>>12014446
It's weird to anthropomorphize cells like that, and anyway it's the inability. It's lije if you're trying to build engines and you are short of some parts. The amount of complete engines you can build (and run) will be limited by the rarest part.

>>12014584
But anon... I love them. I don't know if I have room for a human
Pic related, its my 3 bitches

>>12014616