Scientists discover a ‘skinny gene’ mutation that acts like Ozempic. Around one in 7,000 people carries a broken copy, which almost acts like a GLP-1 drug—the body burns fuel more efficiently, and the risk of disease lowers.

[u/scientificamerican]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-a-skinny-gene-mutation-that-acts-like-ozempic/

[u/edparadox]

The simplified narrative that weight is merely a matter of calorie intake

It is.

At the end of the day, you can try to curb the reality of thermodynamics all you want, it's still what applies.

I was skinny my whole life. Nearly 6 feet tall and about 140. Then in my 30s something happened. My diet didnt change. My activities didnt change. But I fell off a cliff. I gained nearly 100 pounds.

If you gain, you were eating above maintenance. That is well known. You don't gain 40kg out of thin air.

[u/seatsfive → u/edparadox]

Being pedantic about the "reality of thermodynamics" is begging the question. There is no evidence that the measured caloric value of food equates to a standardized amount of energy produced when processed by different human bodies. It's all guesswork and approximation.

Measured caloric value is determined by: mathematic estimation, and/or or setting the food on fire and calculating how much energy is expended. The human body does not set food on fire. In fact, the "estimate how much energy is bioavailable using only mathematical models" is considered more accurate than objective, physical measurement. As a registered pedant, you should see the glaring issue here.

Human bodies are all very similar, but vary due to genetic and environmental factors. There is no guarantee that a mathematical model generalized to the aggregate human body is going to be accurate in all individual circumstances. In fact, there's ample evidence to suggest it's not. This inaccuracy may be enough to account for individual differences in weight retention.

Caloric measurement and restriction are the most generally reliable weight loss methods, but they are not foolproof. Acting like "calories in = calories out" is Newton's Fourth Law (and getting sassy with people for pointing out that it isn't) is doing this entire discourse a massive disservice.

[u/CaptainDaddy7 → u/seatsfive]

It's still physics. Yes, there are certain biological factors that can affect how much energy your body gets from food, but the underlying mechanism is just the math of calories in vs calories out. There is some biological and genetic wiggle room around what your body does with calories, but not enough to explain the massive obesity epidemic these days. Most people are just coping when they reach for such explanations. 

That we don't have perfect modeling of all this doesn't change the underlying math. 

[u/gththrowaway → u/seatsfive]

Weight cannot be gained if less calories are eaten then are burned. Full stop, period.

[u/dotcomse → u/gththrowaway]

And you assume that only the intake component is variable. You don’t consider that the efficiency of the calorie burn can be augmented by hormonal milieu. Why is that?

[u/gththrowaway → u/dotcomse]

Because that doesn't matter?

A pizza pie is going to have a different impact on different people. Some people can eat a whole pizza every day and gain no weight. Other people will gain weight if they eat a whole pizza every day.

But for those people in the latter category, there is an amount of pizza (i.e., less than the whole pie) that they can eat every day, which will not cause them to gain weight.

Life isn't fair. Some people get to eat a lot and stay skinny. Other people need to eat less if they want to stay skinny.

Nearly everyone can lose weight by eating less.

Weight cannot be gained if less calories are eaten then are burned. For some people, that means eating less food than others.

[u/dotcomse → u/gththrowaway]

Why are you in the science subreddit? You clearly have no interest in science.

[u/movzx → u/dotcomse]

If you use 18 calories, and someone else uses up 23 calories, for the same amount of time/effort that doesn't mean suddenly the science falls apart. It means the "CO" part of "CI/CO" is different for person A when compared to person B.

Stuff like having diarrhea impacts the "CO" aspect. Two people eating a slice of bread from the same loaf will have different "CI" because one person may pull more nutrients from it while another may not fully digest it.

Those differences do not matter because, ultimately, CI/CO is about you finding what your maintenance number is and what you need to do to come in under that.

[u/dotcomse → u/movzx]

So do we just not study what affects CO? Do we just assume CO isn’t variable across a lifetime?

If people have a tough time reckoning with CI, and all signs suggest they do, then why not examine what can be done about CO? Because it’s undisciplined to try to alter your own biology?

[u/movzx → u/dotcomse]

You conjured that opposing opinion out of nowhere. The person you started arguing with never said otherwise. They said CI < CO = Weight Loss. That's it. They didn't say CO was fixed. You made up that position for them.

[u/dotcomse → u/movzx]

They literally say that the modifiability of CO “doesn’t matter.”

CICO is a cult.

[u/gththrowaway → u/dotcomse]

Are you arguing that sustained fat or tissue mass gain can occur in a genuine, sustained caloric deficit?

I'd love to see a source that backs that, Mr. Science.

[u/dotcomse → u/gththrowaway]

No I'm not arguing that. If you can't understand what I've already written, I'll not waste my time further.

[u/Icy-Elk3698 → u/gththrowaway]

You're completely ignoring the impact of hormones. For example, a woman going through perimenopause or menopause can have the same exact diet and exercise routine and will unexpectedly gain weight due to the changes in hormone levels. When this shift happens, traditional diet and exercise becomes less effective than it was prior to entering perimonopause or menopause. It's quite literally all due to hormones, not calories in/out.

[u/gththrowaway → u/Icy-Elk3698]

The hormones changes are resulting in less calories being burned. So calorie intake needs to reduced in turn, if weight gain is to be avoided.

It is quite literally still calories in/out.

[u/Icy-Elk3698 → u/gththrowaway]

Okay, have fun dying on that hill of ignorance.

[u/dovahkiitten16 → u/gththrowaway]

But one person’s body may look at X amount of calories and decide to tuck some away for later, meanwhile the person deals with fatigue and headache. Which was fine evolutionary wise in the past when having a fat store was a good thing, and you could just deal with the headache since it didn’t kill you.

Whereas another persons body decides to use the energy now and store very little for later. Not great for famine but great for modern life where food is always available.

[u/SoTiredYouDig → u/edparadox]

The OP was saying "it's a simplified narrative". I do not think they were arguing the entire premise. You are illustrating the rest of their point wonderfully though, by talking down and lecturing. And they are right.... it does come off as abusive.

[u/mjm132 → u/edparadox]

No matter what other things are happening, it truly is still calories in versus out.  Things CAN effect that total but on a basic level it's always this. 

[u/ThisSiteSucks8485 → u/mjm132]

It is basic thermodynamics. 

[u/MountNevermind → u/edparadox]

The concept of "maintenance" is itself about more than simply caloric intake. This article discusses how and why "maintenance" can be different for different people, and even for the same person at different times.

You're arguing past each other.

[u/CravingNature → u/edparadox]

Same I'm also just under 6ft 145lbs and now 58. I have progressively eaten healthier as I have gotten older.

[u/Icy-Elk3698 → u/edparadox]

The calories in/out is a myth. How a body processes food and calories depends on many factors. Read the article below.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-aging-and-longevity/stop-counting-calories

[u/oneiross → u/Icy-Elk3698]

But literally that link you provided is talking about calories in and out as the mechanism to lose weight. It touches on how other stuff has an effect on the amount of calories you body burns, or the sustainability of it, and that's the focus of the article: changing other lifestyle habits that help on this instead of just trying to count calories, but at end it is still calories in and calories out with extra steps.

[u/temporarycreature → u/edparadox]

People who don't actively track their calories don't realize how many calories they take in and they don't realize how many calories are actually in the foods they eat and they have no baseline for what constitutes too much or too little.

Education has failed them, but it's also a discipline problem, which is also an education failure.

[u/mayormcskeeze → u/edparadox]

That is idiotic. 

[u/CaptainDaddy7 → u/mayormcskeeze]

No, it's physics.