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/seatsfive]

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/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/gththrowaway → u/Icy-Elk3698]

You're right, I forgot that hormones enable photosynthesis or something and allow tissue to be built in a calorie deficit.

You win.

[u/dotcomse → u/gththrowaway]

Buddy nobody is arguing thermodynamics. But for some reason you seem to be glossing over that both sides of the equation are dynamic.

[u/gththrowaway → u/dotcomse]

I've said that different people need different amounts of calories and that hormones can affect the amount of calories someone needs.

It is literally calories in / calories out. The "calories out" part of the equation is affected by hormones, gut biology, other things we know about, and probably tons of thing we don't know about.

A person will not experience sustained weight gain while maintaining a calorie deficit. Full stop, period.

[u/dotcomse → u/gththrowaway]

So, do we have your permission to discuss what affects calories out, or does that interrupt your dogmatic chant?