Weight gain is typically merely about CICO, barring rare genetic disorders. With an unimpaired metabolism, if you eat excess calories you will gain weight. No hormonal imbalance necessary. This is basic energy expenditure(Calories Out) to calories consumed(Calories In, thus CICO.)

CICO is technically accurate, but really describes what happened after the fact, not why it happened. Plus humans are not closed systems, have many inputs and outputs not accounted for in human level CICO, nutrition labels can be off by as much as 20% for calories. Humans are NOT bom calorimeters, we don't burn our inputs to heat water (how calories are measured). Please have a look at the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity https://lemmy.world/post/33254443 - Basically We are hormonal machines, elevated insulin drives obesity.

Actual metabolic syndrome afflicts 30-40 percent of Americans. Not anywhere near 96 percent.

I'm sorry, I misremembered the number, its actually 93% with impaired metabolic health - https://hackertalks.com/post/7340607 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.04.046 - I'm using impaired metabolic health and not metabolic syndrome, because the key problem is hyperinsulinemia not necessarily the cluster of clinical signs used for metabolic syndrome that can take years to manifest. Impaired metabolism indicates elevated insulin.

Some people are just fat and diet and exercise will absolutely work metabolically to control their weight. Some people lack of willpower.

They are fat because of the hyperinsulinemia, without the elevated insulin they wouldn't be fat (See the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity above).

Gastric bypass again proves that with caloric reduction their metabolism, in most cases, is fully capable of sustaining weight loss.

50% bypass patients regain the weight in 2ish years https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-007-9265-1 , because just restricting calories didn't teach those people how to eat, and how to fix their insulin. If your only eating junk food, a gastric bypass by itself can't fix your insulin (which is the core problem of obesity)

Cancer metabolism is also flexible. It does not exclusively depend on glucose and is not “starved” by removing carbs. Fats and amino acids are fair game for many cancers.

Glucose, glutamate. By the cancer as mitochondrial dysfunction model - https://hackertalks.com/post/13010967 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10863-025-10059-w TLDR here is the energy consumption and fermentation of cancer cells and show that only glucose and glutamine can produce ATP in cancer cells. we see that cancer cells are NOT flexible and can not metabolize fat.

Gluconeogenesis alone creates sufficient glucose to feed cancer.

100% Correct, but no need to feed cancer with exogenous glucose that is not nutritionally essential. You can't STARVE cancer by removing carbs from food, but you can stop helping it accelerate.

4x is quite an exaggeration…

3.42x, but writing 4x is just easier. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-017-0966-1

Without doxing myself, I have expertise in this topic. It's not a matter of my world view, it's a matter of science and communication.

It is very unlikely that human adiposity leads to increased cancer risk directly. It is correlational, not causational. Human adiposity itself, isolated from compounding factors, has a complex relationship with health outcomes, and not at all the linear correlation where more fat = more bad that the mainstream likes to pretend.

We know that certain foods, particularly animal products, especially cheaper animal products, lead to cancers, heart disease, etc. This is most likely explanation for the results in this study. But yet again we have yet another study uselessly pointing out a correlation which is unhelpful for actually solving public health issues and continues to encourage the passing of the blame to those in society who have the least responsibility for their situation.

I just want fruit with actual flavor that makes me want to eat it than the tasteless shit we get now in the US

I was making a reference to inflation and overall food prices as a result of the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, not the cost of organic vs canned foods.

We're way past that, at this point.

If everything in my nearest grocery store costs $5, and fuel costs $5 a gallon, and the cost of everything else is going up, then I really don't have much of a choice of where I get my calories.

Making ends meet is extremely difficult right now for a lot of people. I don't think it's helpful to have a response like, "but have the poors tried eating less?"

lol what.

i grew up on that food dude. it's nasty and bad for you. what are you smoking. most of it is loaded with sodium preservatives, and other chemicals. is it better than not eating vegetables at all? sure, but it has lots of nasty shit in it.

fresh food is superior for you in every way. other than it's convenience and cost.

i was SHOCKED in college when I found out vegetables can taste good, instead of being disgusting mushy nastiness.