Similar - I saw an episode of Superfat vs Superskinny where the superskinny guy ate almost nothing but chocolate. His calorie intake was probably 4000 calories a day or more yet he was unhealthy skinny. Do you think he was lying?

> Do you think he was lying?

Yes. If there's anything reading diet studies has taught me, it's that people lie, to themselves even, and people are very bad at estimating calories. Things like MyFitnessPal have been a boon to countless people trying to lose weight because they can actually get a handle on what their intake really is. Bonus, they can compare across food choices to see what will fit in their caloric budget but still be filling or satisfying.

I'll issue you a counter-challenge: watch "Secret Eaters".

Yes, they typically under report their calorie intake, not over report it. Its not really socially acceptable to eat like 10 chocolate bars a day and hardly anything else so why say you do when you really don't?

I did not watch this show so I have are some questions.

  1. Was the skinny individual monitored the entire time? He could have regurgitated his food. 

  2. Was the skinny person's poop analyzed for complete digestion of the 4000 calories?

No, its not some sort of science experiment, its mindless entertainment. 4000 calories was a wild gestimation of something I saw probably 5 years ago.

The premise of the show is they bring in two people - one superfat and one superskinny. They weight them and each person tells what a typical day's food intake is for them. Then they switch diets for a couple weeks and are weighed again at the end.

Yes, its possible he lied about eating all that chocolate. Yes, he could be throwing up every day. This isn't a controlled experiment, its a TV show. It seems odd someone would do that though.

The question is moot; sawdust is basically pure undigestible fiber (poor mans Metamucil), so since the caloric content of it is virtually nil, it would be impossible to consume 10,000 calories of it.

The caloric content of olive oil is not virtually nil, and you can in fact consume a whole bottle of olive oil. Does "thermodynamics" dictate that you'll gain several pounds of fat after you do that?

Your answer, of course, is "no". So just to move the conversation forwards: do you think if 3 random people consumed a bottle of olive oil, they would necessarily gain an equivalent amount of weight? Why or why not?

This question is facetious, almost as facetious as the "10,000 calories of sawdust". Almost. The human body can only process so much fat at once based on bile production. On top of all that, I would say no, I wouldn't gain several pounds of fat after consuming a whole bottle of olive oil because it wouldn't be 3500 calories (12floz = 24 tablespoons * 119 calories = 2856 calories), even assuming I don't poop most of it out (as can be seen on Youtube videos). That doesn't change the fact that a tablespoon of olive oil contains 119 calories and up to a certain volume the human digestive tract will extract energy from it.

Second, I don't think three random people would gain the equivalent amount of weight; that's one of my points I've made elsewhere. TDEE for different people is different, based on height, weight (heavier people have higher TDEEs, which is ironic because it makes it easier for them to lose weight), and activity level. If you're talking three people of the same height, weight, strictly controlled activity level and strictly controlled intake, then I would expect their weight gain to be as close to identical as to make no difference. There's always some variance (within 200-300 Kcal: http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-peop...)

Since we're cherry picking completely unrealistic intakes, I'll pose back to you: if three random people consumed 3500 calories worth of refined sugar, and that exceeded their TDEE by 3500 calories, then yes, each and every one of them would gain 1lb of adipose tissue. Seeing that many in the US easily approach an intake of this much refined sugar in the form of soda, the results (of the population, 2/3 is overweight, and 1/3 is obese) should not be surprising.

It's not my argument that the environment plays no role in obesity. It clearly does. I too think liquid calories are a major culprit.

I just think the "thermodynamics" argument oversimplifies immensely. Even the variance in resting metabolic rate is unlikely to capture the whole difference between multiple subjects consuming 3500 calories of oil (or, for that matter, bacon or butter), because resting metabolic rate captures the variance you'd see between people consuming refined sugar, and there are more variables involved in metabolizing fat.

Later, because this is bugging me a bit

And that's all before we get into satiety, which is a hormonal response. I had some cheese and rillettes for lunch. I'm not going to be hungry for the rest of the day. If I'd had the equivalent calories in carbohydrates, I'd be hungry in an hour. Upthread, the term "willpower" is being bandied about as if people can simply will themselves to eat a fixed number of calories. That's true only if you eat carefully, and if you don't have any hormonal dysfunction; it's as true as saying I could will myself into coding for 48 hours straight, if I just focussed my "will" on it.