Completely unscientific - but when you see programs on TV about people that eat a lot, the food tends to be highly processed and low in nutrients, I've been wondering the same thing.

> the food tends to be highly processed and low in nutrients

This type of food is - coincidentally - always extremely high in calories.

But the relationship is orthogonal. You can make processed non-nutritious food that is low in calories, and you can make healthy food that is high in calories. The former happens rarely.

this is wat I eat, high calory, cheap, and very nutritious: breakfast:

6 raw eggs lemon juice (1 lemon, squeezed) 378 calories in total, of which 227 are fat and 144 protein. just enough sugar to help you digest it without bloat. awesome anabolic effects from the eggs.

lunch: 6 raw eggs 200ml whole unhomogenised milk (raw if possible) similar effect but even more anabolic

dinner: 200-300g of fresh steak (beef) cooked blue. can be replaced with lamb or other nutritious meats, but certainly not chicken breast which has nearly no nutritional value whatsoever compared to something like sardines

Where do you get your eggs? Or is the salmonella part of the weight control?

i get them from a warehouse in asia where they're left in the yard in the sun all day in 30c heat. there is no problem whatsoever

salmonella is a problem of industrial farming

I'm always quite scared of salmonella, so I tend to overcook everything with eggs in it, be it pudding or some pasta sauce -- mostly scared for my 3 year old daughter, I've lived on a subsistence farm and used A LOT of raw eggs and never got any issues.

I wish there was a salmonella vaccine for humans and be done with it, because raw-ish eggs can be quite delicious.

a dozen eggs a day and you’re getting what, 6x daily cholesterol intake?

Don't know how people are STILL concerned about egg intake. The science has been out for over a decade at this point.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-3010...

Probably because this article:

1) Doesn’t say it has no effect, it has “clinically insignificant especially when compared to saturated fat”. Not the same as no effect.

2) “ However, in the minds of the public, cholesterol in the diet, specifically from eggs, continues to be viewed with suspicion and that view is still reflected in the advice of some professionals.”

Professionals are still telling people to reduce cholesterol intake when your blood results show high cholesterol. How many people do you think spend every waking hour scouring for new health articles?

This is also just one study, maybe let’s not invalidate the many years of people reducing cholesterol intake to reduce cholesterol so quickly?

That's because you can't get super fat without either a lot of hard work or by eating calorie dense, processed foods.

Most foods found in nature will fill you up long before you can eat enough to gain hundreds of pounds.

You don’t need to gain hundreds of pounds to be obese, 30 pounds will put you over the line just the same.