Do you not realise that this point alone jeopardizes your entire argument? If this effect is real, the rest of this discussion belongs straight in the trash.
So yes, very much needs explaining.
You have no particular evidence of this either.
In other contexts where humans have had a large surplus of resources, there has not been an obesity epidemic.
Even if you could, our science is not advanced enough to control for all the confounds. You can’t point to “evidence” or “science” to prove your point because we are not advanced enough to accurately claim anything at the level you’re attempting to.
Research like you’re referencing is great for “this is interesting” and not “this is why the world works this way”.
You clearly didn’t read enough — the whole point of the piece I referenced is “this is interesting” and not “this is why the world works this way”.
Glad you finally agree that it’s great, though.
> (1) Rates of obesity in lab rats -- whose diets haven't changed -- have also increased over the last 50 years. Do they lack willpower too?
There are so many explanations for this outside of "some environmental factor causing everyone to get fat" that I don't think it needs explaining.
> Average calorie consumption hasn't changed much over the last 50 years, and nor has calorie expenditure
The methods for estimating these are likely wildly off. At face value, this would be an incredibly difficult statistic to obtain accurately. Nearly impossible. I'd need access to more data than is available to trust such a tremendous claim. Trying to simplify complex data like this is borderline pseudoscience.
That being said, I'm not saying CICO is the casual explanation. I'm saying we have a large surplus of resources, and humans are designed to consume. Overcoming that drive is likely beyond many people.