News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on “Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad for you. Parent comment

Re:“Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad ... by manmal on Sunday March 12, 2023 @03:30PM (#35125026)
That’s assuming perfect conversion of energy to body fat. That’s never the case due to losses, and everybody is _vastly_ different:

> In response to 84 days of 1000 kcal/day of overfeeding, 12 pairs of monozygotic twins gained on average 8.1 kg, but the range was from 4.3 to 13.3 kg.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897177/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad ... by etothepii on Sunday March 12, 2023 @03:33PM (#35125073)
Your arithmetic does not support the use of the word vastly. It only diverges by mine on the line above by 25%.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad ... by manmal on Sunday March 12, 2023 @03:59PM (#35125414)
> 4.3 to 13.3 kg

That’s not a vast range? It means some people gain more than they „should“, and some less than half of the caloric intake.

It’s also not „my“ arithmetic btw.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad ... by etothepii on Monday March 13, 2023 @02:05PM (#35139814)
Apologies. Though my statement holds with s/Your/That/.

My original response was to a comment suggesting that overweight and obese people get home and eat 15 chocolate bars. My observation, supported by your additional evidence, is that a small imbalance has a substantial cumulative effect.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad ... by kennywinker on Sunday March 12, 2023 @04:08PM (#35125542)
The study was with 12 pairs of identical twins. Variation of 25% in IDENTICAL TWINS suggests that variation among genetically different individuals is probably going to be much larger.
[ Parent | on HN ]