As someone in the same boat, what worked for me is to replace ingredients with higher calorie versions. A significant one is replacing milk in recipes (polenta, mashed potatoes etc.) with heavy cream, this provides a good 500 calories boost on the same portion of food. Also adding sugar here and there to recipes that allow it without ruining taste.

Just look at people with cancer. Many simply cannot eat. At all. They just cannot do it. It's not depression, loads of other diseases and conditions are depressing, yet people can still eat.

And while the person is clearly sick, every loved one tries to help by hoping to find food they can eat. Yet it just doesn't work. I've personally seen feeding tubes put in, to help in this regard.

There's some mechanism involved, and I've often wondered if the body knows food will also feed the tumor and is attempting to starve it. Regardless, the 'switch' is there.

> because most people can eat just fine even if not really hungry.

I literally cannot imagine how this is possible. Don't you feel full? Doesn't your body start refusing to swallow? Doesn't the food turn tasteless and start making you nauseous? 100-200kcal over your BMR, sure, but beyond that?

Hunger and satiation are two different neural pathways. Hunger is low blood sugar. Satiation is stretching of the stomach. You can still eat even with normal blood sugar if your stomach isn't full.

Which is a large part of why weight loss diet advice usually included a bunch of stuff about stuffing your face with iceberg lettuce and other high volume low calorie foods. It makes you feel satiated sooner.

Look at approximately any thanksgiving dinner in the US?

Throughout history, occasional lavish feasts have been very common in nearly every culture.

No, those are symptoms of an eating disorder.