Let's agree that the overabundance of available calories in exchange for zero physical labor is a very unique situation in history. It would have been physically impossible for a hunter gatherer to find as much sugar in a month as you can get in a single can of soda today. Which is why no amount of exercise can compensate for a high calorie diet, no matter where those calories are coming from.BRUTE wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 1:23 pmbrute would like to contrast this with "30-50% of all humans in the US are considered overweight/obese", "As of 2015, an estimated 415 million people had diabetes worldwide, with type 2 DM making up about 90% of the cases", and so on.
while humans can survive eating pretty much anything, clearly, they do not thrive in the long term in a multitude of environments.
I'm sure you are familiar with the idea that calorie restriction extends lifespan in lots of different laboratory animals. More than that, it slows aging. That's because lower calories ->less "metabolism" -> less free radicals and reactive species that cause irreparable damage to cells and tissues.
A lot has been made about the complicated biochemical causes of obesity. Insulin, ghrelin, leptin, genetic predisposition, epigenetic factors... The truth is none of them have nearly the impact as total calories consumed over time on health outcomes. There is no doubt that some people have a harder time losing weight than others. But the most significant cause of this is behavioral. Ghrelin in particular influences satiety/hunger signals and makes it much harder for some people to stay on low calorie diets for long periods of time. But the common thread connecting diet, obesity, and metabolic syndrome is the calorie. If you have a diet that is restrictive, it is likely going to result in fewer calories consumed.
How else can you explain that an all-meat diet, a no-meat diet, and a some-meat diet but counting calories can all improve a person's health outcomes compared to a SAD diet?