[Guzba]

The orthodox reason for why people are overweight is calories in, calories out. Does it matter if those calories are a prepackaged cake or candy? In the end it is just calories.

Would gratuitously large steaks in the meat section and huge rotisserie turkeys instead of chicken at Costco produce the same result?

It seems strange to pick on certain types of foods unless believe those foods are the cause of obesity instead of just eating too many calories of any kind.

If you think cookies and candy are bad but other things are not, why? Is it that they are easier to over-eat? If so, how does that compound over time, given humans are trying to maintain homeostasis which includes a healthy set weight via satiety. Exercise induces more calorie consumption later. Over calorie consumption also induces lower consumption later. This seem like relevant factors.

[ein0p]

It is, of course, not as easy as calories in / calories out, although the "Twinkies experiment" proved that you can in fact lose weight via caloric restriction alone. For any kind of "normal" diet insulin plays a massive role in obesity. And that bag of candy will absolutely send it to the stratosphere, especially if you consume sweets frequently. Buy a continuous glucose monitor (it's now available OTC via Stelo), and see for yourself. That's what I did.

[Guzba]

I am aware of this, I am more trying to get those that really believe it is as simple as calories in calories out to break free from that Plato-ey over-simplified explanation.

[colingauvin]

This is an oversimplification.

>Does it matter if those calories are a prepackaged cake or candy? In the end it is just calories.

In the end it's a complex, poorly understood network of hormones and brain chemistry. Human action is mostly downstream of that.

[Guzba]

I agree, however for some reason calories in calories out is generally unquestioned among people I know personally.