Wigberto Marciaga

Maybe I like being recognized for that. But in reality, it is simple and the authors have said it in their own way. I have, for example, 1000 total calories expended per day, I spend 500 on exercise, compared to someone who expends 1000 total calories per day and spends 100 calories on exercise. It is simple. But if you still want it to be said directly somewhere, what I have now is a CNN publication: https://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/27/health/hunter-gatherers-burn-calories/index.html It is logical to think that if the Hadza did not have a low basal metabolism then they would burn many more calories daily than they burn due to their abundant physical activity. https://www.raichlen.arizona.edu/DavePDF/PontzerEtAl2015.pdf As you can see, the reviewer mentioned in that post is the same author of the Hadza study.

Hi, blessing in the name of Yeshu, https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01577-8 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040503 It is a simple deduction. If by doing physical activity the Hadza burn noticeably more calories, but in 24 hours they end up being practically the same, then the explanation would be that they have a lower metabolism, including their basal metabolism. How would this be explained? I think it's relatively easy, although I recognize that I can be wrong. The hearts of exercised people, for example, beat slower at rest (and may even be noticeably more efficient during physical activity). The higher the heart rate, the more calories are being burned because the heart is one of the organs that consumes the most calories. And that could be the main explanation for why active people have lower energy expenditure at rest. Although there could be more. Hello, blessing for you, I think it's something like that, yes (if I understand correctly). Although genetics would have a lot to do with it. There are people who have genetic tendencies to one thing or another, some have a hard time gaining weight (which is a minority, apparently) and others have a hard time losing weight (who are the majority) and there are also those who find it easy to gain weight ( These are the obese, especially stage 2 onwards and they are neither the majority nor the minority). Blessing, Yes swansont, although some people absorb more or fewer calories, excessive calorie consumption would still be involved in overweight and obesity. Obese people often have a condition called leptin resistance that prevents the brain from receiving the satiety signal and that is why they feel hungry even when they have consumed enough calories. Reasonably, one could deduce or understand that one has eaten too much, but it is also understandable that working or carrying out other activities with the annoying feeling of hunger can affect performance or even quality of life. And it seems to me that in the case of obesity a chocolate bar will not work, it would take more than that to suppress hunger. It doesn't surprise me that there are those who classify obesity as a pathology, because it seems that way. Especially an endocrine disease. However, the origin seems to be genetics and bad eating habits in childhood (a stage where it seems to me that it is still reversible). Hello, blessing, I always hear that obesity or simply fatness is a multifactorial problem. And I think so, although there are also factors that influence more. Cultural habits, diets, level of physical activity could have a lot to do with it. For example, look, in Latin America there used to be much less of these cardiometabolic problems, overweight, obesity. But as they began to consume more meats, vegetable oils and refined foods, these problems increased. I heard that in Mexico 70% of the population would be overweight, and in Panama more than half of the population. The purchasing power of Latino consumers and the arrival of inexpensive industrial products led Latinos to go from being a malnourished group to which doctors prescribed iron for their hemoglobin, to a group with an excess of health problems related to consumption. excessive food, meats and sweets. Latin America is filling up with gyms and places that sell nutritional supplements. A commercial whey protein is a processed product, it may not be so negative for health, but it is not in its natural state, sweeteners or sugar are used to sweeten it with artificial flavors. It is a commercial product and it does not seem that the increase in consumption of these products is related to a decrease in overweight or obesity rates in Latin America, as is the case with light and low-calorie products that have been very present in stores. I have also read studies on the microbiota. Bacteria can help you lose weight, but also gain weight. It would not just be about more or less bacteria, but mainly about the type of bacteria. In the meat production industry I understand that bacteria are used to help animals gain weight.

Hello, blessings Of course I differ, like many other experts and studies that have argued that physical exercise does influence body weight. Perhaps that is why these studies have not been given as much publicity, since they seem to contradict other studies that suggest that physical exercise influences body weight. On the other hand, Pontzer and his group do maintain both in this summary and in other studies that the Hadza have a lower basal metabolism. This is deduced because despite doing more physical activity, in 24 hours they spend approximately the same amount of calories daily as more sedentary people. On the other hand, if we adjust by weight, those with more muscle mass could burn more calories. For example, 100 pounds of muscle burns more calories than 100 pounds of fat. But this is not a determinant of energy expenditure either, since most of the basal metabolism is usually represented by the organs, not by muscle tissue or adipose tissue. And this could cause variations. Something that occurs to me to mention is the demand that an organism with obesity or a lot of mass has (even if it is muscular), this should make its organs work harder than normal, especially the heart, and have greater energy expenditure. In short, yes, those who did this study maintain that it is diet and not exercise. But that's their opinion, not necessarily what the study itself says. Hadza men would spend around 2,600 calories daily and burn 2,600 calories. Which suggests that their bodies are designed to avoid excess. One thing that could influence this, for example, would be leptin resistance, a condition that other studies have shown exercise can improve. My proposal, as you will understand, is that it is the dominant catabolism in the Hadza (and others), probably induced by the type of physical activity they do (compare with cyclists and marathon runners), one of the things that keeps them thin . Although, I also consider that the combination of diet and lack of physical activity is what would lead to the metabolic imbalance that I have proposed that leads to hypertrophy of adipose tissue and obesity. Excuse me, now I'll try to rest and get some sleep. I feel sleepy. But I hope to continue commenting to the rest and continue with this topic with you. I think your contributions help advance the issue. Greetings and blessings in the name of Yeshu the Anointed. Reference: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-exercise-paradox/

Hello CharonY, blessin, good day. The studies by H. Pontzer that I read use that the most advanced method currently used to measure total daily energy expenditure (24 hours). This would be the double labeled water method. With this method, the researchers were able to observe that, contrary to what was assumed, the most active people could have a lower basal metabolism. This is what is known as energy compensation and would occur to avoid excessive calorie expenditure that would end up putting biological survival at risk. Pontzer found that although the Hadza carried out so much physical activity, at a metabolic level, adjusting their physical build, their daily energy expenditure was practically the same as that of less active people. This, as you will understand, leads us to think that they probably compensated with other activities and spent fewer calories at rest. That is, your basal metabolism would be lower. Not only because they weigh less, but because your cells they burn very few calories at rest. Medlinepluss, on the topic of whether exercise increases resting metabolism, has classified it as a myth. Exercise would only help increase your metabolism high during your practice and shortly after. Now, if my proposal is correct, using Pontzer's research, a scenario that could emerge in research using chemical tools to measure energy expenditure is that, for example, a marathon runner would burn on average about 3000 calories a day, but would consume between 4500 and 5000 calories daily. Contrary to expectations, you do not burn more calories than you consume, but rather you consume excess calories. Therefore, it would be explained by suggesting that the catabolic tendency also prevents excessive absorption of calories from the diet. But in an anabolic environment the reverse would happen, as many calories as possible would be absorbed from the diet. Following that example, a 200-pound man who expends 3,500 calories daily and eats 4,500 to 5,000 calories would weigh 200 pounds, while the marathon runner in a similar condition might weigh 140 pounds or less. Possible explanations could be found not only in human cells and human metabolism, but also in the bacteria and microorganisms found in the human body. This is a proposal, what is missing, it seems to me, are more experiments. Refereces: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000893.htm https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22848382/

Hello TheVat, blessing It seems to me that any conversion that leads to maintaining either fat or glucose in the body is an anabolic process. Well, the definition of catabolism would be when molecules are broken down to generate energy, not even to generate the fuel itself. Glucose and triglycerides are fuel, when they are burned and not when they are produced, their catabolic process would be. In that same sense, not only can triglocerdia be used catabolically, sometimes the body can even burn muscle tissue.But the production of matter, be it triglycerides or muscle tissue, would enter into anabolic and not catabolic processes, despite the fact that it is understood that the purpose of fat, like triglycerides in particular, is to generate energy. All types of fat, like all matter, are generated by anabolic processes. When burned, as in the case of brown fat, this would be its catabolism. And whenever we talk about hypertrophy or hyperplasia we would be talking about anabolism and not catabolism. This is not necessarily the case, although intuition suggests that at first glance. Something basic in biology is that the larger organism has a higher metabolic rate. For example, a sedentary bear burns many more calories even when resting than an active mouse (of course, this is an exaggerated comparison). Now, muscles are metabolically more active than fat, so maintaining muscle mass may require more calories than maintaining adipose tissue (but obviously, if you don't maintain it with calories, the muscle will be lost). So perhaps powerlifters are not as far behind in caloric expenditure as marathoners. And if we also add studies with hunter-gatherer tribes, such as the Hadza, or athletes themselves, which suggest that there are adjustments in energy expenditure so as not to exceed the amount of calories that can be consumed with physical activity, and even (case of hunter-gatherers), daily calories. For example, one of the oldest studies I read by H. Pontzer states that the Hadza burn the same daily calories as much less active people (this was also observed in comparison of zoo and wild animals). That is to say, it seems that there are energy adjustments that prevent exceeding caloric expenditure with exercise. What I wanted to raise with this is the seemingly obvious fact that anabolic activities lead to weight gain (either muscle or fat, or both), while catabolic activities lead to weight loss. These different exercises are like environmental factors that seem to influence people's physical constitution. Of course, there is the option of saying that powerlifters eat more than marathon runners, which could be true, the question would be, how much more is enough to explain their large weight differences?

Hello, blessing exchemist I agree with you, however, the literature has systematically focused on energy balance and metabolic acceleration, ignoring this that you and I are recognizing as obvious (but, as I say, it seems that it has gone unnoticed on the issue of weight bodily) Something that could also be seen in everyday observations, people like marathon runners are very thin and powerlifters are very heavy, even obese. I think bodybuilding, fitness and the marketing around this industry has had to do with this. That something that seems obvious has been ignored to give publicity or notoriety to anabolism (and anabolic supplements). (This is obviously an opinion that attempts to explain the possible cause of this issue) This would not be just another example of what happens when marketing (in this case of gyms and supplements) interposes its interests in the progress of research?. It is possible that this is what happens, as has been achieved with another source of protein, such as whey, which is also presented as ultra-processed in some places and is called protein. (As it seems they try to make people think that there are no other proteins or protein sources, only commercial ones). That would be another topic, but excess protein can also help you gain weight if carbohydrates are consumed in normal amounts in a diet. High protein diets don't surprise me for the majority, but they always try to make as many people as possible think that they need more protein and that they should resort to supplements. In any case, we recognize that there is some obviousness in the matter. But although it may seem obvious, even recognized experts and universities have not been able to determine how much metabolism influences body weight, although they recognize that it influences, nor have I ever read that they have proposed something like what you are reading in this forum now. If I'm not mistaken, this would be the first time this has been proposed anywhere on the internet (in English). Which is the balance between anabolism and catabolism and not metabolic acceleration, or slow metabolism, that influences body weight and obesity. Anabolic processes being the metabolic promoters of obesity.

It seems to me that this topic could enter into human health, but as you will understand, it can also be applied in veterinary medicine. If you like, you can move it to the corresponding section, which I think would be health. When I opened this topic I was new to the forum. In summary, what I propose is that the influence of metabolism on body weight does not have to do with whether it is slow or accelerated, but with the balance between anabolic and catabolic processes. One of the reasons I would like to present this proposal in this forum is so that users can review it and give their opinion, as some have done before, on this. As we see, it has been recognized that this does not contradict the balance of matter and energy proposed by physics where the universe cannot create matter or energy by itself, nor can it destroy it. This proposal not only seeks to provide an explanation, but also to open new areas of research on obesity and problems related to body weight in general. Remember the analogy, if exercise can induce muscle hypertrophy, there may be environmental factors that also influence adipose tissue hypertrophy.

Well, if you have ever published in a peer-reviewed journal, style nature, science, and others. Which are the requirements? Did you have to have accreditation from a university? How long did it take you?

There may be several explanations, but one that occurs to me is that perhaps there are people around you who do not tell everyone about the illnesses they suffer from. I'm not American, I'm from Panama. But, my particular case is that although I have stage 4 morbid obesity (35 years old), I do not have a conventional chronic disease because of it. But, I do have chronic illnesses like probably gastritis, Wolf Parkinson White (a birth condition), and allergies. I could also mention scoliosis and leg valgus (legs in x). Those are also chronic diseases, but I rarely mention them because I consider them practically harmless. I don't take medication for them and, in fact, I don't take medication at all. On the other hand, there are people who have health problems, called mental health problems. These so-called mental illnesses are also usually chronic and many people prefer not to talk about it. Of course, in the case of mental illness there are a lot of false positives, it seems. As I have recently been reading what has happened in long covid cases. Many with this condition appear to have been diagnosed with anxiety. That would only be evidence of the lack of rigor in the diagnosis of mental illnesses and in the issue of mental health in general. So people can have various chronic pathologies, whether they take medication or not. Some more serious, others less. And, of course, there are also the wrong diagnoses and wrong prescriptions that could be adding to the list. In my case, as I said, I am obese stage 4. But I have been with calorie replacement for almost a year, that may explain, in part, why I do not develop hypertension, diabetes, or risky cholesterol. Although I have had high triglycerides, but for that I have taken some measures such as giving up juices, doing more frequent physical activity and, especially, I think it would be useful to reduce stress. Actually the studies I have read do not point towards conventional obesity as one of the 4 main health problems, nor a trigger primary. The worst situation is known as visceral fat, or central obesity, and this condition occurs in thin people as well (normal weight). In fact, studies point to what is known as the obesity paradox, where people who are considered obese by BMI may have better health than those considered normal weight, or have a greater probability of surviving cardiovascular events. In my case, my current diet is mainly based on whole grains. Lately I'm eating more meat, but it's not the norm. I also consume dairy products in somewhat outstanding quantities (more than the recommended servings). The cereals that I consume the most are brown rice and wheat (whole wheat bread). I also consumed a lot of fruit, and in terms of juices I consumed, I estimate, the sugar equivalent of almost 5 Coca-Colas daily. But now I prefer to give up juices because of the issue of triglycerides, although it seems to me that the main cause of their increase has been stress. On the subject, well, it seems to me that there can be many chronic diseases. However, obese people who spend their time eating refined foods will obviously end up very sick and with metabolic syndrome (but this is not something exclusive to obese people). Perhaps in the United States chronic diseases present in metabolic syndrome, like metabolic syndrome itself, are the main cause of chronic disease in people. But, we can consider that it is probably not the only one. P.S I want to mention, obesity is not recommended, the point is that losing weight is possible, but maintaining the lost weight is almost impossible for most. A healthier approach, in that context, would be calorie replacement, stress reduction, and physical activity. When people lose weight using calorie restriction, ghrelin increases, this will make them very hungry and possibly enlarge the stomach and the next time it will be more difficult to lose weight again. Blessing in the name of Yeshu. I think not, that would be purely genetic. I am Hispanic and also have black and Indian ancestors, so from what I have read I would be at higher risk for cardiometabolic diseases such as type 2 diabetes than other populations. But this can be avoided with healthy habits. Blessing

Do subatomic particles when observed, according to QM, behave deterministically or not? How should they behave if the rules of relativity were applied to them? Perhaps your answers to these questions will allow me to better understand the matter.

I want to raise the following. I'm not in favor of any version, I'm just trying to compare the readings I've done with your comments. I think you try to pass it off as a minimal difference, when in reality, the possibilities do not exist in relativity and that makes it impossible to work with QM. Ultimately, this basic contradiction leads to both mathematical theories operating on their own. Relativity in its field of determinism and limits, and QM in the indeterminism and practically infinite possibilities. Well, each one operates in their field. The fields do not cross, they are not unified, because both theories contradict each other from the base. They do not combine limits with unlimited possibilities. What is limited contradicts what is unlimited, and vice versa. Relativity is not something that was designed to evaluate only some part of the universe or the cosmos, but rather it was designed to explain all phenomena. So in reality quantum gravity should follow the same rules as gravity in relativity. Relativity proposes a single space-time, a single universe, and a single set of rules that govern that universe. In relativity all frames of reference will lead to deterministic results, and this would include at the subatomic level. At least that's what I understand about relativity, as far as Albert Einstein left it.

The contradiction: Relativity is very deterministic, while quantum postulates are extremely non-deterministic. If a thing is deterministic then it contradicts a thing that cannot be deterministic. They contradict each other. Therefore, if it wants to resolve itself in a conciliatory way with relativity, quantum mechanics would have to become deterministic, because relativity is deterministic and has never been a theory outside of determinism. For me, that's the contradiction.

Moontanman, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.4446.pdf In the conclusion you find the quote. I think there's been some confusion here. I would like to mention that the cosmic inflation model is one thing, and the expansion of the universe is another thing. The cosmic inflation model arose after expansion was postulated, as I understand it, and is later than the big bang cosmological model. In my opinion, it is an alternative to the big bang model proposed by Gamow. This explosion model is what was called the big bang. Maybe in a derogatory way at first, but that's why "bang"

In reality Jesus is a late character, who is presented as a man-god. Which is taking on different characteristics than Yeshu, distorting real history. I think the fact that one is only a man, and the other is a god to his followers, makes them very different. Regarding the topic, it seems to me that your explanation coincides with my previous readings. Seriously, I think the topic is complex. The fact that you consider the theories functional does not stop me from thinking that they would be contradictory. Relativity is very deterministic, while quantum postulates are extremely non-deterministic. Even if there hypothetically exists a quantum theory of gravitation that is deterministic, at least for now it seems impossible to observe it in a way that its deterministic mechanism, or laws, can be adequately appreciated. So in observations it will practically always seem like something chaotic and incomprehensible (without determinism, without rules, typical of chance), as quantum mechanics seems to me to be as a science, something that honestly, even in the definition of what it is, it's hard for me to fully understand.

Blessing Let's say that in principle an expansion and a finite universe are proposed. Later on, there is a big explosion, or big bang. Then, the inflationary model emerges that tries to explain what the big bang cannot. This is what I understand from reading on Wikipedia So it is one thing to consider the big bang inflation, and another would be the inflationary theory that emerged several years later with Alan Guth, more than 30 years after George Gamow proposed the explosion. I share a quote from the conclusion, which seems to me that we can conclude that it is a complex topic with many gaps and that perhaps it lacks light years of research. Despite the enormous attempts and current advances: "We know that the idea of a Big Bang is rather naive in the sense that it is an extrapolation down to t = 0 of a model based on a theory that breaks down at least at the Planck time (because at such densities ones needs an eagerly awaited quantum theory of gravitation)." If you want we can talk about my religion, yes. Something I can tell you is that Yeshu is an ancient Hebrew name, he is a man and not a god. Regarding the topic, it seems to me that the agnostic or atheist Einstein brought up a quote: "There are two infinite things, the universe and the stupidity of humans, and I am not sure about the first." But come on, maybe it was one of those phrases attributed to Einstein but said by someone else. Although yes, I understand that it was the proposed expansion of the universe that opened the doors to the idea among physicists that the universe had had an origin (later it would have an end) and would not be eternal, nor infinite.

Remember that I'm just an amateur on these topics. For the microwave background to occur, the speed of light would have to have been exceeded for some time. The question would be, if there is no explosion, what caused the expansion? Because if not I understand wrong, this would be what remains to be explained now. That's right, Yeshu is the Anointed One. An exemplary man who only did good things by obeying his God. I understand that Einstein was not very convinced that there had been a big bang either. But the expansion proposed an origin of the universe, and in those times it was thought to be infinite. Is it correct according to your information?

Hello, blessing in the name of Yeshu I didn't know. I just read that it was a certain Fred Hoyle. However, it seems that this has not affected the theory itself, which remained with that title.

I mention, I am neither in favor of one point nor the other. I think that calling the inflation proposal of the universe a big bang may not be the most accurate. I could be wrong, yes, but it seems to me that inflation is an alternative proposal to the big bang. Calling the big bang inflation, instead of explanation, is perhaps just one way of saying it. The big bang would also seem like something that inflates or expands in itself, but it would be an explosion, not just an expansion, as I have read. The inflation model is then proposed to try to explain in a relatively easy way things that the big bang cannot explain. In summary, what I understand is that the standard big bang model is one thing and the cosmic inflation model is another. The big bang would be an unusual explosion that could not be appreciated by physics in this universe directly, where it occurs in itself and does not travel through outer space. At least, if I understand correctly Inflation would be another model where the universe expands without the need for a big bang or a great explosion. That's what I'm understanding about the topic. Blessing

Hello, blessing in the name of Yeshu the Anointed But I don't understand how the laws of thermodynamics, or relativity, could be applied, such as the issue of the speed of light during the big bang. What you mention seems to me to be inconsistent with what I read. It doesn't seem like something has just been explained in a simple way somewhere, but rather that two different scenarios are being proposed. Then, I remember the case of microwave red background. Something that, as far as I understand, would not be explained by conventional physical laws. Is that correct, according to your readings? And it seems to me that they talk about something like the horizon problem.

Hello, blessing, I don't have much control over these topics. But I share a little of what I understand. They say the big bang was like an explosion. But it was not an explosion within a place, but rather the explosion would originate the place. It did not explode within a space, but the explosion would originate the space, they say. Therefore, the explosion would cover all of space. But, he also says, that before and during the explosion (bang), there were no physical laws, at least not like those known today. So applying the limits of the current universe to the Big Bang is not something that seems acceptable from what I understand. Of course, I will tell you honestly, that I read this a while ago on Wikipedia, if I remember correctly.

Hello again Charon Y, I think that in the case of obese people it is evident that accumulating excess fat is unnecessary in the environment they inhabit with food available all year round. It doesn't seem to me that it is so much an ideal, but if it were, it would be an ideal of health. Obesity, instead of showing advantages for the survival and reproduction of individuals, seems to produce a negative effect. Therefore, I think it would be more realistic to classify obesity as a condition similar to a pathology than a useful adaptation to adapt to the environment in which one is. At least in most cases of obesity, and perhaps in all. The topic of muscular hypertrophy was an analogy. He proposed that just as environmental factors such as resistance exercise can modify the balance between anabolism and catabolism, increasing anabolic processes, in some cases, others environmental factors could also be causing hypertrophy of adipose tissue. I think that simplifying the issue could be more to think that fat people eat more and that is why they are fat, than to consider that the main problem seems to be that they have anabolic processes that make it difficult for them to lose body fat and, on the contrary, lead them to store it in excess. Regarding muscle functionality. On the one hand, strength can be gained without hypertrophy, or with minor hypertrophy, this could be achieved with methods such as plyometrics and other methods used by athletes. Not every activation of a muscle will produce muscle hypertrophy. When I refer to something functional, it is when the system is modified to meet the needs of the environment. So the core point would be to distinguish what is necessary from what is unnecessary. The Hadza have a muscle mass adapted to the needs of hunter-gatherers. Thin men who travel great distances in search of food. Is it necessary to store so much fat in an environment where people get food all year round? I think that in this case, the accumulation of fat is no longer functional. But, it is worse than that; it happens to be a health risk. I think that up to this point we can maintain that an excessive anabolic process, I would say almost uncontrolled, is what leads some people to be fatter than others. Likewise, a proper balance between anabolism and catabolism would lead to people having weights that have been observed to be healthy for humans. And, likewise, an imbalance where catabolic processes are predetermined would lead to people being as thin as below their healthy weight. Of course, determining a healthy weight is something that is still being debated, as I understand it. But at least, almost no one questions that obesity is not positive for humans and that an ideal of health could be to eradicate it.

Hi CharonY, blessing. That's what I think, biology, more as nature itself than as science, can be very complex for researchers. I think that the Hadza have to carry out anabolic processes, like everyone else, otherwise it would be unsustainable. The point is that I propose, as an explanation, that they carry out processes adjusted to their basic needs to keep their bodies alive in the environment in which they inhabit. On the other hand, fat and obese people lose their balance and begin to hypertrophy adipose tissue in a disproportionate and unnecessary way. Even this phenomenon that is hypertrophy, even at a molecular level, seems to be influenced by activities such as exercise. For example, some exercises such as weight lifting have been observed to lead to muscle hypertrophy. Similarly, it has been observed that hypertrophic pathways can be more or less functional (necessary for basic functions required in the habitat). For example, bodybuilding would produce less functional muscle mass gain than plyometrics. Bodybuilders have an amount of muscle mass that could be considered excessive from a point of view of adaptation to the basic physical needs demanded by the environment. Similarly, obese people store more fat than they need. As can be understood, both muscle hypertrophy and adipose tissue hypertrophy are anabolic processes.

Interesting points swansont, excemist As they mention, I also think that there are various reasons. Also, it regularly happens as excehmist mentions, as I have observed. There are people who have more difficulty absorbing calories and nutrients from the foods they eat, such as those with celiac disease when they consume gluten, or those who have some condition in their intestinal microbiome that makes it difficult for them. Even diabetics who have difficulty converting the sugars they eat into useful sugars for their bodies. However, if we start from the idea that there can be individuals who consume more calories than they expend without gaining weight or, at least, consume the same calories as they expend and be thin compared to other individuals (such as the Hadza of Tanzania that men consume and burn about 2,600 calories daily and are thin, according to research). The explanation could be more of a metabolic issue than anything else. The Hadza are a tribe of hunter-gatherers who carry out long daily days of physical activity, but even so, at the end of the day they would not spend a surplus of calories compared to less active city people (When adjusted for weight and lean mass). This is evidence that humans, as has been observed in various species, have energy adjustments that allow them to avoid excessive calorie expenditure. The explanation for the fact that they do not gain weight and remain thin, unlike what Herman Pontzer proposed, could be that their high amount of physical activity of low to moderate intensity, and then intense, predisposes them to have predominantly catabolic organisms that exert themselves. more about providing the body with the energy it needs daily than about increasing mass. Pontzer proposed that city dwellers ate more calories than Hadza people. Pontzer believed that exercise was practically useless for losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight. Regarding obesity, we could also talk about a process of hypertrophy, as happens with muscles. This would be hypertrophy of adipose tissue. When we talk about hypertrophy, we are referring to anabolism. In summary, my proposal is that the balance between anabolism and catabolism is what also maintains a balanced body weight. When this balance is broken, excess weight or obesity can occur. I think this would be the main cause of weight gain in people who weren't sick in the first place. Then, it would become an endocrine problem, starting in stage 1 obesity with an increase in ghrelin, and in stage 2 onwards with leptin resistance, which leads obese people to, in effect, eat more. However, their bodies still have a predisposition to maintain body fat and accumulate it, also having greater energy efficiency. Of course, these predispositions have genetic characteristics. Genetics would have a lot to do with it. But in my opinion we could not talk about a genetic disease, but rather genetics would only be a risk factor (probably not a determining factor). Clearly attributed genetic causes of obesity, such as familial Cushing's syndrome (related to excess cortisol), are considerably rare.

Ok The Vat, hello, blessing As for observations, well, they are observations. In fact, an easy way to observe it would be in sick people who, even if they consumed an adequate amount of calories, would be prone to losing weight and sarcopenia, such as cancer patients. Anabolism depends on catabolism, as you mention. But at the end of "the equation" what will happen is that mass or matter has been gained. Any type of dough has a weight, in this case. Regarding the study on metabolism cited, it seems to me that it remains the most complete carried out to date. Even Pontzer, who participated in the study, said he was surprised by the results. And Dr. William Li even said that it would lead to having to remove entire pages from the literature on this topic. Reference: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/anabolism https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abe5017

An abstract: Can there really be people who eat more than others and have a lower daily caloric expenditure and still weigh less? Perhaps many have wondered that, since conventional observations point towards that. There are people who eat more, spend fewer calories, and weigh less on the scale. This seems to contradict the calorie paradigm, which maintains that it is in turn based on physics that maintains that the universe cannot create or destroy matter or energy. However, something that some seem to have been ignoring when addressing this topic is that even building a building requires energy. If you build a building you probably use more energy than if you tear it down and throw away the rubble. The same thing happens in humans, and we call this anabolism (construction) and catabolism (net burning to produce energy). While anabolism builds more matter, despite its energy expenditure, catabolism destroys matter to produce energy. This proposed balance would explain the apparent phenomenon of thin people eating as much as fat people and still being thin. Since the study on metabolic acceleration came out, led by Herman Pontzer and more (Herman Pontzer et al. ,Daily energy expenditure through the human life course.Science373,808-812(2021).DOI:10.1126/science.abe5017), we are left without an explanation for this matter. This study rules out that accelerated metabolism is the cause of some being thinner than others. In fact, the study changes many things, since it suggests that in stages of growth or greater weight gain is when the metabolism would be most accelerated, and that in stages of aging (+-60 years and older) when the most weight is usually lost. (fat and muscle) is when the metabolism would be less and less accelerated than throughout biological life. Metabolism would have to do with it, but through anabolism and catabolism. But now I present to you this proposal for an explanation of this phenomenon. P.S I am a new user, my name is Wigberto Marciaga, I am from Panama, an independent researcher (if you want, you can say amateur). Believer in Yeshu the Anointed.