Add But why is it actually Invalid?

But-why-is-it-actually-Invalid%3F.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+<br>If you read that link carefully, you will see that even when they admit some factor  [Glyco Care Formulachromium support](http://cgi.www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~akanbe/yu-betsu/joyful/joyful.cgi?page=20) other than overeating is responsible for obesity (e.g bad sleep or medications), they still try to spin it as those factors simply making you eat more - not getting good-quality sleep can make us more likely to [overeat](https://www.google.com/search?q=overeat&btnI=lucky) or not recognize our body’s signals that we are full or Some medicines cause weight gain by disrupting the chemical signals that tell your brain you are hungry. So - according to the mainstream - obesity comes down to simply stuffing your face too much, AKA gluttony. Yet, all of us know someone that can eat whatever they want and not gain weight,  [Glyco Care blood sugar formula](https://epicairways.com/forums/users/klausfiedler92/edit/?updated=true/users/klausfiedler92/) as well as the opposite - the person who eats little but stays fat - so it is obvious the mainstream way of thinking must be off base. Despite that, pretty much everyone (including scientists, fitness trainers, nutritionists, and other experts in the field who should really know better) follows it today.<br>
+
+<br>To prove this, I typed how to lose weight into DuckDuckGo, and one of the first results that came up was this one (archive) (MozArchive) from the Mayo Clinic. All three shill the deficit brought by eating less and forcing yourself to do exercise, to be additionally tracked by logging your food or an activity tracker. Are the lean people in your life actually doing that? Can you imagine all the decidedly not obese hunter-gatherers subjecting themselves to this misery? If not, then why is it supposedly necessary for us? On the other hand, do you really think that the walrus-man rolling around the street simply ate one daily candy over what some internet calculation had prescribed? And that - over the years - his body kept adding to the blubber because it just couldn't resist the internet calculation, even to the point of making itself unable to perform basic tasks?<br>
+
+<br>It makes zero sense, yet this idea has captured the minds of basically everyone. But why is it actually invalid? Let's first consider the basics of how the human body works. It is universally accepted that every other tissue (muscle, bone, brain, tumor, etc) has many mechanisms in the [body regulating](https://search.un.org/results.php?query=body%20regulating) its size. Why - then - think that the body somehow loses its regulation capabilities for only the fat tissue, and the problem is suddenly about human behavior? All the arguments you could make about how you supposedly must gain fat by "being in a surplus" can be applied just as easily to any other tissue, but no one does that because they can intuitively sense it's insane. Yet, in what way does the fat tissue differ from the others that would make the "energy balance" logic suddenly work? Only by the assumption that its only function is energy storage - which is totally wrong because toxins are also stored there (archive) (MozArchive).<br>
+
+<br>If we realize this, then isn't it rational to assume that the body might be increasing the fat size because it wants to have a place to stick the toxins, instead of the person getting fat because the "energy balance" of their fat tissue became positive? And suddenly, the treatment becomes to lessen the toxic load in your life, instead of starvation or exercise. But even if we assume the fat tissue truly exists as only an energy storage, it doesn't really save the "gas tank" model. For example, bowel movements are another chink in its armor. Do you really think that if you drank a tub of olive oil, you'd absorb everything from it? I cannot find science to directly test that, but I have found (archive) (MozArchive) a study that shows a herbal formulation increasing the amount of fats that go down the toilet - The amounts of lipid and cholesterol in the feces collected from day 6-23 were significantly greater than in the control.<br>
+
+<br>Another example is how a high fiber diet more than doubles (archive) (MozArchive) the amount of fats and carbohydrates dumped through the bowel route - Measurements of fecal protein, fat, carbohydrate, and  [gitslayer.de](https://gitslayer.de/janievillareal) calories from the low-fiber diet were less than half those observed when the increased-fiber diet was consumed. Therefore, it is clear that the amount of ingested food doesn't directly determine the amount of fat gained (as in the previously mentioned "gas tank"). Now, this doesn't mean that those ways will necessarily make you lean - but they do give the body a way to dump potential energy through a route other than "burning", changing the focus from the influx of food to the conditions of the body. They doubled their calories? And yet got leaner? Impossible! Another example (archive) (MozArchive) is of a woman who had some infections that weren't respoding to antibiotics, who therefore decided to get a fecal transplant (the shiny new treatment for such things).<br>