The Obesity Era?

[harley]

Omnivores, I believe.

That is debated.

I certainly don't want to split hairs, so I'll let you have the last word, but dogs are in the order Carnivora, which is why I called them carnivores.

Cats are obligate carnivores, meaning they must eat meat, while dogs can eat other things so they can also be called omnivores. But there is no taxonomic order called Omnivora. Cats and dogs are both in Carnivora, although in different suborders.

As a biology major (many decades ago) I can attest to the fact that scientific nomenclature is pseudo-Latin. Relatively meaningless, even when it's not so old as to be obsolete.

As far as being carnivores, after I feed my dogs a healthy meal of kibble and meat byproducts they like to go outside and pick cherry tomatoes off the vine for dessert. And they eat goose poop too, which is pretty far from meat. I'd call them scavengers more than omnivores or carnivores.

 

[Winemaker]

Since sugar and it's derivatives were merely luxury foodstuffs in prior years and cultures, it is only normal that humans would evolve to put sugared items in their diet since it is the most cost efficient means to increase caloric intake to the masses to prevent starvation. However, to rely on these foodstuffs, without realizing their detrimental effects on diet requirements, has been a disaster.

 

[Leo1277]

Unless the laws of physics have been suspended, CICO has to work if you are getting the inputs right. Two things I've found that are significant (and fixable) in that regard and a half thing that isn't easily fixable ...

CICO is a theoretical concept with limited practical importance here, since it does not at all account for how much of the CI (calories into the mouth) are actually absorbed (Calories into the metabolism). These two numbers do not have to be identical: we know well that in various circumstances, absorption of various vitamins or nutrients is hindered by various circumstances, and the same is plausibly true for the chemical energy contained in food.

So in different circumstances, or in different people, a different fraction of the energy entering the gut is actually absorbed from there, and there is no violation at all of physics or chemistry. One example where this commonly happens in practice is in certain cases of long ongoing diarrhea infections, where especially children get weaker and skinnier although they are eating sufficient amounts of calories, just because things are expelled before being absorbed.

So CICO is true, but part of "CO" is into the toilet when not having been absorbed. And that part is hard to quantify.

 

[Amethyst]

Does anybody care any more about sweets and starches causing tooth decay? That, I think, is a good reason for everybody to be stingy with how much they eat of those foods.

 

[steelyman]

Does anybody care any more about sweets and starches causing tooth decay? That, I think, is a good reason for everybody to be stingy with how much they eat of those foods.

George Harrison did and even wrote a tune about it: “Savoy Truffle”. I think it was for Clapton’s benefit.