Should obese people be allowed to have or raise children?

[Age]

Yes, if we were machines, with no emotions and no pasts, unaffected by all sorts of things that machines are not affected by, Age's simple formula would generally be correct.

LOL

And HOW, EXACTLY, could having 'emotions' and 'past experiences' MAKE what I SAID ANY LESS True?

ALSO, have 'you' FORGOTTEN here "iwannaplato" that human beings ARE the ONLY animal that OVER eats, UNDER moves.


Step 1. LEARNING, UNDERSTANDING, KNOWING, and MOST IMPORTANTLY ACCEPTING that eating LESS and moving MORE means that one could NOT put on MORE weight.

So, there we HAVE the ACTUAL REMEDY for ANY and ALL who REALLY and Truly WANT TO LOSE 'weight' and NOT 'weight gain'.

Step 2. If one THINKS that they can NOT eat LESS but STILL WANTS to LOSE body weight, then just FIND OUT WHY you ARE ADDICTED to EATING.

Step 3. The FUNDAMENTAL reason IS SOLELY because of 'your past experiences', ONLY.

Step 4. If you are ADDICTED to EATING, (or absolutely ANY OTHER 'thing' for that matter, which, by the way, EVERY one of 'you' adult human beings ARE), then JUST LEARN, and KNOW, what 'you' are ALL ACTUALLY NEED, in Life, and the reason WHY 'you' HAVE REPLACED that 'NEED', WITH 'the SPECIFIC ADDICTION', which 'you' ALL HAVE.

Step 5. Now, having FOUND the REASON WHY 'you' ARE DOING what 'you' ARE DOING, then 'you' now HAVE the PREVENTATIVE MEASURES. And, NOT JUST FOR 'you' but ALSO FOR ALL FOLLOWING ON generations.

So, if 'you' were MORE LIKE OTHER 'animals', that is; living with ONLY what 'you' NEED, INSTEAD OF WANTING and WANTING, MORE and MORE, then JUST REMEMBERING THAT VERY SIMPLE 'formula', ONLY, WORKS ENOUGH, and PERFECTLY. WITHOUT the 'need' for ANY OTHER so-called 'diet', which are usually DESIGNED and MADE FOR 'monetary GAIN', REALLY.

Therefore, 'you' can STILL BE an 'animal', being AFFECTED by ALL of the OTHER 'things' in the Universe, WITHOUT being a 'machine' AT ALL, and STILL 'the VERY SIMPLE and EASY process' OF 'EAT LESS and MOVE MORE' WILL WORK, PERFECTLY. In Fact 'it' WORKS SO PERFECTLY 'it' can NOT FAIL, as ALREADY PROVED IRREFUTABLY True.

[Age]

Yes, if we were machines, with no emotions and no pasts, unaffected by all sorts of things that machines are not affected by, Age's simple formula would generally be correct.

Simple things for simple minds...

LOL If 'you' ONLY KNEW just HOW RELEVANT 'this SAYING' REALLY IS.

[Age]

Yes, if we were machines, with no emotions and no pasts, unaffected by all sorts of things that machines are not affected by, Age's simple formula would generally be correct.

ANSWER me 'this' here, NOT that 'you' ARE CAPABLE OF "iwwanoplato":

WHY do ALL OTHER 'animals', besides 'you' human ones of course, STAY in equilibrium WITH Nature, and/or in relatively their PERFECT weight, WHILE NOT being 'machines', and WITH 'emotions', WITH 'pasts', AND WITH all sorts of 'things' effecting 'them', JUST LIKE 'you', human beings, HAVE?

'your' CLAIM above just does NOT 'logically follow', AT ALL, that is; WHEN DELVED INTO and LOOKED AT, MORE THOROUGHLY.

[Iwannaplato]

LOL

And HOW, EXACTLY, could having 'emotions' and 'past experiences' MAKE what I SAID ANY LESS True?

Ah, so you're don't the fact that, as just one example amongst many, that people who have been sexually abused as children are much more likely to overeat and it is much harder for them to simply move more and eat less. Empathy is important, in case people from the future have forgotten that.

ALSO, have 'you' FORGOTTEN here "iwannaplato" that human beings ARE the ONLY animal that OVER eats, UNDER moves.

I haven't forgotten that. It doesn't contradict what I said.

Of course we have the most neuroplastic brains of any animal.

Step 1. LEARNING, UNDERSTANDING, KNOWING, and MOST IMPORTANTLY ACCEPTING that eating LESS and moving MORE means that one could NOT put on MORE weight.

So, there we HAVE the ACTUAL REMEDY for ANY and ALL who REALLY and Truly WANT TO LOSE 'weight' and NOT 'weight gain'.

No, it's an imcomplete remedy for many people, if not most, given our access to food.

I don't think you understand some core things about humans.

And if you think it is so simply then I recommend that you go to places online where people who have problems with overeating gather, and you give them your simple solution.

Or better yet, actually go somewhere and get work, working with clients who want to lose weight and see how successful your simple solution is to the problem.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, if we were machines, with no emotions and no pasts, unaffected by all sorts of things that machines are not affected by, Age's simple formula would generally be correct.

ANSWER me 'this' here, NOT that 'you' ARE CAPABLE OF "iwwanoplato":

WHY do ALL OTHER 'animals', besides 'you' human ones of course, STAY in equilibrium WITH Nature, and/or in relatively their PERFECT weight, WHILE NOT being 'machines', and WITH 'emotions', WITH 'pasts', AND WITH all sorts of 'things' effecting 'them', JUST LIKE 'you', human beings, HAVE?

'your' CLAIM above just does NOT 'logically follow', AT ALL, that is; WHEN DELVED INTO and LOOKED AT, MORE THOROUGHLY.

Well, actually animals do overeat when they are stressed.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anim ... ards-birds
https://www.petfoodindustry.com/nutriti ... in-animals
(that second article shows you the problem with your simple program, even with animals)
But there are some differences. Humans have, now, vastly more access to food and as I said in the post before, we are more neuroplastic than any other species. So, past trauma, for example, changes our patterns much more, affects our current emotions much more, affects our current, rather than temporary stress levels, much more than other animals.

So, if someone is going to come from the future to help, they need to understand these basic things, that are obvious, even to current humans who have DELVED INTO and LOOKED AT this MORE THOROUGHLY than you have.

But again, if you think you have the message to give overeaters, the message that is a complete program to helping them, give it a try in the real world. Because you seem to be in a realm of ideas and you don't seem to understand what life is like here in your past or what humans are like now. Perhaps in the future you just need to tell people to eat less and move more and they do that. Bang. There is no trauma or emotions to process. There are no coping skills needed for dealing with stress.

Perhaps people in the future are more like machines. You just program them with simple instructions and bang, their attitudes, coping patterns, will power all just shift instantly.

But you don't understand us. Your view is incomplete, and at an essential level.

[Age]

[Age]

LOL

And HOW, EXACTLY, could having 'emotions' and 'past experiences' MAKE what I SAID ANY LESS True?

Ah, so you're don't the fact that, as just one example amongst many, that people who have been sexually abused as children are much more likely to overeat and it is much harder for them to simply move more and eat less. Empathy is important, in case people from the future have forgotten that.

Do you HAVE A link WHERE IT STATES that 'children who have been sexually abused',are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO so-call 'overeat'? (By the way, ALL OF 'you', adult human beings, WERE 'sexually abused' BACK IN 'those days' when this was being written. Although OBVIOUSLY CONTRARY to popular BELIEF, BACK THEN).

ALSO, HOW IS the word 'overeat' being in REFERENCED TO, EXACTLY, here?

LOL It is NO MORE 'harder' FOR ANY 'one' to MOVE MORE and/or EAT LESS than it is for ANY 'one' "ELSE".

Although it can, OBVIOUSLY, FEEL 'that way' FOR SOME.

IF, and WHEN, one GAINED FULL 'EMPATHY', then 'this' BECAME FULLY UNDERSTOOD.

But MOST of 'you', adult human beings, BACK in the days when this was being written WERE STILL quite SOME WAY OFF FROM GAINING 'this EMPATHY'.

ALSO, have 'you' FORGOTTEN here "iwannaplato" that human beings ARE the ONLY animal that OVER eats, UNDER moves.

I haven't forgotten that.

Of course we have the most neuroplastic brains of any animal.

LOL ANOTHER DISTORTED example of the WAY adult human beings THOUGHT and BELIEVED, BACK in those days when this was being written.

The brain ONLY GATHERS and STORES information OR knowledge. HOW 'you', human beings, CHANGE, in order to LEARN and SEE what IS ACTUALLY True AND Right IS DONE ANOTHER WAY. Of which 'you' ARE YET TO LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, "iwwanplato". OBVIOUSLY by what is being written here, BY 'you'.

It doesn't contradict what I said.

Did I SAY or SUGGEST that 'it' DID here?

If yes, then WHERE, EXACTLY?

'you' SAID that my so-called 'simple formula' would generally be correct, IF 'you', human beings, were machines.

I just followed this CLAIM of 'yours' POINTING OUT and SHOWING that 'you', human beings, are ACTUALLY just ANOTHER 'animal', just like ALL the OTHER animals ARE, which ARE NOT 'out of sync' WITH their NATURAL ORDER OF 'things'.

ONLY, 'you', human beings, OBVIOUSLY ARE.

So, ESSENTIALLY, 'this' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH being A 'machine' or NOT, but having TO DO WITH 'you', human being, ANIMAL, ALONE. OF WHICH IF ANY or ALL of 'you' ATE LESS, and, MOVED MORE 'you' could NOT put on MORE WEIGHT.

'This' is JUST ANOTHER Fact that can NOT be REFUTED.

Step 1. LEARNING, UNDERSTANDING, KNOWING, and MOST IMPORTANTLY ACCEPTING that eating LESS and moving MORE means that one could NOT put on MORE weight.

So, there we HAVE the ACTUAL REMEDY for ANY and ALL who REALLY and Truly WANT TO LOSE 'weight' and NOT 'weight gain'.

No, it's an imcomplete remedy for many people, if not most, given our access to food.

DID 'you' MISS, or just MISUNDERSTAND, the word 'Step', and/or the number '1', here?

LOL It does NOT matter ONE IOTA if even just one human being had ACCESS to ALL the FOOD in the Universe, 'this' STILL does NOT TAKE AWAY FROM the IRREFUTABLE Fact that if one just EATS LESS and MOVES MORE that 'that one' can NOT put on MORE WEIGHT.

Even WITH the MOST BASIC and SIMPLEST Facts IN Life, even when 'they' ARE IRREFUTABLE, SOME people just take LONGER TO LEARN, SEE, and UNDERSTAND.

I don't think you understand some core things about humans.

Yes, 'you', and "others", have SAID, and/or IMPLIED, 'this' quite a few times ALREADY.

BUT what 'you', and/or "others", think or do not think is NOT necessary True, Right NOR Correct, AT ALL or even PARTLY.

I REALLY HOPE 'this' IS STARTING TO 'sink in', as some say, BY 'now'.

And if you think it is so simply then I recommend that you go to places online where people who have problems with overeating gather, and you give them your simple solution.

WHY?

OBVIOUSLY, EITHER, IF one 'eats' LESS and 'moves' MORE 'they' WILL:

1. Lose weight.

2. Stay the same weight.

3. Put on weight.

Now if ABSOLUTELY thinks or BELIEVES that it WOULD BE '2' or '3', THEN EXPLAIN HOW, and WHY.

And, if ABSOLUTELY DISAGREES WITH number '1', THEN EXPLAIN HOW, and WHY.

ALSO, for those who have NOT been LISTENING, I NEVER SAID just EATING LESS and/nor MOVING MORE is some 'thing' ANY one of 'you' WOULD DO WITHOUT KNOWING THE OTHER THINGS, which I ALLUDED TO in the OTHER steps.

OBVIOUSLY, just TELLING 'you', human beings, SIMPLE IRREFUTABLE Facts does NOT MEAN that 'you' WILL AGREE WITH 'them', ACCEPT 'them', NOR even just LISTEN TO 'them'.

As 'you', interlocutors here, ARE PROVING SO IRREFUTABLY True, and as "others" HAVE PROVED True, BEFORE 'you'.

Or better yet, actually go somewhere and get work, working with clients who want to lose weight and see how successful your simple solution is to the problem.

Are 'you' STILL 'TRYING TO' CLAIM that it IS POSSIBLE to put WEIGHT ON WITH 'that SOLUTION'?

By the way, here we have ANOTHER GREAT example of WHEN one MISSES, completely, the WHOLE POINT, BECAUSE they ARE LOOKING, LISTENING, and ASSUMING FROM 'the brain', and their OWN personal 'past experiences', and NOT OPENLY, and Honestly.

[Age]

Yes, if we were machines, with no emotions and no pasts, unaffected by all sorts of things that machines are not affected by, Age's simple formula would generally be correct.

ANSWER me 'this' here, NOT that 'you' ARE CAPABLE OF "iwwanoplato":

WHY do ALL OTHER 'animals', besides 'you' human ones of course, STAY in equilibrium WITH Nature, and/or in relatively their PERFECT weight, WHILE NOT being 'machines', and WITH 'emotions', WITH 'pasts', AND WITH all sorts of 'things' effecting 'them', JUST LIKE 'you', human beings, HAVE?

'your' CLAIM above just does NOT 'logically follow', AT ALL, that is; WHEN DELVED INTO and LOOKED AT, MORE THOROUGHLY.

Well, actually animals do overeat when they are stressed.

I KNOW. I have been STATING that 'you', animals, do OVEREAT, AND FOR MORE THAN JUST 'this one reason' here.

Also, I NEVER SAID OTHER 'animals' besides 'you', human ones, do NOT 'overeat'.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anim ... ards-birds
https://www.petfoodindustry.com/nutriti ... in-animals
(that second article shows you the problem with your simple program, even with animals)[/quote]

Does 'it'?

If yes, then ARE you ABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW, and WHY?

If yes, then WILL you.

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, WHY do you AUTOMATICALLY PRESUME, WRITE, and/or SAY that 'you', human beings, are NOT 'animals'.

But there are some differences. Humans have, now, vastly more access to food and as I said in the post before, we are more neuroplastic than any other species.

OBVIOUSLY, WHEN one GROWS their OWN food, then they WOULD, just AS OBVIOUSLY HAVE MORE ACCESS TO food. But SO WHAT? if one EATS LESS and MOVES MORE then they WILL LOSE WEIGHT.

'you', human beings, are NOT LAUGHABLY so-called 'more neuroplastic' than OTHER species. Even the word and term 'neuroplastic', by itself, is SO False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect in HOW 'you', human beings, ACTUALLY WORK.

But, 'you' have ALL been MISLED in SO MANY OTHER WAYS, WHY be TOO CONCERNED ABOUT 'this ONE'?

So, past trauma, for example, changes our patterns much more, affects our current emotions much more, affects our current, rather than temporary stress levels, much more than other animals.

What ARE you even going ON ABOUT here now?

EITHER eating LESS and moving MORE one LOSES WEIGHT or they DO NOT.

If you WANT TO DISAGREE WITH me here, then so be it. Or, if you WANT to 'TRY TO' argue and/or fight that eating LESS and moving MORE one WILL STAY the SAME WEIGHT or WILL PUT ON MORE WEIGHT, then GO FOR 'it'.

Until THEN what you are going on about here now is of NO ACTUAL CONSEQUENCE TO what I ACTUALLY ARE SAYING and CLAIMING here.

So, if someone is going to come from the future to help, they need to understand these basic things, that are obvious, even to current humans who have DELVED INTO and LOOKED AT this MORE THOROUGHLY than you have.

Is 'this' what you REALLY BELIEVE IS ABSOLUTELY True here "iwannaplato"?

But again, if you think you have the message to give overeaters, the message that is a complete program to helping them, give it a try in the real world.

The COMPLETE 'program' that I AM DOING HERE-NOW, INVOLVES SHOWING, through IRREFUTABLE PROOF, EXACTLY what 'you' ARE DOING here, right now, "iwannaplato".

This COMPLETE 'program' IS EVOLVING, AND OCCURRING, Right HERE, and Right NOW, IN what some of you call 'REAL TIME'.

SEE, to ILLUSTRATE HOW TO CHANGE, FOR THE BETTER, TO and FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERY one, AS One, then HOW LONG 'this TAKES' may well be NOT what 'you', individually and personally, ARE ACCUSTOMED TO, nor WOULD LIKE.

Because you seem to be in a realm of ideas and you don't seem to understand what life is like here in your past or what humans are like now.

LOL If ONLY 'you' KNEW "iwannaplato", IF ONLY 'you' KNEW.

Perhaps in the future you just need to tell people to eat less and move more and they do that. Bang.

Here IS ANOTHER PRIME example of ABSOLUTE CLOSEDNESS. NEVER ANY CLARITY WAS SOUGHT. From the VERY OUTSET 'this one' has been BELIEVING that I do NOT KNOW what I am talking ABOUT here. And 'this' 'this one' IS SHOWING, PERFECTLY.

There is no trauma or emotions to process. There are no coping skills needed for dealing with stress.

NOT WHEN what I want to SAY and SHARE has BEEN REVEALED, and UNDERSTOOD.

BECAUSE so-called 'trauma' AND 'stress' ARE FULLY UNDERSTOOD, there ARE NO 'skills' NEEDED TO 'cope' WITH 'them', as 'they' ARE PREVENTED, BEFORE ARISING.

ALSO, ALL of the 450 or so 'emotions' REMAIN, ALWAYS. 'They' ARE, however, NOT 'TRIED TO' HIDDEN and IGNORED, as 'they' ARE, in the days when this is being written. In Fact EVER emotion, even the Wrongly and MISNAMED 'negative' emotions ARE EMBRACED, and USED, EXACTLY, in THE WAY they ARE MEANT TO BE.

Perhaps people in the future are more like machines. You just program them with simple instructions and bang, their attitudes, coping patterns, will power all just shift instantly.

'your' current BELIEFS and PRESUMPTIONS are just leading 'you' FURTHER and FURTHER AWAY here "iwannaplato". But, 'this' is NOTHING ACTUALLY 'new' here.

But you don't understand us. Your view is incomplete, and at an essential level.

These are some pretty WILD CLAIMS, which I if you WANT TO ELABORATE ON, and/or EXPLAIN, you MIGHT.

[LuckyR]

Yes, if we were machines, with no emotions and no pasts, unaffected by all sorts of things that machines are not affected by, Age's simple formula would generally be correct.

Simple things for simple minds...

LOL If 'you' ONLY KNEW just HOW RELEVANT 'this SAYING' REALLY IS.

Post back when you've mastered the Caps key...

[Sculptor]

Obesity is not genetic.

It is the direct result of the modernisation and processing of food.

Food is specifically created to cause addiction. And this is what causes obesity.
Like other forms of addiction it does not affect everyone evenly.
For myself I have tried a long list of legal and illegal substances through my life, but have only found myself addicted to two of them: Tobacco, and Food.
I managed to quit smoking but it has taken me 50 years to undertand food enough to break that addiction too.

My first diet was at the age of 13, nd I have been following government advice in the avoidance of certain feed types, as well as advice on calorie counting.
In that time I must have been on nearly 40 diets, which were all more or less successful but all ended the same way. They ended food obsessed, tired, hungry and bored to death. Despite attempts to maintain weight loss the result was always the same. Afte a year or two of trying to avoid over consumption I ended up slightly heavier than at the start of the previous diet, and the cycle began again.

After 50 years I ended up obese, prediabetic, with a heart condition and on 7 meds.

Then I ignored the government advice, and the advice about calories and read some books.

It's enough to say that 20 months after the start of my new regime I have stopped 3 meds, no longer get heart pain, have lost 50lbs without counting a SINGLE calorie, have reversed the prediabetes and now maintain a healthier weight effortlessly.

Since no one really ever reads post; and rarely shows significant interest to understand anything on this Forum I shall stop there. If any of you are serious enough to ask me HOW and why my regime has worked then I am happy to answer any questions and share my reading list.

I'll not hold my breath

Hey, kudos to you on both the tobacco and eating side of things!

What worked for you on the weight loss?

I've never had a weight problem (in the sense of gaining too much) though in my elder years I could have had a problem, so I used some minor "tricks" to maintain things where I wanted them to be.

.

In the simplest terms; forget what standard advice about calories in/calories out; low fat; eat less, exercise more
I followed a program of one meal per day, low carbs.
That is pretty much it.
Emphasis on high fat, meat, fish and dairy based meals with plenty of green vegetables.
It's really about beating the hinger and to keep the fat burning switch ON. That is why you avoid the carbs.
The only other thing was to read a stack of book on metabolism.

[Sculptor]

Since this one OBVIOUSLY LIED, maybe BECAUSE 'its' OWN 'regime' was NOT REALLY WORTHY

Since no one really ever reads post; and rarely shows significant interest to understand anything on this Forum I shall stop there. If any of you are serious enough to ask me HOW and why my regime has worked then I am happy to answer any questions and share my reading list.

If absolutely ANY one just wants to lose some body weight, then ALL they need to do is just EAT LESS and MOVE MORE.

no.
we've all been trying that for 50 years, and that is why there is an obesity epidemic

[Age]

Simple things for simple minds...

LOL If 'you' ONLY KNEW just HOW RELEVANT 'this SAYING' REALLY IS.

Post back when you've mastered the Caps key...

WHATEVER 'this' ACTUALLY MEANS.

Anyway, even if I WROTE 'that' WITHOUT MORE capitalized letters than you USE, then 'you' STILL would NOT have ACTUALLY SAID ANY 'thing' here ANYWAY, right?

[Age]

Obesity is not genetic.

It is the direct result of the modernisation and processing of food.

Food is specifically created to cause addiction. And this is what causes obesity.
Like other forms of addiction it does not affect everyone evenly.
For myself I have tried a long list of legal and illegal substances through my life, but have only found myself addicted to two of them: Tobacco, and Food.
I managed to quit smoking but it has taken me 50 years to undertand food enough to break that addiction too.

My first diet was at the age of 13, nd I have been following government advice in the avoidance of certain feed types, as well as advice on calorie counting.
In that time I must have been on nearly 40 diets, which were all more or less successful but all ended the same way. They ended food obsessed, tired, hungry and bored to death. Despite attempts to maintain weight loss the result was always the same. Afte a year or two of trying to avoid over consumption I ended up slightly heavier than at the start of the previous diet, and the cycle began again.

After 50 years I ended up obese, prediabetic, with a heart condition and on 7 meds.

Then I ignored the government advice, and the advice about calories and read some books.

It's enough to say that 20 months after the start of my new regime I have stopped 3 meds, no longer get heart pain, have lost 50lbs without counting a SINGLE calorie, have reversed the prediabetes and now maintain a healthier weight effortlessly.

Since no one really ever reads post; and rarely shows significant interest to understand anything on this Forum I shall stop there. If any of you are serious enough to ask me HOW and why my regime has worked then I am happy to answer any questions and share my reading list.

I'll not hold my breath

Hey, kudos to you on both the tobacco and eating side of things!

What worked for you on the weight loss?

I've never had a weight problem (in the sense of gaining too much) though in my elder years I could have had a problem, so I used some minor "tricks" to maintain things where I wanted them to be.

.

In the simplest terms; forget what standard advice about calories in/calories out; low fat; eat less, exercise more
I followed a program of one meal per day, low carbs.

So, 'you' ATE LESS.

AND, WITH LESS so-called 'carbs'.

That is pretty much it.

Which is more or less EXACTLY what I just SAID.

I just added the words 'MOVE MORE' on here.

So, "iwannaplato", "scultpor's" advice seems to be even MORE SIMPLER, and EASIER, than mine was.

Emphasis on high fat, meat, fish and dairy based meals with plenty of green vegetables.
It's really about beating the hinger and to keep the fat burning switch ON. That is why you avoid the carbs.
The only other thing was to read a stack of book on metabolism.

How long has 'this' worked for?

And, WILL 'the results' be THE SAME in a year or two?

[Age]

Since no one really ever reads post; and rarely shows significant interest to understand anything on this Forum I shall stop there. If any of you are serious enough to ask me HOW and why my regime has worked then I am happy to answer any questions and share my reading list.

If absolutely ANY one just wants to lose some body weight, then ALL they need to do is just EAT LESS and MOVE MORE.

no.
we've all been trying that for 50 years, and that is why there is an obesity epidemic

LOL 'we' have ALL been trying that. REALLY "sculptor"? LOL How MANY is 'we' ALL, ACTUALLY?

And, so you WROTE that you ATE LESS, and 'this' WORKED FOR 'you', BUT when I SAY 'EAT LESS' 'you' THEN SAY 'this' will NOT work.

Also, for absolutely ANY one who WANTS TO SAY or WRITE, 'No, eating less and moving more will NOT work in losing weight', then PLEASE EXPLAIN to the rest of us HOW, EXACTLY, a human body COULD put on MORE WEIGHT WHEN 'it' IS putting LESS FOOD INTO 'it', AND, MOVING AROUND MORE, thus BURNING MORE FAT AND MORE CALORIES OF the LESS AMOUNT being put INTO the body.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If absolutely ANY one just wants to lose some body weight, then ALL they need to do is just EAT LESS and MOVE MORE.

no.
we've all been trying that for 50 years, and that is why there is an obesity epidemic

LOL 'we' have ALL been trying that. REALLY "sculptor"? LOL How MANY is 'we' ALL, ACTUALLY?

And, so you WROTE that you ATE LESS, and 'this' WORKED FOR 'you', BUT when I SAY 'EAT LESS' 'you' THEN SAY 'this' will NOT work.

Also, for absolutely ANY one who WANTS TO SAY or WRITE, 'No, eating less and moving more will NOT work in losing weight', then PLEASE EXPLAIN to the rest of us HOW, EXACTLY, a human body COULD put on MORE WEIGHT WHEN 'it' IS putting LESS FOOD INTO 'it', AND, MOVING AROUND MORE, thus BURNING MORE FAT AND MORE CALORIES OF the LESS AMOUNT being put INTO the body.

No. He's saying you don't need to eat less. It's about WHAT you eat. MORE quality protein. FEWER carbs. MORE metabolism-boosting exercise i.e. brisk walking. It works.