Study Says Calories Cause Weight Gain, No Matter Where They Come From

We all know people obsessed with fad diets — no carbs, high-protein, juice cleanses — but it seems it comes down to the simple fact that if you eat too many calories, you will gain weight. A new study says it doesn’t matter where those calories come from in your food, if you ingest a high amount of calories, you’ll pack on pounds.

Reuters cites a new study where researchers experimented with subjects on various levels of protein in their diets. They found that as calories increased, people on low-protein diets gained less weight overall, but lost muscle and replaced it with fat. High-protein diets added more weight, but subjects also gained lean healthy muscle.

But people in the low-protein group stored more than 90 percent of their extra calories as fat and lost body protein (muscle mass), while other participants gained both fat and healthier lean muscle, researchers reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association. So the groups all gained a similar amount of total excess fat.

A few nuggets of practical advice to take from this research — weight gain might not be the best way to judge how healthy a person’s diet is. In other words, the scale is not the be-all-end-all indicator of your health.

Basically, if you’re overeating and putting too many calories into your body, you will put on pounds. Eating healthier and exercising will trump any fad diets out there.

Calories, not protein, matter most for fat gain [Reuters]


Edit Your Comment

  1. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

    So wait? Are you saying if I eat only Twinkees, I won’t get fat, and also want to commit crimes?

  2. Marlin says:

    What? You mean a 1 calorie from my steak is like 1 calorie from my salad? NO… WAY…

    Ok, but what weighs more; 1 pound of rocks or 1 pound of feathers?

  3. GMFish says:

    Did you guys even read what you blurbed?

    High-protein diets added more weight, but subjects also gained lean healthy muscle.

    But people in the low-protein group stored more than 90 percent of their extra calories as fat and lost body protein (muscle mass)

    It clearly does matter where the calories come from. It’s a simple fact that your body will not burn one ounce of fat if your body has carbs to be digested. You can get rid of carbs by exercising a lot or by lowering your intake of carbs. The study you cited to proves this.

    • Marlin says:

      This study was about weight, not musle.

      • GMFish says:

        Did you even read the article about the study? Did you even bother to read the blurb? While it certainly failed to mention anything about “musle,” it clearly discussed the increase and decrease of muscle depending on what the participant ate.

        • Round-Eye §ñ‰∫∫„ÅØ„Ç≥„É≥„Çπ„Éû„É™„ÉÉ„Çπ„Éà„ÅåÂ•Ω„Åç„Åß„Åô„ÄÇ says:

          And you, again, fail at basic reading comprehension. And this seems to be a trend in your comments throughout all postings. The article discusses strictly weight gain independent of where it comes from – muscle or fat. It specifically mentioned both weight and muscle, though it states that measuring weight is not necessarily an ideal form of measuring health.

    • StarfishDiva says:


      I am in no position to really slice my total caloric intake. I really don’t consume anything more than the standard 2000, as evidenced by a month’s of food diaries and still eating whatever.

      But when I changed that 2000 to include a casein protein shake (with a scoop of fiber powder) after workout (130 cals) and start with a meat and fruit only breakfast (no more delicious biscuits or fried dough), coupled with my normal bike rides, I’ve lost 40 pounds in 5 months. I feel my drastic increase of protein and throwing carbs aside has done two things, helped me build muscle/shed fat, and balance my biploar blood sugar.

      I dunno, what do I know, I’m just going by my personal experience.

    • OutPastPluto says:

      It doesn’t matter in terms of weight gain or loss.

      The whole fat versus muscle thing doesn’t contradict the basic mathematical and thermodynamic truth confirmed here.

      • dangermike says:

        But the important conclusion is something we’ve all known for years: for a given number of calories, a well balanced and diversely nutritious diet is healthier than one high in “empty” calories from foods that lack the various biological compounds our bodies need replenished. The real magic is that when those other things are consumed at their appropriate levels, cravings for excess calories will actually become diminished. In essence, junk food binges and fixations are not unlike pica

        • OutPastPluto says:

          It’s more subtle than that.

          Depending on the person, a judicious application of “junk food” might actually be appropriate.

          Individual macro-nutrient amounts matter and matter differently depending on the person.

    • icy_one says:

      But did you read it?

      “A new study says it doesn’t matter where those calories come from in your food, if you ingest a high amount of calories, you’ll pack on pounds.”
      Pack on pounds = gain weight.

      “But people in the low-protein group stored more than 90 percent of their extra calories as fat and lost body protein (muscle mass)”
      People who ate less protein as a % of intake gained weight (therefore, more calories = more weight is true) but that weight was stored as fat.

      “while other participants gained both fat and healthier lean muscle,”
      People who hate more protein as a % of intake also gained weight (therefore, more calories = more weight is still true) but that extra weight was distributed as fat and muscled.

      There’s nothing in your comment here to dispute the “more calories = more weight” conclusion.

      • Not Given says:

        Protein shouldn’t be figured by a percentage of total calories. Now matter how low your calories are you need enough protein for cellular maintenance and repair. To add muscle or support more activity you need more because you are stressing your muscles. Also, dont forget, your heart is a muscle.

        • icy_one says:

          But again, that has nothing to do with the topic, which is simple yet still ignored. I know education in America is on the decline, but give me a break.

    • Khayembii Communique says:

      You can eat an all carb diet and as long as you are in a caloric deficit you will lose weight.

    • Brontide says:

      The study is junk. The “low protein” group should be excluded since they were fed a nutritionally unsound diet ( lacking essential protein based on participants LBM and activity levels ). Once you exclude that group there is no longer any statistical significance in the results.

  4. Darrone says:

    “But people in the low-protein group stored more than 90 percent of their extra calories as fat and lost body protein (muscle mass), while other participants gained both fat and healthier lean muscle, researchers reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association.”

    So, while it may not fluctuate weight, it can have a massive impact on how you LOOK, if you’re pounding quarter pounders instead of salads.

    • pop top says:

      So then aren’t the quarter pounders healthier because they have more protein?

      • majortom1981 says:

        Only if you eat them without the buns and without the french fries.

      • BennieHannah says:

        “Healthy” is a loaded term that encompasses more than weight or muscle mass or fat percentages. I consider myself healthy (in the sense that “health” is within our control) because my weight is within a good range for my height and frame, I exercise regularly, my blood pressure is low and my cholesterol levels aren’t troublesome. I stay on top of routine exams and tests. I also eat a mostly vegetarian diet (protein doesn’t have to come from meat), which has upped my energy level and my skin is really really nice (a benefit I didn’t expect). I have some unhealthy habits as well — damn you beer! why must you be so thirsquenchingly delicious??

        We all know what we should be doing and eating — not quarter pounders (even without the bun), at least not on a daily basis. We should be eating a lot of vegetables, whole grains, beans, legumes and lean protein, and small amounts of foods that contain lots of fat or simple carbs. Those items are treats, luxury items. Items you save up for, the same way if you’re fiscally responsible you save up for a new computer or an expensive pair of boots.

    • ARP says:

      I think the point is that you need a balanced diet and can’t simply eat salads.

      The whole point of the South Beach, Atkins, etc. are all means to reduce your calorie intake. Complex Carbs and sugar are calorie intensive foods and foods we tend to overindulge in. So, reducing or eliminating these while getting all the nutrients you need, is an easy way of reducing calories.

    • The Slime Oozing Out From Your TV Set says:

      Yes, and quarter-pounders are probably better. Have you looked at the sugar content of salad dressings, lately?

      • parv says:

        Who the hell uses dressings? Vinegar, pinch of salt, and black peppers are enough.

        • LabanDenter says:

          tons of people use dressing.

          Your vingear / pepper dressing probably puts you in the minority. But please, let your puffed up self worth shine on for all to see.

        • Nyxalinth says:

          Some of us like stuff that actually tastes good. Novel concept, I know.

  5. energynotsaved says:

    I went to the website and tried, without success, to determine who paid for this study. I wanted to find out where I should submit my proposal, which is to research the need to research the obvious. I believe that it will take me 7 years and $10 million dollars to research the answer and come to the conclusion that it requires more research.

  6. ashmelev says:

    Yes, from 10000 feet above it is all about calories. If you eat more than you spend, you gain weight, if you eat less, you lose weight. The problem is when you want to lose weight by eating less calories the low carb/high fat diet is more satisfying and does not cause extreme hunger, unlike high carb whole grain skim milk no butter nonsense fat diets. Also on diets like Paleo you will get more nutrients per calorie consumed and that’s important.

    • crashfrog says:

      “If you eat more than you spend, you gain weight, if you eat less, you lose weight.”

      Actually, as it turns out, you don’t. If you eat less trying to lose weight, your body becomes more efficient at extracting and retaining calories to maintain your weight. If you work out trying to burn calories and lose weight, your muscles change – they replace fast-twitch with slow-twitch fibers – so that they can expend the same effort while burning half the calories.

      It is possible to lose weight, but it has to be weight gained recently. If you’ve got a spare tire you’ve been lugging around since 2007, it’s too late – your body has a new “set point” weight, and its going to do whatever it can to keep you at that weight, up to and including radically reorganizing the structure of your brain so that your hunger for high-calorie foods is irresistible.

      • ashmelev says:

        By “calories spent” I mean everything, including the maintenance of body temperature and radiating heat to the atmosphere. As I said, “calories in, calories out” is ultimately true, but since your body has a way to limit “calories out” in response of you lowering the “calories in” part it is really hard to lose weight just by eating less or exercising more. You need to change your diet composition to trick/force your body to spend all the stored resources.

        • Kate says:

          Which doesn’t happen long term as the New York Times study pointed out.

          You can lose all the weight you can, but long term, it will come back, unless you now expend twice the effort and eat a significant amount less than someone with a normal weight and can fend off the constant preoccupation with food for the rest of your life that you will now find yourself saddled with.

          • OutPastPluto says:

            Diets don’t work.

            Permanent lifestyle changes do though.

            You’ve got to find your Achilles heel and avoid it. If you eat more than a Marine recruit and don’t exercise like one, you’re going to gain weight.

            Simple yes. Easy no.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        I’ll let all those success story people know that they are wrong.

      • zerogspacecow says:

        Does anyone have any additional studies or anything to confirm or deny this? I have a hard time believing you can just become permanently fat, and that there will never be anything you can do about it.

        If your body could change it’s physiology to become fat, why couldn’t it also change to become fit?

        Although I’m aware that not everything in life fits the “common sense” mold, it just seems implausible that that is the case. If it was, then how could it be that fat people become skinny? Are you saying that none of them stay skinny, it’s just temporary?

        • The Slime Oozing Out From Your TV Set says:

          “I have a hard time believing you can just become permanently fat, and that there will never be anything you can do about it.”

          Did you read the article? It does not say that at all. Despite what you see on TV, science needs time and effort. What it says is that they’ve found the what makes people yo-yo, and fail at diets.

          Anyone who’s fat and has failed to lose weight over the long run knows it is hard. Those scientists can now say, “it is hard because ****,” which is a major step towards finding ways to make it easier.

        • Not Given says:
    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      I have found that balance is best in keeping me satisfied. I will fill up on veggies and a few whole grains (real whole grains) and add something fatty and or meaty to make me feel/stay satisfied. Whole foods seem to work best, as most processed foods seem to digest to quickly and leave me feeling hungry quickly.

  7. rpm773 says:

    Stay tuned tomorrow, we compare the weights between a ton of bricks and a ton of feathers.

    • Rachacha says:

      I know this is a trick question, therefore a ton of feathers has to weigh more than a ton of bricks.

      • Applekid ‚îÄ‚îÄ‚î¨ Ôªø„Éé( „Çú-„Çú„Éé) says:

        My troll physics tells me that the ton of bricks displaces less volume of air than a ton of features, and since air is lighter than both of them, the ton of features weighs less.


  8. failurate says:

    Confusing. The study doesn’t seem to support what is being reported.

    The story seems to be counting all weight as fat weight, when the study clearly stated that those that ate protein put on both muscle and fat, while those that ate a high carb diet put on only fat and lost muscle.

    This writer either doesn’t read well or is trying to mislead people.

    • failurate says:

      Maybe I don’t read so good….

      They didn’t gain equal amounts of weight, but they both gained fat. The high protein group gained an extra 7 lbs of weight (muscle?) per person.

  9. jimstoic says:

    The benefit of a low-carb diet, as I’ve experienced it, is that it makes me want to ingest fewer calories.

    • OutPastPluto says:

      This is the key thing. What you eat is a big part of whether or not you can meet a particular target. Some people do well eliminating carbs while others do not. It all contributes to the end goal.

      However in the end, it’s just the numbers. Getting there is the problem.

    • nobomojo says:

      me too.

    • Cor Aquilonis says:

      Same here. Low Carb/Kruse Leptin Resistance Diet makes controlling calorie intake easy. For me. YMMV.

  10. Back to waiting, but I did get a cute dragon ear cuff says:

    I guess this is a good place to post a link to this Consumerist post:

    I have lost weight both on low carb (20 years ago) and normal/high carb calorie restriction diets. I have had better luck keeping the weight off with higher carb.

  11. McRib wants to know if you've been saved by the Holy Clown says:

    I want funding to study the bleeding obvious too!

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      No, it was not as you describe.

      The article shows you can eat high fat foods and gain muscle, or high-carb foods and gain fat.

      It’s a pretty important message, one that has be obfuscated over the last several decades.

  12. chiieddy says:

    However, sometimes changing the ratio of carbs to proteins or the type of carbs you’re consuming can help kick start weight loss. I’ve been eating a 1200 – 1500 calorie diet (I’m 5’0″) for over a year now and have only lost 10 lbs since last December. It’s pretty frustrating given I’ve INCREASED my exercise significantly. Not even joining Taekwondo in September kicked off a decline. In December, I spoke to my doctor an we went over my eating habits and she indicated I should decrease carb intake. I started paying attention over the holidays and have started making an effort this week. Over the holidays (THE HOLIDAYS) alone, I’m down 2 pounds. The ratio change seems to have helped.

    Please note, I was already eating a low processed food based diet, but I was probably consuming too much simple sugars. My doctor recommended cutting out all rice and potatoes. Brown rice a was huge staple for me. Apparently even quick oats are so processed you lose nutrients and steel cut oats are better. I guess you never stop learning about healthy choices. :-)

  13. u1itn0w2day says:

    Weight gain from taking in MORE CALORIES than you burned just like weight loss is burning more calories than you take in. Or take in less calories than you burn.

    Where can I get funding for studies like this?

  14. Piddles says:

    That may be true, but the calorie deficit diet doesn’t work if you eat 300gs of carbs a day in your 1500 calorie diet. I learned the hard way that even eating 100g of carbs on a 1500 calorie diet will prevent fat loss.

  15. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    Mary Beth, I think, missed the point of the article entirely and via a poorly-worded title created a false argument for people to grasp onto.

    I’d almost suggest that was biased reporting…

  16. Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

    On the subject of weight gain and calories, the documentary “Fat Head” is an interesting counter to the “Super Size Me” documentary. I just caught it on Netflix instant video and was surprised by it.

  17. dwtomek says:

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again here (with an article backing me up this time!), try as hard as you might, you won’t ever trick the fat away.

  18. lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

    Well, at least broken cookies contain little or no calories. Everyone knows the calories fall out when the cookies break. :)

  19. Brontide says:

    When I see such associations I question the research credibility… “Dr Bray reported that he … is an advisor to Medifast, Herbalife, and Global Direction in Medicine”

    • sirwired says:


    • Brontide says:

      Oh goodness… look at the baseline data. They claim the groups were randomly selected, but one of the groups of 8, on average, weighed 15 pounds less than the other two. The “low protein 5%” group was fed a nutritionally unsound diet, it was not just low protein. This is how they are claiming statically significant findings and it’s a load of crap.

  20. Atticka says:

    To understand the difference between high protein/low carb diets you need to read up on the process of ketosis.

    Very simply put…
    You body will readily burn off glucose(glycogen) in the blood stream, sugar and carbohydrates are easily converted to glucose and added to your bloodstream, excess glucose eventually gets converted to fat.

    By eating a high protein diet (no carbs, no refined sugar) you deny your body easily absorbed glucose eventually forcing a state of ketosis. Your body begins to produce the acids needed to dissolve body fat in to readily available energy.

    Byproduct of ketosis is acetone, which you naturally digest, breath out or urinate (important to drink lots of water on a protein diet). Because of this some dietitians think this process is unhealthy, however many believe this is a natural process and

    The process takes about 48hrs to kick in, you typically get withdrawal symptoms but you’ll generally start to feel a lot better once you’ve kicked the sugary diet. Last

    A good example of a ketogenic diet would be the paleo diet (caveman diet). I did this for three months and dropped from %24 body fat down to %17 (working out as well). My energy levels went way up, I found I needed less sleep and my libido got a kick in the but (gf was happy!).

    Good read, explains the whole process here:

    disclaimer: I’m not a dietitian and I don’t work in this field, my opinions are based off of personal experience and reading related articles on the subject.

  21. crispyduck13 says:

    Jesus Christ, we needed another study on this? Can all these stupid studies just stop so the money can be funneled into something worth while? Like maybe, oh I don’t know, CANCER?

  22. SanDiegoDude says:

    Who in the hell does a “low protein” diet? Odd they didn’t study low-carb or low-fat. Protein is actually one of the few things you shouldn’t be varying when you diet, as going low protein or very high protein can have some very adverse effects on your body.

  23. mindaika says:

    Okay, reading the comments indicate that no one read the article:

    “The low-protein diet group put on about seven pounds per person, compared to 13 or 14 pounds in the normal- and high-protein groups.”

    “So the groups all gained a similar amount of total excess fat.”

    The low-protein group gained only fat. The high protein group gained a similar amount of fat, and also muscle.

    “If you over-eat extra calories, no matter what the composition of the diet is, you’ll put down more fat.”

  24. nobomojo says:

    I’d lack to add my anecdotal 2 cents. I am an overweight female and have been for many years.
    I have lost weight doing these 2 diets:
    1) eat 1400 calories a day or less. be cranky constantly. be hungry constantly. lose 15 lbs quickly but then gain it all back and then some when I realize I can’t starve myself.
    2) eat as much as I want but no carbs. I did count my calories and realized I was eating about 1800 calories a day on average, sometimes more. Lost 20 lbs so far and I’m never tired, hungry, cranky. I haven’t looked or felt this good in 4 years.

    what does this mean? I don’t know. But what I do know is to take the word of a study with only 25 HEALTHY participants (maybe only 12 to 13 females)… does not make me feel comfortable [maybe overweight or older bodies act differently]?. I’d want a higher number of subjects and replication of the results to really believe the findings. I haven’t had a chance to read the whole study though.

    • Not Given says:

      It’s called the metabolic advantage. It’s worth from 0-200 calories/day. The lack of carbs means less glycogen in your muscles and liver which causes your body to convert some of the protein in your diet to what little glucose your body still needs, gluconeogenesis. That process is fueled by ketones, burning extra calories. Futile cycling also wastes extra calories, but Dr Mike explains it better, he was answering a question about some low carb experiments where people added thousands of extra fat calories to their diet, just to see what would happen, without gaining weight.


      “Where does all the excess energy go?

      First, I don’t think they go out in the bowel. If they did, people would have cosmic pizza grease stools whenever they ate a lot of fat over a period of time, and they don’t. And a number of studies have shown that increasing fat in the diet doesn’t increase fat in the stool.

      Eating a very-low-carbohydrate diet ensures that insulin levels stay low. Unless insulin levels are up, it’s almost impossible to store fat in the fat cells. With high insulin levels fat travels into the fat cell; with low insulin levels fat travels out. So, it’s pretty safe to say that the fat isn’t stored. So what happens to it?

      The body requires about 200 grams of glucose per day to function properly. About 70 grams of this glucose can be replaced by ketone bodies, leaving around 130 grams that the body has to come up with, which it does by converting protein to glucose and by using some of the glycerol backbone of the triglyceride molecule (the form in which fat is stored) for glucose. If one eats carbs, the carbs are absorbed as glucose and it doesn’t take much energy for the body to come up with its 200 gram requirement; if, however, one isn’t eating any carbohydrates, the body has to spend energy to convert the protein and trigylceride to glucose. That’s one reason that the caloric requirements go up on a low-carb diet.

      The other reason is that the body increases futile cycling. What are futile cycles? Futile cycles are what give us our body temperature of 98.6 degrees. Futile cycles are just what the name implies: a cycle that requires energy yet accomplishes nothing. It operates much like you would if you took rocks from one pile and piled them in another, then took them from that pile and piled them back where they were to start with. A lot of work would have been expended with no net end result.

      The body has many systems that can cycle this way, and all of them require energy. Look up the malate-aspartate shuttle; that’s one that often cycles futilely.

      Another way the body dumps calories is through the inner mitochondrial membrane. This gets a little complicated, but I’ll try to simplify it as much as possible. The body doesn’t use fat or glucose directly as fuel. These substances can be thought of as crude oil. You can’t burn crude oil in your car, but you can burn gasoline. The crude oil is converted via the refining process into the gasoline you can burn. It’s the same with fat, protein and glucose–they must be converted into the ‘gasoline’ for the body, which is a substance called adenosine triphosphate (ATP). How does this conversion take place? That’s the complicated part.

      ATP is made from adenosine diphosphate (ADP) in an enzymatic structure called ATP synthase, which is a sort of turbine-like structure that is driven by the electromotive force created by the osmotic and electrical difference between the two sides of the inner mitochondrial membrane. One one side of the membrane are many more protons than on the other side. The turbine-like ATP synthase spans the membrane, and as the protons rush through from the high proton side to the low proton side (much like water rushing through a turbine in a dam from the high-water side to the low-water side) the turbine converts ADP to ATP.

      The energy required to get the protons heavily concentrated on one side so that they will rush through the turbine comes from the food we eat. Food is ultimately broken down to high-energy electrons. These electrons are released into a series of complex molecules along the inner mitochondrial membrane. Each complex passes the electrons to the next in line (much like a bucket brigade), and at each pass along the way, the electrons give off energy. This energy is used to pump protons across the membrane to create the membrane electromotive force that drives the turbines. The electrons are handed off from one complex to the other until at the end of the chain they are attached to oxygen to form water. (If one of these electrons being passed along the chain of complexes somehow escapes before it reaches the end, it becomes a free radical. This is where most free radicals come from.)

      There are two parts to the whole process. The process of converting ADP to ATP is called phosphorylation and the process of the electrons ultimately attaching to oxygen is called oxidation. The combined process is called oxidative phosphorylation. It is referred to as ‘uncoupling’ when, for whatever reason, the oxidation process doesn’t lead to the phosphorylation process. Anything that causes this uncoupling is called an ‘uncoupling agent.’

      You can see that the whole process requires some means of regulation. If not, then the electromotive force (called the protonmotive force, since it’s an unequal concentration of protons causing the force) can build up to too great a level. If one overconsumes food and doesn’t need the ATP, then the protonmotive force would build up and not be discharged through the turbines because the body doesn’t need the ATP. The body has accounted for this problem with pores through the inner mitochondrial membrane where protons can drift through as the concentration builds too high and by proteins called uncoupling proteins that actually pump the protons back across. So we expend food energy to pump protons one way, then more energy to pump them back.

      One of the things that happens on a high fat diet is that the body makes more uncoupling proteins. So, with carbs low and fat high, the body compensates, not by ditching fat in the stool, but by increasing futile cycling and by increasing the numbers of uncoupling proteins and even increasing the porosity of the inner mitochondrial membrane so that the protons that required energy to be moved across the membrane are then moved back. So, ultimately, just like the rocks in my example above, the protons are taken from one pile and moved to another then moved back to the original pile, requiring a lot of energy expenditure with nothing really accomplished.

      This is probably all as clear as mud, but it is what happens to the excess calories on a low-carb, high-fat diet.”

  25. duncanblackthorne says:


  26. Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

    And here come the “stop eating, fatty!!11” and “calories in/ calories out” mantra slaves in the comments…

  27. Shorebreak says:

    Mr. Obvious at it again. Reduced portions = less calories = weight loss. How brilliant.

    • D007H says:

      Regardless of how smart people actually are, everyone have blind spots where they can’t comprehend the obvious. For some people, it’s dieting and they fall for fads that advertise you can eat all you want of certain things and lose weight. I know friends who are like this, so probably should show them the article.

  28. Crymansqua says:

    So, wait, am I reading this wrong, or are you telling me someone conducted a study to find out that fatty diets leads to fat people and non fatty diets lead to non fat people?

  29. xanadustc says:

    Did we REALLY need a study for that? If a elementary health education does not clear that up, at least college level biochemistry does!!!

  30. khooray says:

    Try convincing my 350 pound friend who thinks eating 2 Foot-long Veggie subs is ok because it’s ‘low fat’. Needless to say, he hasn’t lost anything, but keeps gaining because he eats enough for 3 people.
    I can’t convince him that 1500 calories of rice is the same as far as gaining weight as 1500 calories of chocolate. (Yes, I’m aware of the fat/cholesterol, etc. difference.)

  31. I wumbo. You wumbo. He- she- me... wumbo. Wumbo; Wumboing; We'll have thee wumbo; Wumborama; Wumbology; the study of Wumbo. says:

    The problem is, you can’t exactly pig out on fresh fruit and vegetables. You can, but your calorie intake won’t nearly as much as stuffing yourself with fast food. All calories are not the same.

  32. Aking0667 says:

    I think the fat people should hunt and eat the people who make fun of them. It’s a high protein diet, it solves the bullying problem, and it increases the job:person ratio.

  33. msky says:

    groundbreaking study. Next they will tackle an age old question of Pope being a Catholic.