More importantly we have decades of irrefutable evidence that diet and exercise alone are about as effective as abstinence only sex education. It's great there are people that can just decide to eat less, but it's foolish to assume that can work for everyone.

It's odd how people act as tho there's a "moral argument" against using a tool to help reach the goal. It feels a lot like the argument that "morals are from religion", as if you need god to know that murder isn't really a productive activity (unless you work in a slaughterhouse).

I wish American money could go back to having "mind your business" printed on it instead of "in god we trust", it was a huge loss to all of us when that garbage was passed. It was also a huge loss when everyone just decided to go along with saying "taxpayer money" instead of saying "public funds/money", but slippery psychological slopes are everywhere.

> You can’t really exercise enough to offset the food you can eat in a day

This is not true. There are plenty of activities that a healthy, enthusiastic person can do for quite a few hours per day that burn calories rapidly, and it takes serious effort to eat enough to offset the calorie usage. Think distance running, skiing, cycling, rowing, etc.

Sometimes people go to extreme technological measures to optimize their ability to consume calories (see recent record-setting marathon results). Sometimes people rely on extremely calorie-dense foods (butter, nuts, etc) so they can carry meals with them that are not wildly calorie-deficient for their long, unsupported travels.

When people are burning calories at this rate, they are probably not doing it for exercise — they’re probably either doing it because it’s fun or it’s part of an adventure.

I’m suspect that, if someone is overweight but in good enough shape to cross-country ski for six hours a day, then even if their body tends toward telling them to eat too much, they could probably lose weight by doing so for many days in a row.

You can pick better activities for exercise. You don't have to run on a treadmill

> You can’t really exercise enough to offset the food you can eat in a day, even if you somehow were able to dedicate all your time to exercising you would still have to limit your food intake.

People racing the Tour Divide, a 2700 mile solo unsupported bikepacking race through the Rocky Mountains, lose weight when riding their bikes 18 hours a day for 2-3+ weeks straight. They describe being unable to choke down enough food even though what they are eating is very calorie dense. Hotdogs, burritos, burgers, pizza, a pound of gummies every day, chocolate milk and ice cream when resupplying, McDonalds where they fill their hydration bladders with PowerAde, anything they can get their hands on quickly when they arrive at a small mountain town which frequently has nothing more than a gas station.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/tourdivide/posts/24754803527...

Obviously not a practical solution as you say but they do exercise enough to offset the food when eating as much as they can.

My meaning was more that indulging in that hunger would result in me just eating an exorbitant number of calories, way past anything it would be reasonable to burn off without spending 4 hours a day every day in the gym... but you're completely right that even if I did spend that time in the gym it wouldn't help with the calories-in-calories-out equation, because it would just make me more hungry.