I've still got about 10 kilos or so that say otherwise. Used to be 20 though.

Then I got picky about HOW MUCH I eat and started eating less of what I like to eat. And what I don't like to eat.
Haven't lost the taste for any of it though.

Seems to me that someone engineered it to last 100+ years.

As for bricks... 100+years ago there were no air conditioning devices to keep the heat out in the summer and most heating was done by burning wood or coal inside the house in the winter.
Such thick walls would sure come in handy for those circumstances.

"...an agoraphobiAc."

That's called knowing WHAT you like, and knowing what you DON'T LIKE.
Some might call that wisdom, others might call it experience. Ancient Greeks used to call that "knowing your shit".

Or do you also call anyone who is not outside, in the open space, 24/7 an agoraphobic?

I fear that it is the other way round.

Which can be noted from your conflation of several unrelated issues into a single one, without actual definition of a concrete question or an argument, because conflation is not based on logical reasoning but on a personal foregone conclusion you are working from.
Ergo, paragraphs like this, littered with stacked, incomplete, shotgun questions, extended into other questions:

As you are not setting up theses with those questions (no argumentation following to prove or disprove) those are clearly just inquiries.
But, there is no single answer to all these questions, nor is there a way to provide argumentation which would answer them as a whole, as they are unrelated and even incomplete.

Seems to me that you have some personal belief about those rats and the issues regarding calories and obesity in general, which do not correspond to reality.
Which is clouding your reasoning regarding those subjects, by providing some kind of a reasoning shortcut known only to you, which allows you to treat those issues as a single, generalized one, while allowing you to ignore the obvious issues of such reasoning.

Like the fact that the Zucker rat argument carries no weight whatsoever as it is both an exception and an ENGINEERED exception to boot.
Those rats are tailored by the researchers through gene manipulation TO BE FAT and to be hungry, along with their brothers who are genetically tailored TO BE THIN.
On top of that, humans not being genetically manipulable laboratory animals... Zucker rats can't be used even as an analogy.

Which is why all your argumentation boils down to a single "Aaah, you don't get it" line.

Rats are not humans.
Rats don't give a fuck about their health or physical fitness. Nor are they great at thinking long term.

As for Zucker rats... Ummm... You do know that they were DESIGNED TO BE LIKE THAT?
They are a mutation created for research purposes.

For all intents and purposes - those are not REAL RATS, any more than one could consider pekingese to be wolves.

Correct premise, wrong conclusion.

It IS correct. BUT... It is not the only factor at play. And "obesity" is a generalization.
There ARE genetic or health components involved - but not in the entire population.
On average though, reducing/limiting intake and/or exercise IS equal to weight loss.

Sorry, but number of calories in "some food A" is in no way in correlation with "human beings lack(ing) the consistency and precision in choosing food".
I'm not really sure what was it you tried to say there.

Ever heard of the phrase "Un bon mot ne prouve rien."?

Actually... After spending 100+ calories through exercise... They probably won't be hungry.
If anything, they'll be less hungry. IF they have some extra weight. They will be thirsty, though.
I only have personal anecdotal evidence for it, sorry, but I do have a theory why it is so regarding hunger.

From fasting for 72 hours with only ~30 calories per day, and from doing 10-15 minutes of light exercise each day (to stave off muscle loss) which would cause, then relieve the sense of hunger.
My guess is that I was forcing my body to reach out for those accumulated calories. Getting it to spend those ketones in place of glucose.
I did it in order to compare it to just eating less. In short - you gain back the weight lost that way really fast.
You do feel "un-bloated" though... Empty bowels and all that.

But regardless of it... It's not about those 100 calories spent. It's only ONCE a week. Who cares about what they eat ONCE A WEEK.
It's about raising the BMR by spending those calories ON EXERCISE.
You gotta do a LOT of exercise to spend those 100 calories. Keep doing it week after week, and you got muscles which you didn't have couple of weeks ago.
You slowly start burning more even just resting. That's it.
IF you pay attention how much you eat and don't just stuff yourself, that is.

Again... anecdotal, but I've knocked down my weight from 84-85 kilograms in December to 75 in June by limiting calories and exercising.
Since then, I'm exercising less (maybe once or twice a week) and eating on average around 2000 calories (more than before), and I'm slowly moving toward 73-74 kilograms, at the moment being closer to 74-75 mark.
Being in my mid-30s it's almost EXACTLY what you would expect from the formula.

Slow, continuous loss of fat through limiting of calories and through light exercise.
It can be done faster, but then you end up buying pants more often.
Yet another issue that rats never have to face.

And it was placed on the front page by the same editor, Soulskill.
http://science.slashdot.org/st...

Considering how long ago 1998 was, I think that it's time to start taking in account things like possible early onset senility of the editors.

Hey Soulskill! Having issues with memory or is it something related to sex in general?

Same study, same slashdot editor, 2 months ago...
http://science.slashdot.org/st...

So, why not just go over there and read the +4 and +5 comments for the last time?
http://science.slashdot.org/co...

At 25 years per generation that's only 80 generations or so.
In comparison, rats reach sexual maturity after 5 weeks, gestate for 21 days, and have about 5 litters with 7-14 baby rats per litter.

That's about 6 generations of rats per year. Conservatively.
We will "evolve" in 2000 years about as much as rats "evolve" every 13-14 years.
Not squeaking much.

On the other hand, it is also optimistic considering how pessimistic people tend to be regarding our survival on this planet at all.
Which IMHO has become a ridiculous notion for quite some time now.
There's too many of us at too many places at the same time for most things to wipe us out as a species.
Many things could fuck us up significantly... say a nuclear war... but we are too dispersed to be completely wiped out by anything that would not wipe out all life on Earth almost instantly.

But people love their antiquated 19th century ideas... After all that's only about 5 generations ago.
My parents' grandparents' time. Well... except on my mom's side.
She had a grandmother who lived to be 102.
Not much room for evolution there. Of genes OR ideas.

But in 2000 years... we'll get some shit done on the ideas front. That we've shown that we are capable of.
Unlike rats.

It is... but it isn't. It adds up.
100+ calories spent through exercise once a week don't seem much on their own... BUT.

It boosts one's BMR.
So those 100+ calories spent doing exercise once a week boosts one's daily calorie requirement from those magical 2000 calories to 2290 calories.

And that adds up.
290 * 7 + 100 = 2130
That's about a pound lost (or not gained) in about 12 days. About 30 pounds in a year.

Now, sticking to one's daily calorie requirement and weekly exercise routine... that's another ball game entirely.

From your reply I can only assume that you are deliberately being dense.
I.e. You are trolling.

Or, you would not have acted like you haven't realized that when I'm talking about there being 30% more fructose, and then saying that there is 4:3 mix in favor of "sugar for later" - that I'm not talking about sucrose but of fructose as "sugar for later", i.e. FAT.
In fact, if you weren't trolling you could NEVER EVEN THINK that I was talking about sucrose, because you apparently acknowledge that you know that sucrose needs to be hydrolyzed into glucose and fructose to be used for energy by the body.
I.e. You know what I'm talking about but you still choose to be obtuse.

Nor would you spout the 1 : 1 nonsense.
HFCS 55 is a 55 : 42 fructose-glucose mix.

Which, as I've explained above, comes out to 2 : 1 ratio in consumption of fructose and glucose through HFCS, compared to 1 : 1 ratio when consuming sucrose.
Because the human body ends up eating twice as much of fructose when ingesting HFCS than when ingesting sucrose, while trying to raise the glucose in the blood to the same level.
I.e. Your brain is hungrier for glucose longer.
It wants two spoons of HFCS where a single spoon of sucrose would suffice.

But then again... you are trolling.
Or you would not equate cheap HFCS used in Coke and Pepsi with VERY EXPENSIVE insect juice used in practically NOTHING commercially - because it is expensive and not "roundup ready".
And it is also not a 55 : 43 mix, nor is it a 50 : 50 mix, but a whole other ball game which includes various antibacterial properties, a different mixture of mono- and polysaccharides and various other stuff which bees dump into their insect juice.
Which can be gleaned from the link above.

Sure.

But HFCS in Coke or Pepsi is not seasonal fruit.