Wait. I thought it was simple? Or maybe accurately modelling the energy balance of complex organisms is too complex to represent with three variables? Going back to something you said before:

It think it is more the opposite. People (like you) try to make it seem much less complicated than it actually is so they can look down on and/or make fun of fat people.

Yes. You postulated that:

Calories In > Calories Out + Calories Burned

explains the weight gain that has been observed in several species over the last several decades. In the example I cited, Calories In and Calories Burned are stable over time, but body weight is not. Thus, "Calories Out" is the only variable left in your formula and must therefore be responsible for the increasing body weight of the lab animals in question. I asked you to explain what it represents and why it has changed over time. If it's "pretty goddamned simple", it should be no problem for you to explain it.

More detail. Per the quote, calories in and calories burned are not changing, which implies that "calories out" is decreasing. What is "calories out" and why is it going down?

Excellent. Then please explain the similar rise in body weight of lab animals, given that:

"In fact, lab animals’ lives are so precisely watched and measured that the researchers can rule out accidental human influence: records show those creatures gained weight over decades without any significant change in their diet or activities."

How does that explain the lab animals? From TFA:

"In fact, lab animals’ lives are so precisely watched and measured that the researchers can rule out accidental human influence: records show those creatures gained weight over decades without any significant change in their diet or activities."

Yes. Size and gestational age are different categories. But either could be considered a measure of "premature-ness". And pre and post 24 weeks could be considered different categories. The point was, a doctor who "had never known a baby born as prematurely as Lexi survive" hopefully is not the neonatalogist. I guess 24 weeks is still generally considered the threshold, as it was over a decade ago. But as I understand it, that threshold is being pushed more and more. So while younger preemies (who survive) are less common, almost any medical professional should be aware that 26 weeks is not a particularly "rare outlier" as far as preterm babies go.

These doctors need to get out more if they are unfamiliar with more premature babies surviving. Lots of 22-25 week gestation babies (that's 15-18 weeks premature) survive, with the record being 21 weeks 5 days gestation. In terms of size, the baby in the article is fairly small at 14 ounces. But the record in that category is 8.6 ounces, with a few other cases under 10, including the previous record holder.