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.
Calories in/calories out is at best a proxy for what's really going on under the covers (ie, insulin, hormonal reasons)...
...but that doesn't mean it's correct.
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.
Yes, and if you look at what food items constitute 100 calories, it should become plainly obvious that human beings lack the consistency and precision in choosing food and/or exercise in order to maintain weight like we do.
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.
Also, have you ever heard the phrase "work up an appetite" what do you suppose the body's very first reaction to burning those 100 calories is?
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.