Current Events > man claims his father - 350lbs, 1000cal a day, 22k steps -can't lose weight

(+) Yeah! (+)

There's no "rare metabolic or endocrinological disorder" that defies the laws of thermodynamics.

maybe 2200 steps.

11 miles will bring 99.999% of the world to their fucking knees and crying. much less some fat guy.

There's no "rare metabolic or endocrinological disorder" that defies the laws of thermodynamics.

I'm not a doctor, but I assume it's endometriosis.

No, it really wouldnt.

Im not saying I believe this story but 22k steps isnt that much. Thats a normal day for significantly more than 0.001% of the population and an easily achievable amount for a fuckload more.

Buddy, do you believe that is a "rare metabolic disorder that defies the laws of thermodynamics"?

He was readmitted to the hospital just over a year later in October 1981,[29] after his weight increased to 952 lb (432 kg; 68 st);[14] he had managed to gain 200 lb (91 kg; 14 st) in just seven days.

I'm not a doctor, but I assume it's endometriosis.

1) A neoplasm is 100% not a metabolic disorder.
2) You don't get to say "what I was really asking about". I was literally talking about how you can't magically sustain mass with a caloric deficit.

You should stop.

1. Tumors of all kinds are inherently metabolic. The bad ones are metastatic.
2. It's not magic. It's just a very rare disease that went undiagnosed for an extremely long time that caused mass gain disconnected to caloric intake.

Its a good thing youre not a doctor.

lmao what does this even mean

Buddy, do you believe that is a "rare metabolic disorder that defies the laws of thermodynamics"?

Thank you.

How are they metabolic? Do you know what metabolic means?

How is it "disconnected"? How do you think tumors grow?

Everything requires metabolism... that doesn't mean it's a metabolic disease. By your definition, the term "metabolic disease" would be pointless.

Well, no, because if it was like any other cell, a disease that's literally about a single cell's reproduction wouldn't be a disease. That aside, you get the point. There's no "disconnection", because that's where the calories go.

I didn't think you were this dense Ty. It's silly when people go on weird vendettas and think making themselves look like you are looking now is somehow a win.

Yes, they are different scenarios, very good, I literally said that already.

Yes, I was, because it's the same thing. A tumor won't make you defy thermodynamics either. The person in the article "wasn't gaining weight despite a caloric deficit".

Wait, you're actually serious. You're literally, actually serious about this. Wow.

Well, at least you're completely done talking about how neoplasms are "metabolic diseases", so I'll just accept you've conceeded that. Now...

You literally think tumors grow magically despite caloric deficits? How, exactly, again from a thermodynamics point of view, does that happen? What happens to the other tissues in a person's body when they are growing tumors? What is one of the biggest red flags for cancer?

This is not the same thing, and you know it. You called a neoplasm specifically a "metabolic disorder", which has a specific meaning.

I guess adolescents massively increasing muscle mass, bone size and density while burning fat means they're in a "caloric deficit"?

Of course you don't, because you don't know what you're talking about, at all. This very clearly isn't your field.

It's weight loss, buddy. Cancer and rapidly growing benign tumors will cause weight loss. Because, you know, thermodynamics.

Where, in the article you posted, does it even mention caloric deficits, and overall weight? At all?