It sounds like you aren't familiar with the basics of what is known in the field, because the theory you're promoting has been known to be wrong for decades. It's kind of the Flat Earth Theory of obesity.
The cause might be sugars, but they'd have to be sugars that were little used 50 years ago when the obesity pandemic began. One promising candidate was high-fructose corn syrup, with a promising hypothesis about how a fructose/glucose ratio of 1:1 was harmless. That hypothesis was always somewhat unlikely and basically didn't pan out. Glucose syrup was also an interesting hypothesis‚ but fructose/glucose hypotheses all run up against the sucrase-isomaltase problem: people in some places, such as the US, ate plenty of sucrose before 01974, and it gets split into fructose and glucose in the small intestine. So you need an explanation of why the modern sugar-heavy diet has such dramatically different health effects from historical sugar-heavy diets. Maybe it's fucose? Chlorinated sugars like sucralose? Massive galactose doses? You could be right, but you've chosen to take on a heavy burden of proof there.
> There are at least four possible positions on the thermodynamics of weight gain:
> 1. Weight gain does not depend on calories in versus calories out, even in the loosest sense.
> 2. Weight gain is entirely a function of calories in versus calories out, but calories may move in unexpected ways not linked to the classic “eat” and “exercise” dichotomy. For example, some people may have “fast metabolisms” which burn calories even when they are not exercising. These people may stay very thin even if they eat and exercise as much as much more obese people.
> 3. Weight gain is entirely a function of calories in versus calories out, and therefore of how much you eat and exercise. However, these are in turn mostly dependent on the set points of a biologically-based drive. For example, some people may have overactive appetites, and feel starving unless they eat an amount of food that will make them fat. Other people will have very strong exercise drives and feel fidgety unless they get enough exercise to keep them very thin. These things can be altered in various ways which cause weight gain or loss, without the subject exerting willpower. For example, sleep may cause weight loss because people who get a good night sleep have decreased appetite and lower levels of appetite-related hormones.
> 4. Weight gain is entirely a function of calories in versus calories out, and therefore of how much you eat and exercise. That means diet is entirely a function of willpower and any claim that factors other than amount of food eaten and amount of exercise performed can affect weight gain is ipso facto ridiculous. For example, we can dismiss claims that getting a good night’s sleep helps weight loss, because that would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
> 1 and 4 are kind of dumb. (...)
4 is your position. Read the article to see why it's dumb. It's a short, easy read.
Also I suggest reading https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry..., a review of The Hungry Brain by neuroscientist Stephen Guyenet, who specializes in nutrition. Also, and I know this may be a big ask, maybe read an actual book on the topic too. Also, you would probably find it illuminating to read https://www.bpni.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-UPFs-ob..., "Ultra-processed food and the risk of overweight and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies," and although observational studies aren't the strongest form of evidence (you could hypothetically have some kind of widespread undiscovered brain infection that both causes obesity and also makes you eat Cheetos and Cheez Whiz, without the latter causing the former, or fat people might settle for ordering Domino's Pizza because it's too hard for them to travel all the way to Whole Foods), there are also randomized clinical trials showing the same thing.
> Greater UPF [ultra-processed food] consumption has been a key driver of obesity. There is a need to change the obesogenic environment
to support individuals to reduce their UPF intake. The UPF concept is a novel approach that is not explained with existing
nutrient- and food-based frameworks.
It's shorter than the SSC posts I linked, but it demands a higher level of literacy.
The cause might be sugars, but they'd have to be sugars that were little used 50 years ago when the obesity pandemic began. One promising candidate was high-fructose corn syrup, with a promising hypothesis about how a fructose/glucose ratio of 1:1 was harmless. That hypothesis was always somewhat unlikely and basically didn't pan out. Glucose syrup was also an interesting hypothesis‚ but fructose/glucose hypotheses all run up against the sucrase-isomaltase problem: people in some places, such as the US, ate plenty of sucrose before 01974, and it gets split into fructose and glucose in the small intestine. So you need an explanation of why the modern sugar-heavy diet has such dramatically different health effects from historical sugar-heavy diets. Maybe it's fucose? Chlorinated sugars like sucralose? Massive galactose doses? You could be right, but you've chosen to take on a heavy burden of proof there.
As for your "shame people who don't want responsibility" ideas, I suggest reading https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/12/the-physics-diet/, which begins:
> There are at least four possible positions on the thermodynamics of weight gain:
> 1. Weight gain does not depend on calories in versus calories out, even in the loosest sense.
> 2. Weight gain is entirely a function of calories in versus calories out, but calories may move in unexpected ways not linked to the classic “eat” and “exercise” dichotomy. For example, some people may have “fast metabolisms” which burn calories even when they are not exercising. These people may stay very thin even if they eat and exercise as much as much more obese people.
> 3. Weight gain is entirely a function of calories in versus calories out, and therefore of how much you eat and exercise. However, these are in turn mostly dependent on the set points of a biologically-based drive. For example, some people may have overactive appetites, and feel starving unless they eat an amount of food that will make them fat. Other people will have very strong exercise drives and feel fidgety unless they get enough exercise to keep them very thin. These things can be altered in various ways which cause weight gain or loss, without the subject exerting willpower. For example, sleep may cause weight loss because people who get a good night sleep have decreased appetite and lower levels of appetite-related hormones.
> 4. Weight gain is entirely a function of calories in versus calories out, and therefore of how much you eat and exercise. That means diet is entirely a function of willpower and any claim that factors other than amount of food eaten and amount of exercise performed can affect weight gain is ipso facto ridiculous. For example, we can dismiss claims that getting a good night’s sleep helps weight loss, because that would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
> 1 and 4 are kind of dumb. (...)
4 is your position. Read the article to see why it's dumb. It's a short, easy read.
Also I suggest reading https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry..., a review of The Hungry Brain by neuroscientist Stephen Guyenet, who specializes in nutrition. Also, and I know this may be a big ask, maybe read an actual book on the topic too. Also, you would probably find it illuminating to read https://www.bpni.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-UPFs-ob..., "Ultra-processed food and the risk of overweight and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies," and although observational studies aren't the strongest form of evidence (you could hypothetically have some kind of widespread undiscovered brain infection that both causes obesity and also makes you eat Cheetos and Cheez Whiz, without the latter causing the former, or fat people might settle for ordering Domino's Pizza because it's too hard for them to travel all the way to Whole Foods), there are also randomized clinical trials showing the same thing.
Maybe also https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13668-024-005..., "Ultra‑processed Food and Obesity: What Is the Evidence?", whose summary says:
> Greater UPF [ultra-processed food] consumption has been a key driver of obesity. There is a need to change the obesogenic environment to support individuals to reduce their UPF intake. The UPF concept is a novel approach that is not explained with existing nutrient- and food-based frameworks.
It's shorter than the SSC posts I linked, but it demands a higher level of literacy.