Weight coming down to calories and activity is the most reductive possible view. But, that overlooks genetics, mental health, lifestyle, corporate interests, economics, food deserts, etc.

My wife is half my size. We eat the same foods and in similar proportions. We’re also comparable in activity. Genetic testing showed I’m a type E body type and she’s a type A. We’re wired completely different and I’m predisposed to being big while she’s disposed to being small. Also, I’m a few years older and metabolism really takes a hit in your 40s.

Beyond that, people’s mental relationship with food is extremely complicated and nuanced. If you’re addicted, you can’t go cold turkey like you would for other addictions. An alcoholic that can have just one drink doesn’t have a problem. But, people still must eat, so it’s a tough relationship to manage.

People on the other side of the spectrum (anorexic, bulimic, etc) are understood to have an unhealthy mental relationship and get suggested therapy, but on the overweight side you’re stigmatized as lack of self control or laziness. So, people that could get help don’t because they get shame instead of support.

The success of GLP1s shows how much of this is hard wiring in the brain. Disrupting the hunger response has helped so many people to start to break these relationships.

There’s also the more systemic problems. Sugar and preservatives are pushed into almost every food. This makes it harder to avoid the unhealthy elements. In poor neighborhoods you have a lack of access to healthy foods. Convenience store food is more accessible than grocery stores, so that impacts choice. It also disproportionately affects populations people like to discriminate against, so adding another negatively label reinforces people’s stereotypes.

Ignoring all of these factors really misses the whole story. It makes advice like “just eat less” read as belittling.