What Exactly IS "Overeating?"
And why does no one notice this about the new miracle weight loss drugs?
Wegovy, Mounjaro, Ozempic … all touted now as the “Thank God” miracle. “I’m just not hungry anymore!” And people who have never, ever been able to lose any weight suddenly drop almost a whole person inside of one year.
Yet no one seems to ask how few calories these people must actually be consuming in order for that to happen. Yes, yes, it’s the drug; but what are these people actually eating? And what does that mean, exactly?
People bitch and whine that that person’s body is larger than this person’s, therefore, that person must be “overeating.” Yet right next to the fat person is a thin person eating ice cream. And on the other side of that fat person is a thin person who always has Cheetos on their desk.
I look at the thin people around me, and they are eating doughnuts, chips, and all kinds of junk. Yet they are nonetheless thin.
I spent some four years on a 50–75% raw diet and going to the gym every other day and, although I did lose some weight, I looked nowhere near these naturally thin people who ate all kinds of crap and never exercised yet could look down their noses at me because I “must be overeating.”
How many calories are these “normal” people actually eating every day to maintain their weight, vs. how many are people actually eating on Mounjaro?
Something tells me that what someone eats to lose seventy or eighty pounds in less than a year is probably somewhere between 800–1000 calories a day.
But, here’s the thing: A normal person can eat 2000 calories a day and not get fat. While not exercising, either.
Anybody see that?
People on weight loss drugs hail to the heavens that now they can eat “normally” and not be hungry. But, come on. To lose all that weight that fast, they are not eating normally, they are eating starvation calories. It’s just that the drug changes a person’s appetite so they don’t feel the fact that they are actually eating starvation calories.
And if they stop the drug, they stop eating starvation calories. So, the weight comes back.
What does this mean?
It proves that some bodies for whatever reason cannot possibly be what we deem a “normal” size and weight without literally starving their whole entire lives.
Yet we pound these people with derision because they cannot voluntarily live on a diet that would be starvation for anyone else.
Wow! To illustrate, I imagine if we asked these 2000-calorie-a-day thin people to suddenly only eat 1000 calories a day, they might be hungry, too!
Want to know how many calories are recommended daily for a toddler? 1500.
I would be willing to bet most people losing tons of weight on GLP-1s are now eating way less than that.
So, I’m asking you:
Why are we so cruel and hateful to people whose bodies literally have to starve in order to be a normal weight, through no fault of their own?
Clearly this is so, otherwise how can a thin person be “not overeating” at 2000 calories a day, because objectively their body looks thin, while a fat person, because they are still fat, is “overeating” at 1500 calories a day?
When just about all people who aren’t taking GLP-1s would be hungry, on this recommended daily allowance for a toddler.
This exposes how casually we define “normal eating” without ever accounting for how differently bodies respond to the same intake. Calling something overeating based solely on body size ignores basic physiology and turns metabolism into a moral issue.
If one person can maintain their weight on 2000 calories and another gains on 1500, the problem is not discipline. It is biology. The comparison only works if we pretend bodies are interchangeable.
GLP-1s don’t redefine normal appetite. They suppress it. The weight loss happens because intake drops to levels most people would experience as deprivation. The drug just makes that deprivation tolerable.
So the cruelty comes from pretending thinness proves moderation and fatness proves excess. It turns metabolic difference into character judgment. That is not science. That is social bias dressed up as certainty.