Absolute energy from fats and carbohydrates and the proportion of carbohydrates in the food supply have increased over 50 years. Dietary energy density (ED) is primarily decreased by the water and increased by the fat content of foods. Protein, carbohydrates and fat exert different effects on satiety or energy intake (EI) in the order protein > carbohydrates > fat. When the ED of different foods is equalized the differences between fat and carbohydrates are modest. Covertly increasing dietary ED with fat, carbohydrate or mixed macronutrients elevates EI, producing weight gain and vice versa. In more naturalistic situations where learning cues are intact, there appears to be greater compensation for the different ED of foods. There is considerable individual variability in response. Macronutrient-specific negative feedback models of EI regulation have limited capacity to explain how availability of cheap, highly palatable, readily assimilated, energy-dense foods lead to obesity in modern environments. Neuropsychological constructs including food reward (liking, wanting and learning), reactive and reflective decision making, in the context of asymmetric energy balance regulation, give more comprehensive explanations of how environmental superabundance of foods containing mixtures of readily assimilated fats and carbohydrates and caloric beverages elevate EI through combined hedonic, affective, cognitive and physiological mechanisms. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Causes of obesity: theories, conjectures and evidence (Part II)'.

Genetic disruption of key molecular components of the hypothalamic leptin-melanocortin pathway causes severe obesity in mice and humans. Physiological studies in people who carry these mutations have shown that the adipose tissue-derived hormone leptin primarily acts to defend against starvation. A lack of leptin causes an intense drive to eat and increases the rewarding properties of food, demonstrating that human appetite has a strong biological basis. Genetic studies in clinical- and population-based cohorts of people with obesity or thinness continue to provide new insights into the physiological mechanisms involved in weight regulation and identify molecular targets for weight loss therapy. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Causes of obesity: theories, conjectures and evidence (Part II)'.

Food insecurity (FI) is associated with obesity among women in high-income countries. This seemingly paradoxical association can be explained by the insurance hypothesis, which states that humans possess evolved mechanisms that increase fat storage to buffer against energy shortfall when access to food is unpredictable. The evolutionary logic underlying the insurance hypothesis is well established and experiments on animals confirm that exposure to unpredictable food causes weight gain, but the mechanisms involved are less clear. Drawing on data from humans and other vertebrates, we review a suite of behavioural and physiological mechanisms that could increase fat storage under FI. FI causes short-term hyperphagia, but evidence that it is associated with increased total energy intake is lacking. Experiments on animals suggest that unpredictable food causes increases in retained metabolizable energy and reductions in energy expenditure sufficient to fuel weight gain in the absence of increased food intake. Reducing energy expenditure by diverting energy from somatic maintenance into fat stores should improve short-term survival under FI, but the trade-offs potentially include increased disease risk and accelerated ageing. We conclude that exposure to FI plausibly causes increased adiposity, poor health and shorter lifespan. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Causes of obesity: theories, conjectures and evidence (Part II)'.

The relationship between high body weight and mental health has been studied for several decades. Improvements in the quality of epidemiological, mechanistic and psychological research have brought greater consistency to our understanding of the links. Large-scale population-based epidemiological research has established that high body weight is associated with poorer mental health, particularly depression and subclinical depressive symptoms. There is some evidence for bidirectional relationships, but the most convincing findings are that greater body weight leads to psychological distress rather than the reverse. Particular symptoms of depression and distress may be specifically related to greater body weight. The psychological stress induced by weight stigma and discrimination contributes to psychological distress, and may in turn handicap efforts at weight control. Heightened systemic inflammation and dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis are biological mechanisms that mediate in part the relationship of greater body weight with poorer mental health. Changing negative societal attitudes to high body weights would improve the wellbeing of people living with obesity, and promote more effective weight-inclusive attitudes and behaviours in society at large, particularly in healthcare settings. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Causes of obesity: theories, conjectures and evidence (Part II)'.

Conventional obesity treatment, based on the First Law of Thermodynamics, assumes that excess body fat gain is driven by overeating, and that all calories are metabolically alike in this regard. Hence, to lose weight one must ultimately eat less and move more. However, this prescription rarely succeeds over the long term, in part because calorie restriction elicits predictable biological responses that oppose ongoing weight loss. The carbohydrate-insulin model posits the opposite causal direction: overeating doesn't drive body fat increase; instead, the process of storing excess fat drives overeating. A diet high in rapidly digestible carbohydrates raises the insulin-to-glucagon ratio, shifting energy partitioning towards storage in adipose, leaving fewer calories for metabolically active and fuel sensing tissues. Consequently, hunger increases, and metabolic rate slows in the body's attempt to conserve energy. A small shift in substrate partitioning though this mechanism could account for the slow but progressive weight gain characteristic of common forms of obesity. From this perspective, the conventional calorie-restricted, low-fat diet amounts to symptomatic treatment, failing to target the underlying predisposition towards excess fat deposition. A dietary strategy to lower insulin secretion may increase the effectiveness of long-term weight management and chronic disease prevention. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Causes of obesity: theories, conjectures and evidence (Part II)'.

The ongoing obesity epidemic is a consequence of a progressive energy imbalance. The energy-balance model (EBM) posits that obesity results from an excess in food intake and circulating fuels. A reversal in causality has been proposed recently in the form of the carbohydrate-insulin model (CIM), according to which fat storage drives energy imbalance. Under the CIM, dietary carbohydrates shift energy use in favour of storage in adipose tissue. The dynamics of lipid storage and mobilization could, therefore, be sensitive to changes in carbohydrate intake and represent a measurable component of the CIM. To characterize potential changes in lipid dynamics induced by carbohydrates, mathematical models were used. Here, we propose a coherent mathematical implementation of the CIM-energy deposition model (CIM-EDM), which includes lipid turnover dynamics. Using lipid turnover data previously obtained by radiocarbon dating, we build two cohorts of virtual patients and simulate lipid dynamics during ageing and weight loss. We identify clinically testable lipid dynamic parameters that discriminate between the CIM-EDM and an energy in, energy out implementation of the EBM (EBM-IOM). Using a clinically relevant two-month virtual trial, we additionally identify scenarios and propose mechanisms whereby individuals may respond differently to low-carbohydrate diets. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Causes of obesity: theories, conjectures and evidence (Part II)'.

Discussing causes in science, if we are to do so in a way that is sensible, begins at the root. All too often, we jump to discussing specific postulated causes but do not first consider what we mean by, for example, causes of obesity or how we discern whether something is a cause. In this paper, we address what we mean by a cause, discuss what might and might not constitute a reasonable causal model in the abstract, speculate about what the causal structure of obesity might be like overall and the types of things we should be looking for, and finally, delve into methods for evaluating postulated causes and estimating causal effects. We offer the view that different meanings of the concept of causal factors in obesity research are regularly being conflated, leading to confusion, unclear thinking and sometimes nonsense. We emphasize the idea of different kinds of studies for evaluating various aspects of causal effects and discuss experimental methods, assumptions and evaluations. We use analogies from other areas of research to express the plausibility that only inelegant solutions will be truly informative. Finally, we offer comments on some specific postulated causal factors. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Causes of obesity: theories, conjectures and evidence (Part II)'.

Body weight is tightly regulated when outside the normal range. It has been proposed that there are individual-specific lower and upper intervention points for when the homeostatic regulation of body weight is initiated. The nature of the homeostatic mechanisms regulating body weight at the lower and upper ends of the body weight spectrum might differ. Previous studies demonstrate that leptin is the main regulator of body weight at the lower end of the body weight spectrum. We have proposed that land-living animals use gravity to regulate their body weight. We named this homeostatic system the gravitostat and proposed that there are two components of the gravitostat. First, an obvious mechanism involves increased energy consumption in relation to body weight when working against gravity on land. In addition, we propose that there exists a component, involving sensing of the body weight by osteocytes in the weight-bearing bones, resulting in a feedback regulation of energy metabolism and body weight. The gravity-dependent homeostatic regulation is mainly active in obese mice. We, herein, propose the dual hypothesis of body weight regulation, including gravity-dependent actions (= gravitostat) at the upper end and leptin-dependent actions at the lower end of the body weight spectrum. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Causes of obesity: theories, conjectures and evidence (Part II)'.