And here is the kind of attitude that, in my eyes, justifies all the anger and backlash against fat-shaming. Oh damn, I feel like I understand the SJW people more and more every time I see crap like this.

http://staffanspersonalityblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/the-ugly-truth-about-obesity/

The harsh truth is that the obese are in a lot of trouble. They are less attractive in the workplace because of their combination of intelligence (or lack thereof) and personality. Work performance is best predicted by IQ scores and next best of Conscientiousness. Impulsive behavior on the other hand predicts crime and accidents. Most employers are probably not aware of the research linking obese people to these characteristics and outcomes, but they know from experience that employing an obese person is a financial risk with no apparent reward.

They should of course look at the individual, but not everyone can afford testing every potential employee. Nor can a doctor test his patients. But he can use his experience, which tells him that the obese person is much less likely to follow his professional advice. And even if they could check every individual it wouldn’t solve the problem because the reason the group has these characteristics is because so many individuals belonging to the group have them.

So, is there any way to help this group? My guess is that the best solution would be to introduce vice taxes and similar paternalistic measures. You can’t leave someone who is out of control to their own devices. The worst solution is the one used right now – blaming negative stereotypes and discrimination, when scientific research validates those exact stereotypes as well as provides perfectly rational reasons for discrimination.

The "harsh truth" is that people suffering from obesity need to be protected from such vile treatment somehow, and that need is not recognized at the moment. Society shouldn't just let some entitled well-off jerks with a fetish for authoritarianism influence attitudes and policy that directly affect vulnerable groups.

...

Goddamn reactionaries everywhere.

Moderately surprising corollary: so society IS treating fat people in a horribly unjust manner after all. Those boring SJW types who have been going on and on about "fat-shaming" and "thin privilege"... are yet again more morally correct on average than the general public.

Am now mildly ashamed of some previous thoughts and/or attitudes.

As were laboratory macaques, chimpanzees, vervet monkeys and mice, as well as domestic dogs, domestic cats, and domestic and feral rats from both rural and urban areas. In fact, the researchers examined records on those eight species and found that average weight for every one had increased. The marmosets gained an average of nine per cent per decade. Lab mice gained about 11 per cent per decade. Chimps, for some reason, are doing especially badly: their average body weight had risen 35 per cent per decade.

In fact, lab animals’ lives are so precisely watched and measured that the researchers can rule out accidental human influence: records show those creatures gained weight over decades without any significant change in their diet or activities.

http://aeon.co/magazine/health/david-berreby-obesity-era/

(EDIT: Found another article about that here: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/08/the-animals-are-also-getting-fat.html)

The study referenced appears to be from here: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1712/1626.short

Here is one theory on an environmental cause of obesity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesogen

Here is a study that suggests Jet fuel causes obesity. And it's an epigenetic effect: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3587983/

Another interesting link I'd like to save here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/04/contra-hallquist-on-scientific-rationality/

I sometimes explain this to people with the following metaphor: severe weight gain is a common side effect of psychiatric drug Clozaril. The average Clozaril user gains fifteen pounds, and on high doses fifty or a hundred pounds is not unheard of. Clozaril is otherwise very effective, so there have been a lot of efforts to cut down on this weight gain with clever diet programs. The journal articles about these all find that they fail, or “succeed” in the special social science way where if you dig deep enough you can invent a new endpoint that appears to have gotten 1% better if you squint. This Clozaril-related weight gain isn’t magic – it still happens because people eat more calories – but it’s not something you can just wish away either.

Imagine that some weird conspiracy is secretly dumping whole bottles of Clozaril into orange soda. Since most Americans drink orange soda, we find that overnight most Americans gain fifty pounds and become very obese.

EDIT: More links. Haven't gone through them thoroughly yet though. Putting this stuff here more for future reference:

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3xyu5r/fat_but_fit_may_be_a_myth_researchers_say_the/cy9b52l

the study of identical twins that could not show any effect on longevity from exercise?

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep18259

It concludes that high intrinsic fitness (high base VO2 max for example) is correlated with lower mortality, but identical twins with different exercise habits did not have different mortality rates.

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3xyu5r/fat_but_fit_may_be_a_myth_researchers_say_the/cy91nu5

A previous study found that overweight people who were 'metabolically fit' (no insulin resistance, no diabetes, no high triglycerides or high blood pressure and good cholesterol levels) were not at a higher risk of mortality compared to people who weren't overweight.

This study had participants pedal on a bicycle until they were tired (they used this as a proxy for 'aerobic fitness'). They found that men (the study only looked at men) in the 'normal' bodyweight range had lower mortality rates than men who were overweight regardless of 'aerobic fitness'. Moreover, the study reports that the benefits of aerobic fitness are decreased in overweight men.

Looking for any relevant research or articles on the causes of obesity, or effectiveness of interventions.

another link to dump for now: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4zupkq/new_study_finds_that_the_bmi_of_adopted_children/

On the other hand, here's a study that shows a very strong link between impulse control and weight. I'm not really sure what to believe anymore.

Adipocyte count is essential to maintaining weight.

It is unclear to what extent weight is genetic rather than environmentally set at a later stage in development.

Given that in adulthood adipocyte number stays constant, and weight changes are predominantly accompanied by changes in adipocyte volume, one may conclude that at some critical point in development the final fat cell number is attained and after this point no fat cell turnover occurs. Analysis of adipocyte turnover using carbon-14 dating (for a detailed methodological description, see Ref. [5]), however, has recently shown that this is not the case, but rather that adipocytes are a dynamic and highly regulated population of cells. New adipocytes form constantly to replace lost adipocytes, such that approximately every 8 years 50% of adipocytes (...) are replaced (emphasis added).

I am unable to find whether fat cell count can be changed over this 8 year time scale, though my biochemistry professor was inclined to that hypothesis.

Obesity can be characterised into two main types, hyperplastic (increase in adipocyte number) and hypertrophic (increase in adipocyte volume). Obese and overweight individuals may exist anywhere along the cellularity scale, however on average certain trends appear. Hypertrophy, to a degree, is characteristic of all overweight and obese individuals. Hyperplasia, however, is correlated more strongly with obesity severity.

Heredity and weight:

at present, it is impossible to conclude whether the average increase in adipocyte number seen in obese and severely obese individuals is the result of adult adipocyte recruitment or rather a reflection of a population of people predisposed (by their pre-adulthood fat cell number) to be become obese/severely obese.

The long-term weight loss cited in this review used a 1-2 year followup, during which time only <16% of adipocytes could have turned over.

it is clear that fat cell number does not decrease in adulthood, even following long-term weight loss. (emphasis added) In line with this, hyperplastic obese individuals have a poorer treatment outcome following diet-induced weight loss than hypertrophic individuals (when controlled for fat mass). Often for hyperplastic obese individuals, treatments other than diet and exercise are necessary if substantial and permanent weight loss is to be achieved. Successful, but invasive therapies include surgery to reduce the amount of calories ingested (e.g. gastric bypass) and/or surgical removal of fat tissue (e.g. reconstructive surgery or liposuction). The recent discovery of a high turnover of adipocytes in adult human white adipose tissue (approximately 10% annually) now establishes an additional therapeutic target for the pharmacological intervention of obesity [1].

Lesswrongers are surprised by this? It appears figuring out metabolism and nutrition is harder than I thought.

I believe that obesity is a problem of metabolic regulation, not overeating, and this result seems to support my belief. Restricting calories to regulate your weight is akin to opening the fridge door to regulate its temperature. It might work for a while but in the long run you'll end up breaking both your fridge and your budget. Far better to figure out how to adjust the termostat.

Some of the things that upregulate your fat set point are a history of starvation (that's why calorie restriction is bad in the long run), toxins in your food, sugars (especially fructose - that stuff is toxic) and grains. Wheat is particularly bad - it can serioysly screw with your gut and is addictive to boot.

In fact, by every metabolic measurement, they seemed like people who were starving.

ADBOC. I don't know that seeming like someone who is starving, so long as you aren't actually risking to die from starvation and your micronutrient intake stays adequate, is a bad thing, and indeed the evidence seems to suggest that it isn't.

And yeah, slowed metabolism means that if you go straight back to eating as much as you did before starting the diet, you'll gain back the weight. Which is why people are usually advised not to do that.

The researchers concluded that 70 percent of the variation in peoples’ weights may be accounted for by inheritance,

Controlling for height and sex?