Yes, but when I stuff myself on one meal, accidentally or otherwise, my next meal is smaller or sometimes even nonexistent. That won't a priori lead to obesity.
This does nothing to address the real question, does overeating cause obesity or does obesity cause overeating? I'd be much happier if the dietary research community would stop designing experiments that are intrinsically blind to that question and start actually examining it.
("Good Calories, Bad Calories" has already been brought up, but I would point out that if there is anything to take away from that book, it is not that he has proved the point that obesity causes overeating, rather than the other way around. The point he really proves is that it is a reasonable hypothesis that fits the facts, including the experiments that have been done, and it has not been adequately tested. It has been unscientifically discarded-by-axiom. If it is put to the test and fails, so be it. But this appears to be yet another experiment that fails to distinguish between the two cases at all, and therefore is not all that interesting to me. This, BTW, is not news to Taubes, it is all he really claims, too.)
If the mechanism that stores glucose into fat is triggered by glucose peaks, as some people claim ("graze don't gorge"), then stuffing yourself in one meal and skipping the next may lead to more fat accumulated for the same calorie intake.
This does nothing to address the real question, does overeating cause obesity or does obesity cause overeating? I'd be much happier if the dietary research community would stop designing experiments that are intrinsically blind to that question and start actually examining it.
("Good Calories, Bad Calories" has already been brought up, but I would point out that if there is anything to take away from that book, it is not that he has proved the point that obesity causes overeating, rather than the other way around. The point he really proves is that it is a reasonable hypothesis that fits the facts, including the experiments that have been done, and it has not been adequately tested. It has been unscientifically discarded-by-axiom. If it is put to the test and fails, so be it. But this appears to be yet another experiment that fails to distinguish between the two cases at all, and therefore is not all that interesting to me. This, BTW, is not news to Taubes, it is all he really claims, too.)