The disconnect is the difference between being hungry and actual starvation. We are so rich that most of our poorest can still get fat on the food they can acquire. The worst of our problems is no longer starvation, but bad nutrition. (to an extent, starvation still must exist somewhere but it is very much less common)
Starvation will always get more sympathy, and the dismissal of this is inappropriate.
Starvation is extremely tragic, and no one's dismissing that.
We do have a different problem here in America, but it's not simply that poor people are fat because they're just eating too many calories.
I've offered physiological explanations for the observed phenomenon that people can be obese on low-calorie diets.
It's troubling that America's "poor fat" are misled by the universal and government-touted notion that low fat is healthy and that carbs are a necessary nutrient.
I've done calculations for some of my favorite foods, and found that no-sugar peanut butter, olive oil, mayo w/o canola or soy, no-nitrate bacon ends, roasted sunflower seeds, canned coconut cream, grass-fed butter, almond flour, and sour cream are all nutritious foods that are less than $.50 per 200 calories. These foods are satisfying, non-fattening, and make veggies taste great. But the poor aren't going to buy them because they've been told by the government to have 11 servings of carbs and to minimize fat intake. It's a problem that could be addressed.
Nutrition research is a mess and yes there does seem to be connections between types of food, insulin spikes and how likely calories will be stored as fat - but to gain weight you still need a calorie surplus.
I'd suspect the 'poor fat' is because of consuming a large amount of calories from unhealthy food combined with nearly zero exercise.
I referred to a JAMA article and you retort with CNN?
My point is that metabolism is quite adaptable, as it has had to be over thousands of years, and if blood sugar levels are not steady (i.e. bad food and/or skipped meals), it is able to minimize energy use to ENSURE there's a calorie surplus, so that some can be stored away.
You seem invested in maintaining your right to judge poor people's choices.
Wasn't meant to discount what you wrote, and obviously the paper you linked carries a lot more weight. There are just issues with self reporting and calorie consumption, plus I just have a hard time believing that someone on an actual low calorie diet can be extremely overweight, but this may just be my own bias. I don't have much outside of personal anecdotes.
Nutrition is complex and from what I've read (and what you linked) there is large variation among types of calories, but I haven't read anything suggesting this is more important than the number of calories themselves. My impression is that it does have an impact, but the volume of calories consumed is the determining factor.
Starvation will always get more sympathy, and the dismissal of this is inappropriate.