Here are a couple of other theories about weight gain. (I did not make these up, but I'm not sure they've been proven either.) Theory 1: Our bodies continue to be hungry until they have absorbed most of the nutrients they need to function properly. Junk food does not provide good nutrition. Therefore, junk food not only has the problem that it is calorie-laden. It also causes people not to feel satisfied in terms of the nutrition that they've gotten, meaning that they will eat more total food than if they had eaten the same amount of (say) heavy food that did contain good nutrients. Second, some people (including huge mainstream farmers) believe that genetically engineered food and other "newfangled" food does not provide as much nutrition as food did even 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. If this is the case, then even if we eat a lot of (say) broccoli, that may not be enough to sate us. A good example of both of these factors is the McDonald's French fry. (Not to pick on McDonald's fries per se, but they are pretty ubiquitous.) There is a huge potato company that has done nothing for 50 years but to fiddle around with "creating" potatoes to make "perfect" French fries for McDonald's and to supply those potatoes to McDonald's. Most people agree these fries are yummy. Unfortunately, they appear to provide no nutrition whatsoever. If you leave them on a table in a dish, they will remain pristine (e.g. no mold or bacteria growth) for months or years. This is not because Simplot (the potato company) has created a fry that kills off mold and bacteria naturally (as does, say, honey or garlic). Rather, it seems to be that they have created a potato that has no nutritive value whatsoever, and that therefore mold and bacteria won't even bother with it, just as they wouldn't bother with plastic. (I'm not a potato expert....this actually comes from the DVD extras of "Supersize Me." Correct me if you have further info.) If this is the case, then the way to lose weight would be a) eat less junk food and b) eat more nutritious food (including, perhaps, foods that are not genetically engineered and/or organic). Good luck finding such food in American stores, but trying is at least something. This could be a particularly important theory for CFS sufferers because: a) CFS sufferers may require more nutrients than the average person to maintain/gain health b) CFS sufferers may not digest food as well as the average person This could be why supplements seem to be helpful to some of us. Supplements: 1) provide extra nutrition, b) help to repair digestive problems (e.g. leaky gut), and c) help to digest food (e.g. giving extra betaine hcl acid and digestive enzymes to compensate for the ones that our stomachs and pancreases don't make enough of). The best food possible would seem to be even better though. Theory 2: Our bodies are designed to produce a certain amount of insulin at a time, to keep our blood sugar at a normal level. If we eat something sweet, our body compensates by producing extra insulin. This is fine, except that the body now anticipates that it should keep producing more insulin in order to compensate for the higher natural levels of blood sugar. These higher insulin levels make people feel "hungry"---causing them to eat more food in general, even if they restrain themselves on a particular occasion from eating sweets. According to this theory, even an occasional dessert or even a teaspoon of sugar (especially when not eaten with other food to balance it out) can upset the insulin mechanism for days or weeks. Cutting out _all_ sugar of all kinds eventually would get the insulin levels to move back to lower levels, therefore decreasing hunger. ** This is not my field of study at all. However, the theories have been consistent with my own weight gain/loss experiences and make sense to me. What do the rest of you think?