If I change the word "consume" in my comment to "absorb" then the point is the same. I'm not really one to care to argue about particular words used in the dis

If I change the word "consume" in my comment to "absorb" then the point is the same. I'm not really one to care to argue about particular words used in the discussion, but more the point of the discussion. If you consume fewer calories, you also absorb fewer calories. Is that not true? Your comment only reinforces my point, which is that people would rather consume more, that is, pay for a doctor to prescribe a drug, pay for the drug, consume the drug on a regular basis, than simply consume less food or do more work. I'm sure orlistat has a huge list of side effects. It probably does stuff to your body they don't even know about. It would be better to consume less food or burn more calories than to consume a drug to enable the overweight person to consume more food than they need. And think of the moral implications of over-consumption. Doesn't it seem odd that we are selling people pills to enable them to consume more than they need? What about those who need more than they get? Yet, people choose to consume the drug. The question is, Why? and you didn't even come close to answering that question, but rather focused on a semantic issue that doesn't move us any closer to understanding. At one point, I too was overweight. I ate 3 big meals a day, I sat behind a computer all day. I never exercised. Then I started eating less and exercising and I lost weight and became healthier.