Introduction: Obesity is a systemic disease leading to many complications. One of the causes of obesity is excessive energy intake in relation to its expenditure. Assessing portion sizes and estimating caloric intake is crucial in maintaining a healthy body weight and combating obesity. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of BMI on the perception of portion sizes and their estimated caloric content. Patients and methods: The anonymous survey was filled out by 205 patients. The survey contained questions regarding different meals. Pictures of main meals were presented and individually assessed by the study participants. Next, they were divided into groups, individuals with normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m²), who were overweight (BMI 25–29.9 kg/m²), and with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²), to analyze the differences in food perception and caloric estimation. Results: The study did not demonstrate significant differences in the subgroups’ estimated portion sizes of most main meals. No statistical significance was found in the estimated caloric content of the indicated main meal portions across the studied groups. Obese, overweight, and normal-weighted patients assess food portion size similarly. Conclusions: BMI has no significant impact on caloric estimation. The majority of the population estimate the caloric value of the meals inappropriately. Nevertheless, patients with excessive body weight (overweight and obesity) have a tendency (but not statistically significant) to underestimate the caloric value of full meals compared with people with normal BMI. Incorrect calorie estimation may lead to consuming bigger meal portions in patients with overweight and obesity.

Introduction: The major cause of obesity is excessive calorie intake. Inappropriate dietary habits, like increased meal frequency, portion sizes, or amount of snacks consumed contribute to obesity development. Potential differences in the perception of snacks by people with different BMIs may be one of the causes of obesity. Assessment of the perception of snacks by people with excessive and normal body weight will allow us to check whether this parameter actually has an impact on the development of obesity. Materials and Methods: A survey study was conducted to check differences in assessing different snacks and beverages by individuals with varied BMIs. Participants analyzed snacks on presented photographs and assessed portion sizes, estimated caloric content, assessed whether the meal was healthy, and determined whether the indicated portion would be sufficient to satisfy their hunger. The study population was divided according to body mass index (BMI) into individuals with normal weight, overweight, and obesity. Additionally, the study group was divided according to gender and age. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the majority of the studied parameters concerning BMI; however, the study revealed relatively low education level regarding caloric assessment. Conclusions: BMI seems not to have an influence on calorie and portion size perception of snacks. The majority of the population wrongly assessed the calorific value of snacks, which might contribute to obesity development. People have a tendency to overestimate the caloric value of snacks. Women assess the portion size of highly processed snacks as larger than men do.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and the dual GIP/GLP-1 co-agonist tirzepatide are increasingly prescribed for obesity and type 2 diabetes in populations enriched for binge-spectrum eating pathology. A recurring controversy asks whether these agents treat eating pathology or merely mask it. This critical narrative review argues that, posed as a simple binary, the question is under-specified, and reframes it around three problems. The central is a measurement problem: several intended effects of GLP-1 RAs are scored as improvement by eating-disorder instruments, creating a diagnostic blind spot. In the one disorder where a weight-acting drug has been tested against a placebo, efficacy on weight coincided with no effect on the psychological core—the dissociation that confounds measurement during GLP-1 RA therapy. The second is a phenotype problem: because BED subtypes already moderate response to drug versus psychological treatment, an agent acting on appetite and reward should not act uniformly, though this remains a hypothesis. The third concerns the post-discontinuation trajectory, and a therapy–harm asymmetry emerges across the spectrum. A factorial, phenotype-stratified trial with disorder-core endpoints and drug-free follow-up could resolve these questions; meanwhile, prudent practice combines uncontaminated pre-treatment screening, monitoring not reliant on confounded self-report, discontinuation planning, and integration with psychological care.