Easier to lose in the 80s?
tomatoey
Posts: 5,446 Member
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/why-it-was-easier-to-be-skinny-in-the-1980s/407974/
"A study published recently in the journal Obesity Research & Clinical Practice found that it’s harder for adults today to maintain the same weight as those 20 to 30 years ago did, even at the same levels of food intake and exercise.
The authors examined the dietary data of 36,400 Americans between 1971 and 2008 and the physical activity data of 14,419 people between 1988 and 2006. They grouped the data sets together by the amount of food and activity, age, and BMI.
They found a very surprising correlation: A given person, in 2006, eating the same amount of calories, taking in the same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat, and exercising the same amount as a person of the same age did in 1988 would have a BMI that was about 2.3 points higher. In other words, people today are about 10 percent heavier than people were in the 1980s, even if they follow the exact same diet and exercise plans."
....
"“Our study results suggest that if you are 25, you’d have to eat even less and exercise more than those older, to prevent gaining weight,” Jennifer Kuk, a professor of kinesiology and health science at Toronto’s York University, said in a statement. “However, it also indicates there may be other specific changes contributing to the rise in obesity beyond just diet and exercise.”
Just what those other changes might be, though, are still a matter of hypothesis. In an interview, Kuk proffered three different factors that might be making harder for adults today to stay thin.
First, people are exposed to more chemicals that might be weight-gain inducing. Pesticides, flame retardants, and the substances in food packaging might all be altering our hormonal processes and tweaking the way our bodies put on and maintain weight.
Second, the use of prescription drugs has risen dramatically since the ‘70s and ‘80s. Prozac, the first blockbuster SSRI, came out in 1988. Antidepressants are now one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the U.S., and many of them have been linked to weight gain.
Finally, Kuk and the other study authors think that the microbiomes of Americans might have somehow changed between the 1980s and now. It’s well known that some types of gut bacteria make a person more prone to weight gain and obesity. Americans are eating more meat than they were a few decades ago, and many animal products are treated with hormones and antibiotics in order to promote growth. All that meat might be changing gut bacteria in ways that are subtle, at first, but add up over time. Kuk believes the proliferation of artificial sweeteners could also be playing a role."
Study: http://www.obesityresearchclinicalpractice.com/article/S1871-403X(15)00121-0/abstract
"A study published recently in the journal Obesity Research & Clinical Practice found that it’s harder for adults today to maintain the same weight as those 20 to 30 years ago did, even at the same levels of food intake and exercise.
The authors examined the dietary data of 36,400 Americans between 1971 and 2008 and the physical activity data of 14,419 people between 1988 and 2006. They grouped the data sets together by the amount of food and activity, age, and BMI.
They found a very surprising correlation: A given person, in 2006, eating the same amount of calories, taking in the same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat, and exercising the same amount as a person of the same age did in 1988 would have a BMI that was about 2.3 points higher. In other words, people today are about 10 percent heavier than people were in the 1980s, even if they follow the exact same diet and exercise plans."
....
"“Our study results suggest that if you are 25, you’d have to eat even less and exercise more than those older, to prevent gaining weight,” Jennifer Kuk, a professor of kinesiology and health science at Toronto’s York University, said in a statement. “However, it also indicates there may be other specific changes contributing to the rise in obesity beyond just diet and exercise.”
Just what those other changes might be, though, are still a matter of hypothesis. In an interview, Kuk proffered three different factors that might be making harder for adults today to stay thin.
First, people are exposed to more chemicals that might be weight-gain inducing. Pesticides, flame retardants, and the substances in food packaging might all be altering our hormonal processes and tweaking the way our bodies put on and maintain weight.
Second, the use of prescription drugs has risen dramatically since the ‘70s and ‘80s. Prozac, the first blockbuster SSRI, came out in 1988. Antidepressants are now one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the U.S., and many of them have been linked to weight gain.
Finally, Kuk and the other study authors think that the microbiomes of Americans might have somehow changed between the 1980s and now. It’s well known that some types of gut bacteria make a person more prone to weight gain and obesity. Americans are eating more meat than they were a few decades ago, and many animal products are treated with hormones and antibiotics in order to promote growth. All that meat might be changing gut bacteria in ways that are subtle, at first, but add up over time. Kuk believes the proliferation of artificial sweeteners could also be playing a role."
Study: http://www.obesityresearchclinicalpractice.com/article/S1871-403X(15)00121-0/abstract
0
Replies
-
But it's all calories in calories out. IF people are struggling they just need to weight their food and be more accurate loggers. Sarcasm of course. Obvious point being that people were no more likely to accurately log and use a digital scale in the 80s either0
-
I dont believe some of this study. I also think because a child is active or has high energy should be placed on meds. There seems to be labels for every thing now. I think more people eat out now for convience. As far as Monsanto creating GMO foods for supply and demand adding chemicals to food is easily fixed with buying organic as much as possible. Corn related sugars are used now more then ever and is hidden in many packaged foods.
Social media with computers and cell phones consumes more time lounging around as in the 80s this was not common then as access was not available
It still comes down to overeating and metabolism changes as we age as well as CICO.0 -
newyorkcitymom wrote: »But it's all calories in calories out. IF people are struggling they just need to weight their food and be more accurate loggers. Sarcasm of course. Obvious point being that people were no more likely to accurately log and use a digital scale in the 80s either
So if we can assume that people were just as likely to err in portion / calorie estimation or logging (although this could have changed, seems unlikely), that's constant, and other things come into play, no?0 -
$2800 gym membership?0
-
The findings were:
Between 1971 and 2008, BMI, total caloric intake and carbohydrate intake increased 10–14%, and fat and protein intake decreased 5–9%. Between 1988 and 2006, frequency of leisure time physical activity increased 47–120%. However, for a given amount of caloric intake, macronutrient intake or leisure time physical activity, the predicted BMI was up to 2.3 kg/m2 higher in 2006 that in 1988 in the mutually adjusted model (P < 0.05).0 -
This content has been removed.
-
catscats222 wrote: »high fructose corn syrup
i even blame it when i get a flat tire
lol
I think their speculation is that food packaging might come into it.0 -
newyorkcitymom wrote: »But it's all calories in calories out. IF people are struggling they just need to weight their food and be more accurate loggers. Sarcasm of course. Obvious point being that people were no more likely to accurately log and use a digital scale in the 80s either
So if we can assume that people were just as likely to err in portion / calorie estimation or logging (although this could have changed, seems unlikely), that's constant, and other things come into play, no?
I would actually say no.
Think about how portion sizes have changed since the 80's, and how much more skewed our view of what a 'normal' amount to eat is. I would lay odds that the estimation error of calorie intake was higher in 2006.0 -
newyorkcitymom wrote: »But it's all calories in calories out. IF people are struggling they just need to weight their food and be more accurate loggers. Sarcasm of course. Obvious point being that people were no more likely to accurately log and use a digital scale in the 80s either
So if we can assume that people were just as likely to err in portion / calorie estimation or logging (although this could have changed, seems unlikely), that's constant, and other things come into play, no?
I would actually say no.
Think about how portion sizes have changed since the 80's, and how much more skewed our view of what a 'normal' amount to eat is. I would lay odds that the estimation error of calorie intake was higher in 2006.
That's very possible, come to think of it!0 -
Did it take in to account daily activity? I can't be bothered to read the link but I don't believe that the human body has evolved much in just 30 years.
I do believe it is harder now but only down to the fact that we do less as technology has progressed and we give in to temptation more now that food is every where in our faces and ready to just munch on.0 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »Did it take in to account daily activity? I can't be bothered to read the link but I don't believe that the human body has evolved much in just 30 years.
I do believe it is harder now but only down to the fact that we do less as technology has progressed and we give in to temptation more now that food is every where in our faces and ready to just munch on.
I only have access to the abstract (below). They looked at "leisure time physical activity". I would guess that would mean deliberate recreational / fitness activity, not NEAT.
They're not suggesting we've actually physically evolved, though, I don't think!
Summary
Background
To determine whether the relationship between caloric intake, macronutrient intake, and physical activity with obesity has changed over time.
Methods
Dietary data from 36,377 U.S. adults from the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) between 1971 and 2008 was used. Physical activity frequency data was only available in 14,419 adults between 1988 and 2006. Generalised linear models were used to examine if the association between total caloric intake, percent dietary macronutrient intake and physical activity with body mass index (BMI) was different over time.
Results
Between 1971 and 2008, BMI, total caloric intake and carbohydrate intake increased 10–14%, and fat and protein intake decreased 5–9%. Between 1988 and 2006, frequency of leisure time physical activity increased 47–120%. However, for a given amount of caloric intake, macronutrient intake or leisure time physical activity, the predicted BMI was up to 2.3 kg/m2 higher in 2006 that in 1988 in the mutually adjusted model (P < 0.05).
Conclusions
Factors other than diet and physical activity may be contributing to the increase in BMI over time. Further research is necessary to identify these factors and to determine the mechanisms through which they affect body weight.0 -
catscats222 wrote: »high fructose corn syrup
i even blame it when i get a flat tire
Well its true. Corn starch is used in the molds before pouring in rubber in the manufacturing of tires. Also in manufacturing corn products are used in creating synthetic rubber.
My father in law used to own a tire shop.0 -
Double post in error.
0 -
newyorkcitymom wrote: »But it's all calories in calories out. IF people are struggling they just need to weight their food and be more accurate loggers. Sarcasm of course. Obvious point being that people were no more likely to accurately log and use a digital scale in the 80s either
So if we can assume that people were just as likely to err in portion / calorie estimation or logging (although this could have changed, seems unlikely), that's constant, and other things come into play, no?
I would actually say no.
Think about how portion sizes have changed since the 80's, and how much more skewed our view of what a 'normal' amount to eat is. I would lay odds that the estimation error of calorie intake was higher in 2006.
I'd guess this is most likely the cause.
Personally, I weigh less now than I did when I was dieting in the 80's and I'm eating more to lose weight. I'm accurately counting calories this time instead of doing a program. I think this is why I have the inkling you might be right.
0 -
No way. There are way to many fitness centers that are no where near this amount. Vasa fitness is 30 dollars a month....Blue moon fitness is 10 bucks a month. Some studies are created by people that do not have scientific background to back up information given.0 -
The numbers here are all taken from self reported data. How reliable can that possibly be? I'd say they can be confident that their findings show present day activity estimates are more inflated than the self reported estimates from the 80's.
0 -
The interesting and factual part is that for self-reported dietary intake, we're 10% heavier today. Before I read your synopsis, I assumed it was because there were younger people back then. But the researchers age-adjusted their results.
As for blaming chemicals or gut bacteria, that's all speculation the author's part. He hasn't studied that yet (to rule them out).0 -
Bigger portions and less activity. I may have missed it but did it mention the activity level outside of exercise? Not only were there few computers to sit in front of at home, our jobs were more active as so much was done manually. Fewer tv channels too. I think for almost the whole of the 80s we had no more than 4 or 5 channels. We were outside a lot as were the neighbors.0
-
newyorkcitymom wrote: »But it's all calories in calories out. IF people are struggling they just need to weight their food and be more accurate loggers. Sarcasm of course. Obvious point being that people were no more likely to accurately log and use a digital scale in the 80s either
So if we can assume that people were just as likely to err in portion / calorie estimation or logging (although this could have changed, seems unlikely), that's constant, and other things come into play, no?
Yes. That was my point. Sorry if that wasn't clear.0 -
People were much more active in the 70s than they are now. Children, especially, were much more active, but everyone was. Even the lazy were more active because they had to be.
They took fewer drugs and ate different food.
It's very difficult to compare.0 -
It depended on where you lived. We got cable in 1982. Not cable like we have today, with 800 channels, but your basic MTV and HBO and whatever else got added at first.Bigger portions and less activity. I may have missed it but did it mention the activity level outside of exercise? Not only were there few computers to sit in front of at home, our jobs were more active as so much was done manually. Fewer tv channels too. I think for almost the whole of the 80s we had no more than 4 or 5 channels. We were outside a lot as were the neighbors.
0 -
It depended on where you lived. We got cable in 1982. Not cable like we have today, with 800 channels, but your basic MTV and HBO and whatever else got added at first.Bigger portions and less activity. I may have missed it but did it mention the activity level outside of exercise? Not only were there few computers to sit in front of at home, our jobs were more active as so much was done manually. Fewer tv channels too. I think for almost the whole of the 80s we had no more than 4 or 5 channels. We were outside a lot as were the neighbors.
Yeah, I know it came early. Still though, as you said, nothing like the past 15 years or so.0 -
There are rodent studies showing air pollution, among other things, may lead to insulin resistance adiposity and inflammation as well.
Conclusion—Early-life exposure to high levels of PM2.5 is a risk factor for subsequent development of insulin resistance, adiposity, and inflammation. Reactive oxygen species generation by NADPH oxidase appears to mediate this risk.
http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/30/12/2518.short
Agree with others, though, it would be so easy to not get accurate information to base the study on feeding behavior. Also, hasn't Type 2 Diabetes risen sharply? Harder to lose weight on that, from my understanding. What about metabolic/thyroid disorders like Hashimoto's, aren't these on the rise? Not that pollutants might not be at least partly responsible for this as well.
0 -
When I was in school in the 70s and 80s, there was only one fat child in my year. Now, every where I go I see over weight children. It's very sad.0
-
We have fewer pollutants today than in the eighties, in a few key areas. The air is cleaner. And we've eliminated lead in fuel and paints.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-270676150 -
Maybe it's the 10-14% increase in carbs.0
-
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions