Easier to lose in the 80s?
Replies
-
Have you all seen charts juxtaposing HFCS production and US obesity rates by year? That data seems pretty compelling to me. Maybe food packaging and pesticides disrupt endocrine processes, but Ockham's razor suggests we've been supersized, and we undercount calories by a supersized amount. That's really the simplest explanation.0
-
vinegar_husbands wrote: »
That's how much it costs for an older person to join the gym around here. (They're priced by age, and you have to pay a $350 fee for joining on top of that if you're over 40.) It also happens to be one of the top ten athletic clubs in the country.
People obviously need to go to a fancy gym just to lose weight.
I would find a new fitness center. Ive never heard if this rediculousness.0 -
...but Ockham's razor suggests we've been supersized, and we undercount calories by a supersized amount. That's really the simplest explanation.
I'm with you. How about a study that compares a subjects's perceived portion sizes to the actual weight? Here's a device that I dearly hope does NOT take off.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/necklace-and-smartphone-app-developed-at-ucla-can-help-people-track-food-intake0 -
wow. It looks like it cleverly estimates the weight of solids & liquids consumed, but nothing about their caloric composition. I agree with your point, also, that many environmental contaminants are better now than in the 80's.0
-
Right off I'm wondering, how could it ever tell the difference between a diet and a full sugar coke?0
-
catscats222 wrote: »high fructose corn syrup
i even blame it when i get a flat tire
SNORT!0 -
Why do we assume, in a culture that has actually adopted calorie and protein in their daily vocabulary, that there is an equal tendency to log exercise, physical activity, and food just as correctly. Particularly in a culture that is growing in its willingness to shame those things as the connection between them and obesity (which has been shamed the whole time, but not as strongly linked to the prior things in the past)?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 -
I would say if insulin resistance does anything, it would be to increase calorie burn, not decrease it. So if calories and activity are the same, insulin resistant are going to weigh less, though I don't think it has statistically strong enough effect either way. At least since this study assumes the difference exists independent of activity and calorie intake.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 -
GMOs are actually usually used to reduce chemicals used in growing food. Particularly reducing overall effective dose.sunandmoons wrote: »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 -
Why do we assume, in a culture that has actually adopted calorie and protein in their daily vocabulary, that there is an equal tendency to log exercise, physical activity, and food just as correctly. Particularly in a culture that is growing in its willingness to shame those things as the connection between them and obesity (which has been shamed the whole time, but not as strongly linked to the prior things in the past)?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 was thinking about what are thought to be universal cognitive biases. It seems unlikely that our basic memory or tendency to underestimate portions has changed dramatically. Someone above pointed out that portion sizing might make throw another wrench in there, though, that seems plausible.
It's possible that emotional responses to norms might affect reporting - though tbh, without digging much further, I'd guess shaming of bodies and food choices was just as common back then (just with different targets). What reason do you have for believing that's changed?
Re body shame, if anything, overweight and obesity are considered to be more socially acceptable now than before.0 -
Portion sizes are bigger, soda bottles are larger, plates are larger, recess is shorter, fewer people have gardens, and kids don't play or ride their bikes outside as much. Mothers are sitting at desks so they can afford to by disposable diapers, and the newest video games, instead of hanging out the laundry on a clothes line. Power brakes, power steering, even driving the kids to ball practice burns fewer calories, wait, we had to ride our bikes to ball practice!
ETA: I don't think it is any easier to lose weight now, but it is much easier to gain weight.0 -
I remember the 80's quite well. IMHO it was more difficult for me to lose weight then, than now. There are more low fat and no fat dairy options today. Boneless, skinless poultry is everywhere today. Larger selections of fish, frozen vegetables, and fruit, with 1000% more variety in the produce section today. There is more education on exercise, especially weight training, and many more fitness centers and gyms. Employers and insurances include wellness incentives like free gym memberships and exercise equipment.0
-
vinegar_husbands wrote: »
That's how much it costs for an older person to join the gym around here. (They're priced by age, and you have to pay a $350 fee for joining on top of that if you're over 40.) It also happens to be one of the top ten athletic clubs in the country.
People obviously need to go to a fancy gym just to lose weight.
Crazy. It's about a$60-70 fee to join and about the same per month here.0 -
I said body shaming might have gotten better, but I think food shaming is worse. We live more in a time now where food choices associate with being overweight. I'm inclined to say in the 70s and 80s, a lot more people were clueless about diet, exercise, and nutrition. Like I don't think anyone in the 80s ever put much though into a can of Coke has calories. I think the "oh well they have a slow metabolism" thing was more acceptable back then. Things were still seen as a fat person's fault, but the fault was a vague thing. Near the middle to late 80s, we vaguely started seeing people go off about eating dietary fat.
Why do we assume, in a culture that has actually adopted calorie and protein in their daily vocabulary, that there is an equal tendency to log exercise, physical activity, and food just as correctly. Particularly in a culture that is growing in its willingness to shame those things as the connection between them and obesity (which has been shamed the whole time, but not as strongly linked to the prior things in the past)?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 was thinking about what are thought to be universal cognitive biases. It seems unlikely that our basic memory or tendency to underestimate portions has changed dramatically. Someone above pointed out that portion sizing might make throw another wrench in there, though, that seems plausible.
It's possible that emotional responses to norms might affect reporting - though tbh, without digging much further, I'd guess shaming of bodies and food choices was just as common back then (just with different targets). What reason do you have for believing that's changed?
Re body shame, if anything, overweight and obesity are considered to be more socially acceptable now than before.
Now we live in an era where some people will think you've been possessed if you say, "these are carbs, and I'm okay with eating them." So I think now there is more incentive to hide food choices, knowing that someone will tie them back to results.0 -
I also say exercise shaming is almost becoming a thing. I've seen some people on the boards here who go off on posters over things like calling themselves active "but they only take X steps a day, how dare they! If you aren't taking at least x+500 steps, you're clearly sedentary category, I get that mean steps going in and out of the shower!" To which I end up thinking "well I am severely jealous of the size of your shower, and wish it had a nicer owner."
Why do we assume, in a culture that has actually adopted calorie and protein in their daily vocabulary, that there is an equal tendency to log exercise, physical activity, and food just as correctly. Particularly in a culture that is growing in its willingness to shame those things as the connection between them and obesity (which has been shamed the whole time, but not as strongly linked to the prior things in the past)?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 was thinking about what are thought to be universal cognitive biases. It seems unlikely that our basic memory or tendency to underestimate portions has changed dramatically. Someone above pointed out that portion sizing might make throw another wrench in there, though, that seems plausible.
It's possible that emotional responses to norms might affect reporting - though tbh, without digging much further, I'd guess shaming of bodies and food choices was just as common back then (just with different targets). What reason do you have for believing that's changed?
Re body shame, if anything, overweight and obesity are considered to be more socially acceptable now than before.
So back in the 80s, someone might have gone outside and walked, played hoops, who knows what, and wouldn't think of it as activity or exercise. Now we track. We consider. We know exactly what things we were doing that are physically active because we know we can use it as a shield: "Yeah, I'm fat, but I'm trying. I know walked X today. I spent at least 20 minutes using a stand desk! I swear. Janis doesn't even get up to get her own coffee! I walk over the 15 steps and stand at the machine for her (sure it's while I'm getting mine but still, she's not honest normal weight, she's lazy normal weight). I'm a normal person in a fat body, please don't view me as part of the other tribe. please!"
And now I'm wondering why I'm writing up these weird narratives, but there you have it.0 -
As a person who really likes the look of chokers, I hope they upgrade the style and it does catch on....but Ockham's razor suggests we've been supersized, and we undercount calories by a supersized amount. That's really the simplest explanation.
I'm with you. How about a study that compares a subjects's perceived portion sizes to the actual weight? Here's a device that I dearly hope does NOT take off.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/necklace-and-smartphone-app-developed-at-ucla-can-help-people-track-food-intake0 -
I also say exercise shaming is almost becoming a thing. I've seen some people on the boards here who go off on posters over things like calling themselves active "but they only take X steps a day, how dare they! If you aren't taking at least x+500 steps, you're clearly sedentary category, I get that mean steps going in and out of the shower!" To which I end up thinking "well I am severely jealous of the size of your shower, and wish it had a nicer owner."
This might've been the funniest thing I've read all day! Thanks!
0 -
Sooooo, you are hoping they catch on with other people?0
-
daniwilford wrote: »Portion sizes are bigger, soda bottles are larger, plates are larger, recess is shorter, fewer people have gardens, and kids don't play or ride their bikes outside as much. Mothers are sitting at desks so they can afford to by disposable diapers, and the newest video games, instead of hanging out the laundry on a clothes line. Power brakes, power steering, even driving the kids to ball practice burns fewer calories, wait, we had to ride our bikes to ball practice!
ETA: I don't think it is any easier to lose weight now, but it is much easier to gain weight.
Ya, Mom had a clothes line and a garden, and I used to ride my bike 4 miles to tennis lessons.
(I still have a clothes line and garden, but the bike and tennis are long gone.)
0 -
...more education on exercise, yet recess and physical education/interscholastic sports programs have been severely cut at many schools - leaving already more-sedentary kids even more sedentary and not placing any emphasis or importance on exercise or physical fitness. Both parents work in many families, leaving "latchkey kids" to fend for themselves on packaged, microwaved meals. Sedentary, obese kids with poor exercise and eating habits are becoming (and have become) sedentary, obese adults with poor exercise and eating habits.daniwilford wrote: »I remember the 80's quite well. IMHO it was more difficult for me to lose weight then, than now. There are more low fat and no fat dairy options today. Boneless, skinless poultry is everywhere today. Larger selections of fish, frozen vegetables, and fruit, with 1000% more variety in the produce section today. There is more education on exercise, especially weight training, and many more fitness centers and gyms. Employers and insurances include wellness incentives like free gym memberships and exercise equipment.
We've become a much more sedentary society. We e-mail or text instead of walking down the hall, kids play video games or sit around on their phones instead of being outdoors playing sports, riding bicycles, etc. Kids don't walk or ride their bikes to school - they're dropped off and picked up by their parents. In most job fields, workers are more leashed to their desks/computers than ever before. Restaurants take pride in their huge, "supersized" meals which could easily feed two or three adults. And since 1 of 3 children and 2 of 3 adults are overweight or obese (according to nih.gov), it's become the rule rather than the exception.
I don't buy the black helicopter, tinfoil hat environmental pollutants stuff. I don't have a study to quote, but I'm sure that air quality nowadays is several orders of magnitude better than it was in the '80s. Did anybody live near Los Angeles or any other large metropolitan area back then? I did, and I remember the orange smog that blanketed the city most of the time. There has been such a concerted effort to reduce environmental pollutants, chemical dumping, emissions controls on vehicles, etc. since then that I find it extremely difficult to believe we're living in a worse time now. Nor do I buy that smog or 'teh toxinzzz' are making us fat. China is absolutely filthy with toxic chemicals and pollution by comparison, yet their obesity rate is considerably lower - 5% in the country and 20% in the large cities (according to the World Health Organization). Curiously enough (or not), China attributes their growing obesity problems to increasingly sedentary lifestyles and the spread of the Western "fast food" culture in their country.
0 -
0
-
It's all due to the TV remote.Getting up to change the channel generated far more exercise for folks back then.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
People were talking about being healthy in the 80s. Then, it wasn't step-counting, it was Aerobicizing. And Jazzercising. Instead of fitbits, they wore leg warmers and headbands. Same motives, different era.
They were watching their weight. The ads were full of it. "That great Pepsi taste! Diet Pepsi won't go to your waist! Diet Pepsi. One small calorie. Now you see it, now you don't!"
Women were calorie counting. They used books and manual clickers, but they counted. I remember my mom and her friends looking stuff up and clicking those dang clickers.
Even in the 70s, it was Tab and Dr. Scholl's. They kept your legs in great shape! Lol. Now, people wear those ridiculous shoes with the rounded bottoms. Who knows what is next?
I don't remember the 60s or anything before that, but I'm sure those women had their stuff they did, too.
I don't remember men working on weight loss, but my dad was very athletic. There were others who were fat, but the men back then didn't sit around discussing their fat. Not the ones I was around, anyway. It would've been viewed as feminine. They might joke once in a while, but they just didn't do that.0 -
People were talking about being healthy in the 80s. Then, it wasn't step-counting, it was Aerobicizing. And Jazzercising. Instead of fitbits, they wore leg warmers and headbands. Same motives, different era.
They were watching their weight. The ads were full of it. "That great Pepsi taste! Diet Pepsi won't go to your waist! Diet Pepsi. One small calorie. Now you see it, now you don't!"
Women were calorie counting. They used books and manual clickers, but they counted. I remember my mom and her friends looking stuff up and clicking those dang clickers.
Even in the 70s, it was Tab and Dr. Scholl's. They kept your legs in great shape! Lol. Now, people wear those ridiculous shoes with the rounded bottoms. Who knows what is next?
I don't remember the 60s or anything before that, but I'm sure those women had their stuff they did, too.
I don't remember men working on weight loss, but my dad was very athletic. There were others who were fat, but the men back then didn't sit around discussing their fat. Not the ones I was around, anyway. It would've been viewed as feminine. They might joke once in a while, but they just didn't do that.
This is also what I remember. And weight watchers. I think my bmi is lower than my mom's was at my current age, which would have been in 1990.0
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