Easier to lose in the 80s?
Replies
-
In the 80's I still had to get up to change the TV channel. I did not have a cell phone, iPad or computer, so I was possibly less sedentary. I fried more food in the 80's when eating at home, but for sure restaurant portions have increased. I was chasing two young children around back in those years, so I'd have to factor that in. In all, I think this would be a very difficult theory to prove.0
-
Thanks for the interesting article. Clearly there are weight loss factors we do not yet understand.0
-
SherryTeach wrote: »In the 80's I still had to get up to change the TV channel. I did not have a cell phone, iPad or computer, so I was possibly less sedentary. I fried more food in the 80's when eating at home, but for sure restaurant portions have increased. I was chasing two young children around back in those years, so I'd have to factor that in. In all, I think this would be a very difficult theory to prove.
My family had a computer, but the internet was very primitive and we didn't use it until the early 90's, and even then it was very little compared to today. But today I can surf the Internet while working out.0 -
I remember my dad showing me a computer in the 70s. It took up the whole damn room. And the old dot matrix printer with it's giant paper, spelling out letters using letters. He made it print my name and I hung the thing up on my bulletin board, it seemed that cool to have a machine printing out my name.
0 -
0
-
This content has been removed.
-
There are obviously problems with self-report as a primary data source, that's a fair criticism, but it's unavoidable with studies of that scale. Most researchers understand this.
I haven't read the original study, so I don't know whether with "leisure activities" these guys are simply broadly describing activities they've more carefully defined within the paper itself for the purposes of summary. I'm sure they were more specific than that.0 -
I'm *sure* NEAT is an important factor.0
-
soulofgrace wrote: »The numbers here are all taken from self reported data. How reliable can that possibly be?
Bingo.
Plus what Caitwn said above.0 -
-
I'm *sure* NEAT is an important factor.
Work has changed too, less physical work and lighter weights being handled. Cars with power steering used to be unusual, etc etc.
I have yet to see a study that balances the obesity / food / activity / exertion equation to any satisfactory degree. The amount of food sold, logged, made etc doesn't appear to happily correlate with obesity, so some papers say "it must be less exercise" and then a Professor of Sports Science writes in and shows his data that activity hasn't changed much and so it rolls on.....
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Yeah, reporting on these stories is generally terrible.
Self-reporting is really a problematic source, especially when trying to compare periods so far apart.
Back when I first started thinking about losing weight in the early '00s, I was trying to figure out how many calories I should be eating (I ended up not calorie counting), and read that I should reduce current intake by 500. But I had zero idea of current intake, I realize. I found something that had you basically log a typical day, but I realized I had no typical day--it varied so much.
Many of the changes since the '80s that I see are likely to make the average person eat more without realizing they are: more restaurant meals or eating out/picking up food, and lots more snacking, especially. I was either a kid or in college through the '80s, so can't directly compare, but I don't recall people routinely eating throughout the day like people do today. Also, there were a lot fewer high cal beverages that people drank constantly--coffee wouldn't be super high cal, I really do think people drank soda in more reasonable quantities or not that much at all, energy drinks weren't a think, so on. Also serving sizes getting ever bigger.
So my bet is that along with us as a society eating a lot more calories is that we aren't conscious of eating more and underestimate more.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.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing (although I recall leg warmers as a weird fashion trend unconnected with fitness, from my jr high years, if memory serves). Just think of something like Ruthless People, with the whole kidnapped Bette Midler works out a lot and gets sexy and happy (heh, I really have not see that ridiculous movie since it was in the theater, but it sticks in my mind).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!"
Yup.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.
My mom didn't count, but she had a counting book, and lots of other diet books.I don't remember the 60s or anything before that, but I'm sure those women had their stuff they did, too.
There's this UK show Supersizers Go where they pretend to eat (and do some other things) like it's a different period for a week. The 1920s one has a lot about weight loss efforts.
My dad was really into running in the '80s (and also had a Nordic Track, I think that was the '80s). He was never fat, so it wasn't directly about weight loss, but I'm sure it was partly about staying in shape. Oddly enough, I remember Mike Royko columns making fun of joggers too -- I think jogging outside was seen as a little weird then vs. now, but maybe that was more the 70s, not sure.
Oh, and can't forget Richard Simmons!
Oh, right, one other memory. In high school a friend of mine got freaked out when she saw her mom had bought "Jane Fonda's pregnancy workout" on, I assume, VHS. (She was worried her mom was pregnant, of course.) Turned out the mother was not, but had just decided that would be easier and thought the regular would be too hard.0 -
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.
When I was a little kid, I loved playing with that clicker thing!!! I never even realized what its purpose was until reading this! I just thought it was some random gadget my Mom left around on the kitchen table sometimes. I'm really glad that I grew up before the age of the internet. It was probably from Weight Watchers, I remember when my Mom joined that for awhile and went to meetings once a week.
As wonderful as the internet can be, it often feels like a challenge to get a kid away from it. I have to take my kid outside to get him on his bike. When I was his age, my parents couldn't keep me off of mine. I actually still have it. Pink Huffy with a basket and a banana seat. Sparkly streamers on the handle bars.
I do remember a lot of fitness stuff from the 80s. Our local YMCA had a lot of aerobics classes. My Mom had Jane Fonda's big, hardcover, glossy-photo-ed Jazzercize book, I remember thinking it was so easy. When leg warmers briefly became a fashion thing, I loved that, because I had so many pairs from years of ballet classes. And then there was Richard Simmons, I think he had a cooking/fitness show.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
justrollme wrote: »And then there was Richard Simmons, I think he had a cooking/fitness show.
He had an exercise show (with GLITTER!) and videos - you might remember hearing the title "Sweatin' With the Oldies". That may have been his most well-known video series.
I had a friend then who was overweight, and really struggling with coming out as a gay man. He wrote Richard Simmons multiple times. And Simmons replied to him every single time with support and encouragement.
He has a special place in my heart.
https://youtu.be/yAOy4KggUTc?t=10
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://youtube.com/embed/yAOy4KggUTc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I'm going to draw on my 80s slang and say: well, that is awesome. I do remember that video!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I was recommending Richard Simmons to my granddaughter this past week. If I were ever to work out in front of a video, there's no-one I'd rather be on the trip with me than little Mr. Simmons. It's like he knows how hard it is.0
-
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 -
This content has been removed.
-
Did the study take into account the change in BMI charts? People who were a "normal" weight 5 years ago are now "overweight" according to the current chart.
And how can you blame portion sizing if the people in the study are eating the same amount of calories now as they did then?0 -
I still have to read the study, but it doesn't surprise me that human bodies evolve over time and some factors may contribute to how we utilize the nutrients that go in our body, but it's still how many calories you eat that determines if you gain or lose weight.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »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.
.svg/2000px-PiratesVsTemp(en).svg.png)
0 -
And how can you blame portion sizing if the people in the study are eating the same amount of calories now as they did then?
The study is depending on self-reported dietary intake. Like "a glass of orange juice". Does "a glass of orange juice" look the same today as it did in 1980? That's where I think self-perception of portion sizes may have gradually up-sized over the years.
Even better, let's take "one muffin"
Or "one muffin"
0 -
soulofgrace wrote: »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.
If they are taking from self-reported data then I agree that the numbers are not accurate. I didn't read the link, but really how many people are honestly going to say they're eating more now than they did in the 80s? Many people are in denial and are going to say they're eating the same and exercising the same so something else has to be the reason they can't lose weight.
Also - as many have mentioned, the portion sizes have really increased in that amount of time. So sure, someone may say I'm only eating one hamburger but the size of the hamburger (weight) may have changed, the other ingredients in it might have changed, the hamburger bun has changed . . . . we may think we're only eating the one hamburger but the amount of calories in that one hamburger has more than likely gone up and I'm pretty sure lots of people are still in denial about that.0 -
CasperNaegle wrote: »I still have to read the study, but it doesn't surprise me that human bodies evolve over time and some factors may contribute to how we utilize the nutrients that go in our body, but it's still how many calories you eat that determines if you gain or lose weight.
Not sure you mean the term evolve.0 -
Another thing to keep in mind is that correlation does not equal causation. It would be just as simple to state that there are far more hybrid cars now than in the '80s, so hybrid cars cause obesity. Or that people drink more energy drinks now than then, so energy drinks are the cause of obesity. While both may be valid correlations, there's no evidence actually linking them to causation.
Obtuse correlations aside, there are some things that we do know:
1) Caloric intake in excess of expenditure causes weight gain.
2) Being more sedentary reduces caloric expenditure.
3) We, as a society, are far more sedentary now than ever before.
4) We, as a society, are far more obese now than ever before.
It's said that "you can't out-exercise a bad diet". While that may be true, when both exercise and NEAT plummet, it makes a significant difference in our overall caloric balances. Combine that reduction of expenditure with an increase in portion sizes/intake and voila.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing (although I recall leg warmers as a weird fashion trend unconnected with fitness, from my jr high years, if memory serves).
Can confirm, I wasn't in school yet but I wanted *all of* the legwarmers (which were readily available) and had at least one pair (with glitter) and it was completely normal to wear them around. Or I thought so.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