Easier to lose in the 80s?
Replies
-
acorsaut89 wrote: »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.
I haven't looked at the study, just the conclusions, but at the very least I believe they are taking the self-reported data from the 1980's from contemporary studies. That is, people were interviewed in the 1980's about how many calories they are consuming. Not making old ladies like me remember what we had for breakfast back then.
Even so, our perceptions, as you point out so well, may have changed quite a bit. What does "a burger" look like now compared to then? Or a "cup of coffee"? How much cream do we put in these days?0 -
They analysed the results from the " National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES)"
Here's contemporary questions, starting on page 15. All self-reported.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_13_14/DBQ_H.pdf
More questions, listed down the side:
http://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/2009-2010/DTQ_F.htm
0 -
I counted calories in the 70's and 80's. I had Jane Fonda's audio cassette tapes, I couldn't afford the VCR tapes, back in those days a tape could cost more than I made in a month. I lost weight when I was at a deficit, just like I do today. I just don't have to eat tuna and green beans for dinner every night. I remember eating a hamburger and fries for lunch, because it looked so good, knowing that I wouldn't be able to eat the rest of the day, if I didn't want to exceed my calorie limit. It was in the 90's and 2000's when I said,"Oh, screw it, I am going to eat all the food." And I did and now here I am losing decades worth of weight in 2015.0
-
acorsaut89 wrote: »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.
I haven't looked at the study, just the conclusions, but at the very least I believe they are taking the self-reported data from the 1980's from contemporary studies. That is, people were interviewed in the 1980's about how many calories they are consuming. Not making old ladies like me remember what we had for breakfast back then.
Even so, our perceptions, as you point out so well, may have changed quite a bit. What does "a burger" look like now compared to then? Or a "cup of coffee"? How much cream do we put in these days?
Ha ha that makes sense . . . it wouldn't be super beneficial - I don't think - to ask people what they ate 30+ years ago - I couldn't even tell you what I ate 3 months ago. I mean I could guess and then go check my log but without a log, I couldn't tell you. I just know that even now if someone I know eats something they claim is "healthy" (and I hate it when people do the healthy vs. bad . . . but that's another story for another thread lol) and I sit down with them and figure out how many calories they actually just ate and then I show them how much food I can get in for the same worth of calories and they flip out. But it just goes to show there's a lot of people out there who truly, honestly (and maybe just by not being educated on it) really don't know what they're eating. And when you don't know what you're eating but trying to guess calories . . . you could be really off. And even if you're just off by like 200 or 300, they definitely add up. There are a lot of contributing factors to why obesity is so high for sure, but over eating (and not understanding what we eat) has to be among the top.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?
Because the only way we know how much people are eating is self reporting.
If portion sizing changes and larger sizes seem normal, people may be underestimating what they eat even more than before.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.
With a mini skirt.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
We also know what is made and sold, so we have a maximum figure from that.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
We also know what is made and sold, so we have a maximum figure from that.
But that evidence shows a tremendous increase in calories consumed.0 -
Is this a serious thread? Just seems like an excuse to me.
If anything.... It's easier? Would you like to count calories by scrolling through a book? No thanks Jeff.....0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
With a mini skirt.
LOL I don't think my mom would have let me, probably with a "princess" outfit, who the hell knows lol
I did however have a ton of plastic bangles and jelly shoes0 -
boomshakalaka911 wrote: »Is this a serious thread? Just seems like an excuse to me.
No, I saw the article and thought I'd share it. Excuse for/by whom?0 -
boomshakalaka911 wrote: »Is this a serious thread? Just seems like an excuse to me.
No, I saw the article and thought I'd share it. Excuse for/by whom?
For anyone who believes this is legitimate and decides to stop trying....
0 -
boomshakalaka911 wrote: »Is this a serious thread? Just seems like an excuse to me.
If anything.... It's easier? Would you like to count calories by scrolling through a book? No thanks Jeff.....
Ha, that's true, I'm sure. MFP etc is great and there's (I think) a lot more knowledge about successful weight loss out there and potentially available to people these days.
But there is something different in our circumstances today than there was in the past, that's all. I think the "less NEAT" and "wonky portion sizes skewing our perceptions" explanations could account for the 10% or whatever difference in weight, that makes sense to me. The researchers were just speculating on causes, they only found a correlation.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
We also know what is made and sold, so we have a maximum figure from that.
How can that be? I don't think my family has ever reported how much beef, pork, poultry, eggs, raw milk, sweet corn, potatoes, tomatoes, watermelon, cantaloupe, grapes, cucumbers, peas, cabbage, lettuce, etc. we harvest and consumed, plus the fish, squirrel, rabbit, venison, and other wild game we consumed.0 -
boomshakalaka911 wrote: »boomshakalaka911 wrote: »Is this a serious thread? Just seems like an excuse to me.
No, I saw the article and thought I'd share it. Excuse for/by whom?
For anyone who believes this is legitimate and decides to stop trying....
I don't see the danger you're seeing, really0 -
boomshakalaka911 wrote: »boomshakalaka911 wrote: »Is this a serious thread? Just seems like an excuse to me.
No, I saw the article and thought I'd share it. Excuse for/by whom?
For anyone who believes this is legitimate and decides to stop trying....
I don't see the danger you're seeing, really
Cool.0 -
Hey, @daniwilford I found the questions of the sample interviewees to be quite comprehensive and should encompass everything they would have eaten in the past thirty days. As best they could recall it. Of course nobody was weighing their food.
With some slick statistical extrapolation they might take the interviewee's stated food intake and compare against the food production for that year. In the eighties and again now. Adjusted for population of course.0 -
There are significantly lower numbers of family farms now than 40 years ago. There are just too many variables for this study to be reliable.Hey, @daniwilford I found the questions of the sample interviewees to be quite comprehensive and should encompass everything they would have eaten in the past thirty days. As best they could recall it. Of course nobody was weighing their food.
With some slick statistical extrapolation they might take the interviewee's stated food intake and compare against the food production for that year. In the eighties and again now. Adjusted for population of course.
0 -
daniwilford wrote: »
There are significantly lower numbers of family farms now than 40 years ago. There are just too many variables for this study to be reliable.Hey, @daniwilford I found the questions of the sample interviewees to be quite comprehensive and should encompass everything they would have eaten in the past thirty days. As best they could recall it. Of course nobody was weighing their food.
With some slick statistical extrapolation they might take the interviewee's stated food intake and compare against the food production for that year. In the eighties and again now. Adjusted for population of course.
Well, they found a correlation in the datasets they used, that is probably a finding that could be replicated (so is reliable).
0 -
How about "valid" instead, then?
GIGO.0 -
Hey, @daniwilford I found the questions of the sample interviewees to be quite comprehensive and should encompass everything they would have eaten in the past thirty days. As best they could recall it. Of course nobody was weighing their food.
With some slick statistical extrapolation they might take the interviewee's stated food intake and compare against the food production for that year. In the eighties and again now. Adjusted for population of course.
If I could get stupid Firefox to open pdfs I'd check those questions out. Thank you for finding them, I'm interested in reading them and will. (I just have to click over to Safari really lol)0 -
It is easier than ever to calorie count. The problem is it is a study of people not calorie counting. If we could reliably show between now and the 1980s people at the same BMI eat less calories or do more exercise based on actual verified intake and output, I'd be rather amazed and interested in what possible explanation there is.boomshakalaka911 wrote: »boomshakalaka911 wrote: »Is this a serious thread? Just seems like an excuse to me.
No, I saw the article and thought I'd share it. Excuse for/by whom?
For anyone who believes this is legitimate and decides to stop trying....
0 -
@tomatoey my second link lists the questions down the side....not PDF. Here's the list.
DTD010Q - How often eat cold or hot cereal?
DTD030Q - How often drink milk or on cereal?
DTD040Q - How often drink regular soft drinks?
DTD050Q - How often drink 100% fruit juice?
DTD060Q - How often drink sweetened coffee/tea?
DTD070Q - How often drink fruit/sports/energy?
DTD080Q - How often eat fruit?
DTD090Q - How often eat leafy/lettuce salad?
DTD100Q - How often eat fried potatoes?
DTD110Q - How often eat non-fried potatoes?
DTD120Q - How often eat beans?
DTD130Q - How often eat other vegetables?
DTD140Q - How often eat pizza?
DTD150Q - How often eat tomato-based salsa?
DTD160Q - How often eat tomato sauce?
DTD170Q - How often eat red meat?
DTD180Q - How often eat processed meat?
DTD190Q - How often eat cheese?
DTD200Q - How often eat whole grain bread?
DTD210Q - How often eat cooked whole grains?
DTD220Q - How often eat chocolate or candy?
DTD230Q - How often eat pastries?
DTD240Q - How often eat cookies/cake?
DTD250Q - How often eat ice cream?
DTD260Q - How often eat popcorn?
DTDCER - #Cereals reported/past month
DTQ020a - Cereal 1 most often eaten
DTQ020b - Cereal 2 most often eaten
It seems to go on forever but on second look there's a lot missing. Where's chicken? Fish?0 -
-
Funny @SingRunTing . The researchers tapped in to a survey and database that has been asking consistent questions for many, many years. It is obvious from the questions that these are the sorts of things a government may want to know about how it's people are eating, but it's not nearly the same as a food diary. And even a food diary is self-reporting prone to error.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.
No that is exactly what I meant.. why the ?0 -
Timescale is my guess.CasperNaegle wrote: »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.
No that is exactly what I meant.. why the ?
0 -
CasperNaegle wrote: »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.
No that is exactly what I meant.. why the ?
Bodies do not evolve, they adapt. Populations evolve, and for ones with a human breeding time, they don't do so in the space of 30 years. And obesity isn't even something evolution can do much with. Rarely do individuals have obesity related health issues remove them from the breeding pool - most of the issues hit at ages when people have usually stopped breeding.0 -
Well I'm not talking about moving from Australopithecus to Homo.. I'm talking about the body utilizing calories differently. That may not even be what happened, but if it did it wouldn't surprise me.0
-
In basically two generations? It would surprise me greatly.CasperNaegle wrote: »Well I'm not talking about moving from Australopithecus to Homo.. I'm talking about the body utilizing calories differently. That may not even be what happened, but if it did it wouldn't surprise me.
What would be the impetus, let alone how genes would change in unison so quickly.
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