Easier to lose in the 80s?
Replies
-
And why would the pressure be towards metabolism being more efficient (that's what the study would imply, taken at face value). If calories are plentiful, we'd see more people evolving to Tex sizes to make use of them.DeguelloTex wrote: »
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 -
fatbottomgirl930 wrote: »Maybe it's the 10-14% increase in carbs.
It said same calories, same protein and same fat, so wouldn't that be impossible? .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?
I could answer all those pretty accurately, but it would leave out a good bit of what I eat and not give any sense of calories, I don't think.0 -
I think this is very interesting and brings up some very good points. So many things have changed in our lifestyles and environments since the 80's. It's mind boggling really.0
-
Well if it's even real (not sure how we know the same amount of calories were consumed) I have no clue what would be the impetus would be. I agree the timeline is pretty suppressed and it's not likely.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-27067615
Yeah, but a lot more outside those few key areas.0 -
Y'all should be so lucky as to have me as your evolutionary vanguard.
And why would the pressure be towards metabolism being more efficient (that's what the study would imply, taken at face value). If calories are plentiful, we'd see more people evolving to Tex sizes to make use of them.DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
But, yeah, that's what I was getting at with the impetus question: given more than plentiful calories, why would we evolve to be able to use them even more efficiently? So that's one more in the agreement column, despite my appalling mistake regarding Greek philosophers.0 -
@Need2Exerc1se , we've certainly got a lot more media exposure to potential toxins and pollutants, but make your case that we have more today. DDT used to be spread liberally around our environment here in North America. It still is in the tropics, because, frankly, Malaria is worse.
PCB's aren't terribly toxic but they are terribly durable. It's their durability that makes them hazardous to the environment. They're deucedly hard to get out.0 -
@Need2Exerc1se , we've certainly got a lot more media exposure to potential toxins and pollutants, but make your case that we have more today. DDT used to be spread liberally around our environment here in North America. It still is in the tropics, because, frankly, Malaria is worse.
PCB's aren't terribly toxic but they are terribly durable. It's their durability that makes them hazardous to the environment. They're deucedly hard to get out.
I'm not just talking pesticides. I'm talking everything. Food, water, air, soil, clothing, medications, hygiene products, cosmetics, building matericals, etc. All of it.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....
One of the possibilities given was increase in prescription drugs. We have lots and lots of threads about losing weight while on drugs that are known to increase appetite. No one suggests that this means one should stop trying.
No one ever suggests seriously that anyone should stop trying. We often say that some circumstances make weight loss more challenging, but never impossible.
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....
::huh:: Why would it being legitimate be reason to stop trying?? How does that make any sense?0 -
To be fair, my name started as a mistake about Greek philosophers that I eventually corrected my father about - in naming me Seneca, his history notes for Western Civ referred to him as a Greek, rather than Roman philosopher. 16 years later I corrected him on it. Being able to correct people on Greek philosophy every 16 years or so seems short compensation for being several inches shorter than average. Not to mention, you've clearly evolved about philosophy, but I'm not about to evolve in height.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Y'all should be so lucky as to have me as your evolutionary vanguard.
And why would the pressure be towards metabolism being more efficient (that's what the study would imply, taken at face value). If calories are plentiful, we'd see more people evolving to Tex sizes to make use of them.DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
But, yeah, that's what I was getting at with the impetus question: given more than plentiful calories, why would we evolve to be able to use them even more efficiently? So that's one more in the agreement column, despite my appalling mistake regarding Greek philosophers.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »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....
One of the possibilities given was increase in prescription drugs. We have lots and lots of threads about losing weight while on drugs that are known to increase appetite. No one suggests that this means one should stop trying.
No one ever suggests seriously that anyone should stop trying. We often say that some circumstances make weight loss more challenging, but never impossible.
Except as the research claims equal calories and exercise, it would imply equal appetite.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-27067615
Good point. But as I was born in the 70's, perhaps it's a delayed result overall? If, again, it's even accurate. I tend to think there is some effect due to some rodents studies.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@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?
I could answer all those pretty accurately, but it would leave out a good bit of what I eat and not give any sense of calories, I don't think.
I also answered accurately ( with 15 " no never"s ), but feel that most of what I actually eat is missing.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »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....
One of the possibilities given was increase in prescription drugs. We have lots and lots of threads about losing weight while on drugs that are known to increase appetite. No one suggests that this means one should stop trying.
No one ever suggests seriously that anyone should stop trying. We often say that some circumstances make weight loss more challenging, but never impossible.
Except as the research claims equal calories and exercise, it would imply equal appetite.
If it is medications, then it's possible that fat isn't the only issue. Many medications can cause chronic water retention.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm not just talking pesticides. I'm talking everything. Food, water, air, soil, clothing, medications, hygiene products, cosmetics, building matericals, etc. All of it.
I gave a couple examples where I know we have far less in the environment than we did in the past; especially since the eighties! I suggest there's less in the food, water, air, soil, clothing, medications, hygiene products, cosmetics, and building materials. As toxins are found out they are removed from our supplies and regulations are tightened up. If you are suggesting there's more, give me examples.
Heck, we have entire business lines that work hard to be free of added chemicals, like the Body Shop and Trader Joe's. In the eighties we had sprayable cheese.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm not just talking pesticides. I'm talking everything. Food, water, air, soil, clothing, medications, hygiene products, cosmetics, building matericals, etc. All of it.
I gave a couple examples where I know we have far less in the environment than we did in the past; especially since the eighties! I suggest there's less in the food, water, air, soil, clothing, medications, hygiene products, cosmetics, and building materials. As toxins are found out they are removed from our supplies and regulations are tightened up. If you are suggesting there's more, give me examples.
Heck, we have entire business lines that work hard to be free of added chemicals, like the Body Shop and Trader Joe's. In the eighties we had sprayable cheese.
In addition to the potential delay (as with carcinogens, it takes a while for the exposure to show up in statistics) many past pollutants remain long after they're banned, built up in air, soil, water, and in us.
The number of toxins a baby is exposed to before birth is horrifying. And many of those have been banned for awhile, as I recall.0 -
Here's an example where testing and discovery is reducing the toxins in environment. A new way of treating railroad ties.
http://msucares.com/news/print/fwnews/fw10/100722.html
Borate
http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/reregistration/cca/borates.htm
Creosote
https://www.ec.gc.ca/toxiques-toxics/Default.asp?lang=En&n=5018787E-1
Creosote was added to the toxic substances list in 1999.
I'm interested in this one as our house has looked out on an empty lot for thirty years, the location of an old railroad tie treatment plant that burned down. The groundwater's been tested for years and it has just been cleared for redevelopment.0 -
@Azuriaz on that list would be PCB's and DDT because these chemicals are VERY sturdy.They just build and build. The herbicides we use today have a very short half-life so they don't build up. Which is why we work so hard not to get the first sort of chemical in the environment in the first place. But in and of themselves, they're not that toxic.0
-
I'd say it was easier to lose weight temporarily in the 80s due to the explosion of fad diets and the emphasis and attention given to them. Fad diets were almost in every magazine and TV ad. Children were much more active back then, too.0
-
@Azuriaz on that list would be PCB's and DDT because these chemicals are VERY sturdy.They just build and build. The herbicides we use today have a very short half-life so they don't build up. Which is why we work so hard not to get the first sort of chemical in the environment in the first place. But in and of themselves, they're not that toxic.
I've read a little about body burden and the worries about cumulative effects of chemicals that aren't in and of themselves so bad, but might be part of the whole that adds up to really bad. I don't know enough about it to get into depth, but it's a worrisome concept.
We might be doing better than we did, but it's clear we don't know enough and we aren't doing enough. Pardon the very slogany sound of that, but it's true.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »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....
One of the possibilities given was increase in prescription drugs. We have lots and lots of threads about losing weight while on drugs that are known to increase appetite. No one suggests that this means one should stop trying.
No one ever suggests seriously that anyone should stop trying. We often say that some circumstances make weight loss more challenging, but never impossible.
Except as the research claims equal calories and exercise, it would imply equal appetite.
Some drugs are theorized to have metabolic effects. I don't think it's really possible to talk about that without getting into the pharmacokinetics of particular drugs. It's not impossible, in principle, for a drug to affect the CO part of the equation0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »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....
One of the possibilities given was increase in prescription drugs. We have lots and lots of threads about losing weight while on drugs that are known to increase appetite. No one suggests that this means one should stop trying.
No one ever suggests seriously that anyone should stop trying. We often say that some circumstances make weight loss more challenging, but never impossible.
exactly0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »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....
One of the possibilities given was increase in prescription drugs. We have lots and lots of threads about losing weight while on drugs that are known to increase appetite. No one suggests that this means one should stop trying.
No one ever suggests seriously that anyone should stop trying. We often say that some circumstances make weight loss more challenging, but never impossible.
Except as the research claims equal calories and exercise, it would imply equal appetite.
Some drugs are theorized to have metabolic effects. I don't think it's really possible to talk about that without getting into the pharmacokinetics of particular drugs. It's not impossible, in principle, for a drug to affect the CO part of the equation
Kshama's comment specifically referred to increased appetite from drugs. Few drugs markedly impact metabolism themselves, and it could be a wash between them raising our lowering them depending on which. I know birth control pills are often complained about (which they probably do impact appetite) but oddly evidence says they probably mildly increase metabolism.
Though now I do consider an oddball factor would be pregnancy / birth rate. Pregnancy involves increasing calorie burn for the same BMI and I believe pregnancy rates are down. Not sure if the survey data asked about pregnancy, nor do I think it has the significance to be a mechanism.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"
I used to get one of those huge muffins every Sunday when I worked an early shift. Chocolate chip and it had these huge pieces of sugar granules on top that made it slightly crunchy.... I'd get one of those and a donut - not a little one but a big apple fritter size one. Crazy. I probably ate my whole day's worth of calories in that breakfast. I had no idea. It was delicious and cheap - less than $2. This was back in the mid-90ies.
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