Easier to lose in the 80s?
Options
Replies
-
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions