Easier to lose in the 80s?

Options
1234568»

Replies

  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Azuriaz
    Azuriaz Posts: 785 Member
    Options
    jgnatca wrote: »
    @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.
  • tomatoey
    tomatoey Posts: 5,446 Member
    Options
    senecarr wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    boomshakalaka911 wrote: »
    tomatoey 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
  • tomatoey
    tomatoey Posts: 5,446 Member
    Options
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    boomshakalaka911 wrote: »
    tomatoey 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.

    exactly
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    tomatoey wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    boomshakalaka911 wrote: »
    tomatoey 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.
  • zdyb23456
    zdyb23456 Posts: 1,706 Member
    Options
    jgnatca wrote: »
    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"
    homemade-mini-muffins-454.jpg

    Or "one muffin"
    img_5736.jpg

    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.

Categories