Why are we bigger than ever?
Replies
-
snowflake954 wrote: »Portion sizes are huge in the States. Free refills on soft drinks, and "all you can eat" buffets are changes that I notice when I go back to the USA to visit.
+1
It's astounding how much food you can get in a meal in the US. We did a 6 week tour of the US in 2012 and put on enough weight that we were motivated to join a gym when we got back to Canada, for the month we were in Canada.
Here in Australia, a large soft drink is about the size of a US medium.
If restaurants and fast food places were to drop the size of their meals and drinks by 1/3, that would probably make a difference.
No. There are gazillons of places that offer tiny meals or low calories items. They make little difference. People just order more. Do your research.
It's the economy. Commodities are getting cheaper and easier to produce.
Obesity is also happening in so called third world countries that are expanding economically.
While this may sound bad, longevity in the US is highest ever.
0 -
Food marketing. The way food is marketed is so out of step with the amount of calories we can have in order to not be obese, it's stunning. You pretty much have to swim upstream against American food culture in order to be remotely healthy.0
-
ilovefastcarstoo wrote: »I also feel like we make food the center of entertainment and many options aren't very healthy. Now that I'm actually counting calories it's insane how much I used to actually eat for one meal. I feel fine after what I eat now. It's like my stomach has shrank and I can be satiated with way less amount of food. It's nice. I was also thinking about how some say it's too expensive to eat healthier but I also see people spend a lot on just one meal because they eat so much.
Food has been at the center of entertainment and enjoyment since forever...it's nothing new. The obesity epidemic isn't a result of "entertaining"...it's not a result of someone having people over for a BBQ or holidays or birthdays or other special occasions. The obesity epidemic is a result of people stuffing their faces all of the time...like constantly.
Food is more abundant and accessible than ever...on top of that, there's a ton of low nutrient, high calorie foods out there that can be consumed in mass quantities because of their low satiety values. When I was a kid, these types of things were actually "treats"...they are seemingly a much more significant part of one's diet these days.
When I was a kid, sodas and such were a "treat"...they weren't a daily beverage...now, it seems pretty common to see people walking around with super sized sodas to wash down their triple cheese bacon burger and enormous side of fries before heading back to the office to open their "stash" drawer of junk to snack on for the rest of the afternoon.
When I was younger, dining out seemed to be more of an occasion...I know people now who eat out pretty much 2-3 meals per day and rarely cook at home...then you add to that the fact that restaurant portions of food are considerably larger than they were 20-30-50 years ago.
Then you have to consider how much less active we are as a society. We sit, and sit, and sit some more. We sit in our cars commuting to our offices where we sit some more for long hour behind a desk...and then we get in the car and sit on our commute home...and when we get home we sit on the couch and scroll through a billion satellite channels. Kids sit around watching t.v. and playing video games rather than playing outside and riding their bikes around the neighborhood. Families spend less time together doing recreational activities...it's easier to just turn on the Netflix...etc, etc, etc.
I also think people used to participate in more recreational activities than I see now...maybe it was just my parents and the people they hung out with or something, but it seemed like my parents were always off playing tennis with their friends or my dad was at the gym with his buddies for some racket ball or whatever. As a family we spent a lot of time hiking in the mountains or out riding our bikes...shooting hoops in the driveway with pops, etc. I don't see a lot of that anymore.
TL/DR - People sit around all day stuffing their pie holes and they don't move much.0 -
I tend to think that is more so related to health care access, not so much because of the food.endlessfall16 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Portion sizes are huge in the States. Free refills on soft drinks, and "all you can eat" buffets are changes that I notice when I go back to the USA to visit.
+1
It's astounding how much food you can get in a meal in the US. We did a 6 week tour of the US in 2012 and put on enough weight that we were motivated to join a gym when we got back to Canada, for the month we were in Canada.
Here in Australia, a large soft drink is about the size of a US medium.
If restaurants and fast food places were to drop the size of their meals and drinks by 1/3, that would probably make a difference.
No. There are gazillons of places that offer tiny meals or low calories items. They make little difference. People just order more. Do your research.
It's the economy. Commodities are getting cheaper and easier to produce.
Obesity is also happening in so called third world countries that are expanding economically.
While this may sound bad, longevity in the US is highest ever.
0 -
karmelpopcorn wrote: »Food marketing. The way food is marketed is so out of step with the amount of calories we can have in order to not be obese, it's stunning. You pretty much have to swim upstream against American food culture in order to be remotely healthy.
I respect your opinion, but don't you think this statement is a little much? There are so many comments about the American diet in here, that you'd assume the only obese people in the world are American; there are obese people everywhere.
I live in the US and I don't feel like I have to swim upstream against anything to be healthy. I use my brain to stay fit. I eat a balanced diet and I get activity by exercising daily and walking around often. I may eat grilled chicken and salad one day, but a large pizza and donuts the next day. Then again I live in NYC and I feel like a lot of people here aren't obese. Maybe I'm just in the minority here. I feel like people equate the US to obnoxious people from the midwest or south they see on reality TV shows. The US is not full of Mama Junes.0 -
karmelpopcorn wrote: »Food marketing. The way food is marketed is so out of step with the amount of calories we can have in order to not be obese, it's stunning. You pretty much have to swim upstream against American food culture in order to be remotely healthy.
Is Ronald McDonald holding a gun to people's heads? I don't think so.
0 -
karmelpopcorn wrote: »Food marketing. The way food is marketed is so out of step with the amount of calories we can have in order to not be obese, it's stunning. You pretty much have to swim upstream against American food culture in order to be remotely healthy.
I'm pretty fit and healthy and I don't feel like I'm swimming up stream against American food culture in the least.0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »I disagree that portions are getting bigger. I've been eating fast foods for decades and the portions served in many places have actually shrunk.
Portions, including fast food portions, have objectively gotten larger.
(I don't know why this article was written way in the future.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4798717&page=1
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2013/04/15/are-portion-sizes-shrinking
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/homestyle/04/19/shrinking.your.food/
The "common folks'" feedbacks
http://www.yelp.com/topic/chicago-whats-with-all-the-shrinking-food-portions
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20825325/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/any-other-name-its-still-supersize/
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/serving-sizes-fast-food-changed-1427.html
Here are two of a million articles demonstrating that fast food servings have increased. The "supersize" options did not exist in the 80s. Regular then was small now.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »karmelpopcorn wrote: »Food marketing. The way food is marketed is so out of step with the amount of calories we can have in order to not be obese, it's stunning. You pretty much have to swim upstream against American food culture in order to be remotely healthy.
Is Ronald McDonald holding a gun to people's heads? I don't think so.
The answer to that question is "no"; but the point is trivial.
It doesn't require a weapon to have influence. If marketing did not have an impact, companies wouldn't spend billions on it.
I am not saying that I think this is the sole or even primary cause of the problem. It is, however, part of the narrative.
In order to meet its numbers, Friti Lay (for example) has to get its customers to consume more. Their market penetration is so great that they cannot get the necessary sales growth by finding new customers. So there is a sense in which their objectives are at cross purposes with mine. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. The consumer still has the ultimate responsibility. It just helps me to know what I'm up against, as I make my decisions.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »karmelpopcorn wrote: »Food marketing. The way food is marketed is so out of step with the amount of calories we can have in order to not be obese, it's stunning. You pretty much have to swim upstream against American food culture in order to be remotely healthy.
Is Ronald McDonald holding a gun to people's heads? I don't think so.
The answer to that question is "no"; but the point is trivial.
It doesn't require a weapon to have influence. If marketing did not have an impact, companies wouldn't spend billions on it.
I am not saying that I think this is the sole or even primary cause of the problem. It is, however, part of the narrative.
In order to meet its numbers, Friti Lay (for example) has to get its customers to consume more. Their market penetration is so great that they cannot get the necessary sales growth by finding new customers. So there is a sense in which their objectives are at cross purposes with mine. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. The consumer still has the ultimate responsibility. It just helps me to know what I'm up against, as I make my decisions.
the government once spent billions trying to teach their soldiers ESP powers. It doesn't mean it works, it just means they try to make it work.0 -
Sugar excess it is hidden in too many foods tomato sauce cereals etc plus kids do not play anymore outside it is all sedentary activity. Adults are stuck behind a computer all day does not help either.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »karmelpopcorn wrote: »Food marketing. The way food is marketed is so out of step with the amount of calories we can have in order to not be obese, it's stunning. You pretty much have to swim upstream against American food culture in order to be remotely healthy.
Is Ronald McDonald holding a gun to people's heads? I don't think so.
The answer to that question is "no"; but the point is trivial.
It doesn't require a weapon to have influence. If marketing did not have an impact, companies wouldn't spend billions on it.
I am not saying that I think this is the sole or even primary cause of the problem. It is, however, part of the narrative.
In order to meet its numbers, Friti Lay (for example) has to get its customers to consume more. Their market penetration is so great that they cannot get the necessary sales growth by finding new customers. So there is a sense in which their objectives are at cross purposes with mine. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. The consumer still has the ultimate responsibility. It just helps me to know what I'm up against, as I make my decisions.
the government once spent billions trying to teach their soldiers ESP powers. It doesn't mean it works, it just means they try to make it work.
Companies study the impact of their marketing campaigns. I know from personal experience.
Would you be so kind as to provide the reference for the billions spent on esp? I'd love to read up on that.....0 -
For those that eat at home, habits have changed too. I grew up in a household where a Sunday Roast was still being consumed two or three days later, in a cottage pie, curry, or with chips and then cold in sandwiches on Tuesday or Wednesday. Although a lot of my friends buy joints, or chickens for Sunday its always gone in the same sitting. They just buy more meat for the next day.
Large size chocolate bars were never bought either (unless we had a birthday movie night where we would share one between four or five of us), now its as cheap to buy a sharing bar as an individual.
The habit of keeping leftovers seems to have faded for some people, which means with a bigger portion its either fully consumed, or remains are binned. If I bought a large tin of beans or soup always used to use the lot rather than take one portion and chill the rest. Have now got back into the habit of buying the small tins where possible. Problem is they are only a couple of pence cheaper than the large tins. They never seem to put the single serving tins on offer either.0 -
Billions was a joke. I don't know how much they spent, might have been billions seeing how much money gets pumped into the military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_at_Goats
If memory serves right they also tried to make frisbee grenades once and other funny stuff.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Why are we bigger? Simple answer? An obesogenic environment.
Longer answer?
http://www.bodyforwife.com/what-is-the-solution-to-obesity/
"Long work hours spent in a chair, high stress levels, overuse of screen-based entertainment, lack of cooking skills, lack of desire to cook after a long day, the ability to hit a drive-through or dial for delivery at any time of day, emotional trauma, misinformation promoted by the weight loss industry, gigantic portions, government subsidies to fattening foods, food marketing run amok (much of which specifically targets children), ever tastier concoctions created by brain scientists working for food corporations that makes their treat foods ever more compelling, a society that places emphasis on eating for pleasure instead of fuelling your body … all these things just scratch the surface."
What do we do about it?- Subsidizing the right foods, and taxing the wrong ones
- Placing tighter restrictions on food labeling
- Restricting food advertising to children
- Stop corporate-government partnerships and rein in lobbying
- Revamp home economics in school, and make it mandatory
- Place tighter controls on the weight loss industry
- Stop promoting physical activity as the solution for weight loss
- Create better access to evidence-based weight management programs
- Create national advertising campaigns that promote healthier eating
- Make prejudice against people with obesity against the law
- Create greater access to bariatric surgery
- Continue research into weight loss pharmaceuticals
What do we do right now?
"A good first step is to realize that food corporations and most weight loss programs are lying to you. Any time something sounds too good to be true, it is. When it comes to weight loss, calories are all that matter"
Sorry, big fail on the "what do we do now". All of the "solutions" blame/put the responsibility on others. How about the individual eats less and moves more at the top of the list in red, bolded?
No matter how snarky your response, Orphia is right. Humans are not rational actors who make perfect decisions. Never have been, never will be. It's not about "other people" either - it is about changing social relations, which involve the self as much as the others, as well as cultures, economies, and environments.0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Why are we bigger? Simple answer? An obesogenic environment.
Longer answer?
http://www.bodyforwife.com/what-is-the-solution-to-obesity/
"Long work hours spent in a chair, high stress levels, overuse of screen-based entertainment, lack of cooking skills, lack of desire to cook after a long day, the ability to hit a drive-through or dial for delivery at any time of day, emotional trauma, misinformation promoted by the weight loss industry, gigantic portions, government subsidies to fattening foods, food marketing run amok (much of which specifically targets children), ever tastier concoctions created by brain scientists working for food corporations that makes their treat foods ever more compelling, a society that places emphasis on eating for pleasure instead of fuelling your body … all these things just scratch the surface."
What do we do about it?- Subsidizing the right foods, and taxing the wrong ones
- Placing tighter restrictions on food labeling
- Restricting food advertising to children
- Stop corporate-government partnerships and rein in lobbying
- Revamp home economics in school, and make it mandatory
- Place tighter controls on the weight loss industry
- Stop promoting physical activity as the solution for weight loss
- Create better access to evidence-based weight management programs
- Create national advertising campaigns that promote healthier eating
- Make prejudice against people with obesity against the law
- Create greater access to bariatric surgery
- Continue research into weight loss pharmaceuticals
What do we do right now?
"A good first step is to realize that food corporations and most weight loss programs are lying to you. Any time something sounds too good to be true, it is. When it comes to weight loss, calories are all that matter"
Sorry, big fail on the "what do we do now". All of the "solutions" blame/put the responsibility on others. How about the individual eats less and moves more at the top of the list in red, bolded?
No matter how snarky your response, Orphia is right. Humans are not rational actors who make perfect decisions. Never have been, never will be. It's not about "other people" either - it is about changing social relations, which involve the self as much as the others, as well as cultures, economies, and environments.
Sorry it's not a snarky response. Regardless of all the factors listed, the biggest factor is what people put in their mouths and how much they more (absent a medical condition). To not even list anything regarding personal responsibility to eat less/move more makes the list worthless.
Playing the victim doesn't get most people too far with any endeavor. Eating less and moving more is actionable by the individual, not dependent on public policy, marketing decisions, etc.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »I disagree that portions are getting bigger. I've been eating fast foods for decades and the portions served in many places have actually shrunk.
Portions, including fast food portions, have objectively gotten larger.
(I don't know why this article was written way in the future.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4798717&page=1
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2013/04/15/are-portion-sizes-shrinking
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/homestyle/04/19/shrinking.your.food/
The "common folks'" feedbacks
http://www.yelp.com/topic/chicago-whats-with-all-the-shrinking-food-portions
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20825325/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/any-other-name-its-still-supersize/
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/serving-sizes-fast-food-changed-1427.html
Here are two of a million articles demonstrating that fast food servings have increased. The "supersize" options did not exist in the 80s. Regular then was small now.
McD got rid of its "Supersize" option. On the other hands they keep or add a ton of 1 dollar or cheap items. You are not "forced", in consumerism sense, to get a large option at all. For every one of your claim of increased portion, I could find a countering fact of "downsizing". So, it's not really "objectively" one way like you claimed, is it?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4798717&page=1
Excerpt:
"Restaurants are offering smaller, cheaper portions, but that doesn't mean dainty dining. Instead, people are using smaller dishes as an excuse to add to their orders, spending -- and probably eating -- just as much as before.
T.G.I. Friday's, Quiznos and Au Bon Pain and other "fast-casual" restaurants have introduced smaller, cheaper alternatives to supersize portions. The twist: Diners who order the petite portions are also likely to indulge in an appetizer or dessert."
Regardless, the argument on portion size is not an argument. As I stated before, people just get more if the portion is not enough. Portion size is largely irrelevant.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Why are we bigger? Simple answer? An obesogenic environment.
Longer answer?
http://www.bodyforwife.com/what-is-the-solution-to-obesity/
"Long work hours spent in a chair, high stress levels, overuse of screen-based entertainment, lack of cooking skills, lack of desire to cook after a long day, the ability to hit a drive-through or dial for delivery at any time of day, emotional trauma, misinformation promoted by the weight loss industry, gigantic portions, government subsidies to fattening foods, food marketing run amok (much of which specifically targets children), ever tastier concoctions created by brain scientists working for food corporations that makes their treat foods ever more compelling, a society that places emphasis on eating for pleasure instead of fuelling your body … all these things just scratch the surface."
What do we do about it?- Subsidizing the right foods, and taxing the wrong ones
- Placing tighter restrictions on food labeling
- Restricting food advertising to children
- Stop corporate-government partnerships and rein in lobbying
- Revamp home economics in school, and make it mandatory
- Place tighter controls on the weight loss industry
- Stop promoting physical activity as the solution for weight loss
- Create better access to evidence-based weight management programs
- Create national advertising campaigns that promote healthier eating
- Make prejudice against people with obesity against the law
- Create greater access to bariatric surgery
- Continue research into weight loss pharmaceuticals
What do we do right now?
"A good first step is to realize that food corporations and most weight loss programs are lying to you. Any time something sounds too good to be true, it is. When it comes to weight loss, calories are all that matter"
Sorry, big fail on the "what do we do now". All of the "solutions" blame/put the responsibility on others. How about the individual eats less and moves more at the top of the list in red, bolded?
No matter how snarky your response, Orphia is right. Humans are not rational actors who make perfect decisions. Never have been, never will be. It's not about "other people" either - it is about changing social relations, which involve the self as much as the others, as well as cultures, economies, and environments.
Sorry it's not a snarky response. Regardless of all the factors listed, the biggest factor is what people put in their mouths and how much they more (absent a medical condition). To not even list anything regarding personal responsibility to eat less/move more makes the list worthless.
Playing the victim doesn't get most people too far with any endeavor. Eating less and moving more is actionable by the individual, not dependent on public policy, marketing decisions, etc.
You're both talking past each other because you're viewing different levels of analysis. There are influences at the macro level that definitively correlate far to strongly with changes to be coincidence in terms of affect weight. That does not mean at the micro level that those influences force anyone to do something.
Nobody forces any person to take a salary, but it would anyone say salary is based purely on one's negotiating skills without respect to the skills the job involves, and the demand in the market for those skills?0 -
From the buttermilk fried chicken breast, the mashed potatoes, the homemade gravy, the biscuits, baked three cheese macaroni, collard greens, candy bars, cookies and cream ice cream and shakes, Krispy Kreme donuts, tastykakes, peach cobbler and lemon cake with butter cream icing.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I also think there's a cultural shift. Food was the center of many social activities when I was growing up too ('70s and '80s), but going out to eat/bringing home food was much more rare (it was available, just less relied on), and we were expected to eat nutritious meals (including vegetables) and weren't encouraged to eat things between meals (you'd spoil your dinner). We rarely had pop -- it was a special treat and came in those little half cans. Koolaid was more common, I guess, but I recall drinking it after playing outside for hours in the summer.
"You'll spoil your dinner" - yes! This! I don't think I've heard that from anyone since I was a teenager in the 80s. I feel like 1990 was when I saw big cultural changes about food.
This has been the biggest thing I've noticed in my social circle. When I was a kid, we all ate smaller meals at home with our parents the bulk of the time. I learned how to cook many different dishes from my mum. Every one of my meals at home was "meat and 2 veg" plus a salad. That's how I'm getting back to eating now. By the time I was in college in the 90s, there was the beginning of it being more common to eat out as entertainment. For instance, I remember when I was in college was when the "onion blossom" became a thing in restaurants. GIANT amount of calories, as an appetizer. I never ate anything remotely resembling that when I was a kid.
The people I know who have little kids today feed them constantly. Every little kid has a baggie of cheerios, goldfish crackers, very sweet yogurt in a tube (so you can just drink it), etc. etc. every day, everywhere they go. When I was a kid, any one of those would have been considered an unusual treat.
And then, very soon, the kids start eating fast food - chicken nuggets and french fries. Again, I never ate anything resembling that when I was a kid. My nieces eat fast food a minimum of 7 times a week, no joke. I don't think they know how to cook anything except microwave popcorn.
I can count on one hand the number of times I had fast food growing up. And it was always because someone had a birthday party there. A treat, not a normal meal.
0 -
I definitely think activity levels are much lower for people of all ages, overall. I'm not even very old -- I was born in the late 80s, was a kid in the 90s and a teen in the early 2000s. When I was a kid, I had a Nintendo and a computer, and we had plenty of cable channels. I enjoyed those luxuries, but they were for the after-dark hours when I wasn't allowed to play outside, rainy days, etc. The rest of the time, I was outside, playing with other neighborhood kids. My mom didn't even have to tell me to go outside or "limit" my usage of technology (other than every now and then, ha!) because neither I nor any of the kids I knew really had any desire to be indoors, staring at a screen 24/7.
I think eating out is a big problem. Everyone is always busy and on the go, go, go but is also somehow always sitting. People don't have "time" to cook anymore (I have used that excuse myself many times), but a simple yet healthy meal can be thrown together very quickly. At least when you're cooking, the food labels are available to you, and you're often going to cook something simpler or healthier -- or will prepare the same thing in a healthier way -- by default. Who cooks a half-pound burger and French fries for lunch? Most will just make a sandwich or salad or will heat up some soup.
The one thing that I, personally, don't blame is processed food. Processed food is nothing new. Wasn't it the 50s and 60s when all of those horrid casseroles and other recipes with tons of processed food were first coming out? I certainly think whole, healthy foods are better for you, but I don't see Kraft Mac and Cheese as an enemy...it's about how frequently you eat it and how much of it you eat when you do.
Oh yeah, and the issue of people not seeing things as a "treat" anymore. When I was a kid, my pediatrician's office was right across the street from a McDonald's. If I had to have shots or something like that, my mom would promise me a Happy Meal and a little play time in the "play place' there. It was a rare treat and was fine. Or, my family might go out and get ice cream on a random Saturday every few months...my parents didn't keep a freezer full of ice cream, it was something we ate on birthdays or as a treat. Now, people "treat" themselves so much that "treats" start to seem like normal food while normal food starts to feel like a punishment. I am guilty of this myself but have been working on it.0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »I disagree that portions are getting bigger. I've been eating fast foods for decades and the portions served in many places have actually shrunk.
Portions, including fast food portions, have objectively gotten larger.
(I don't know why this article was written way in the future.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4798717&page=1
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2013/04/15/are-portion-sizes-shrinking
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/homestyle/04/19/shrinking.your.food/
The "common folks'" feedbacks
http://www.yelp.com/topic/chicago-whats-with-all-the-shrinking-food-portions
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20825325/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/any-other-name-its-still-supersize/
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/serving-sizes-fast-food-changed-1427.html
Here are two of a million articles demonstrating that fast food servings have increased. The "supersize" options did not exist in the 80s. Regular then was small now.
McD got rid of its "Supersize" option. On the other hands they keep or add a ton of 1 dollar or cheap items. You are not "forced", in consumerism sense, to get a large option at all. For every one of your claim of increased portion, I could find a countering fact of "downsizing". So, it's not really "objectively" one way like you claimed, is it?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4798717&page=1
Excerpt:
"Restaurants are offering smaller, cheaper portions, but that doesn't mean dainty dining. Instead, people are using smaller dishes as an excuse to add to their orders, spending -- and probably eating -- just as much as before.
T.G.I. Friday's, Quiznos and Au Bon Pain and other "fast-casual" restaurants have introduced smaller, cheaper alternatives to supersize portions. The twist: Diners who order the petite portions are also likely to indulge in an appetizer or dessert."
Regardless, the argument on portion size is not an argument. As I stated before, people just get more if the portion is not enough. Portion size is largely irrelevant.
You're saying it is irrelevant because you're looking at one side only, the side that least matter.
If the portion size is past sufficiency and into excess (as it has become) people may feel eating the whole thing is appropriate and overeat. There was a study once that showed that if a bowl of soup was rigged to keep putting soup back out so that the bowl never seemed empty, people required far more soup to be full than if the bowl was normal. Appetite tends to expand to the calories in front of the eyes.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Sorry, big fail on the "what do we do now". All of the "solutions" blame/put the responsibility on others. How about the individual eats less and moves more at the top of the list in red, bolded?
Some actually make sense, some are crap:
Subsidizing the right foods, and taxing the wrong ones - Not necessarily a bad one. How about looking at it from a corporate level too (i.e. stop the insanely common usage of corn in the US).
Placing tighter restrictions on food labeling - Yes!
Restricting food advertising to children - Yes!
Stop corporate-government partnerships and rein in lobbying - Yes!
Revamp home economics in school, and make it mandatory - Hell Yes! I could not believe how many kids at University (and now that was 20+ years ago) could cook basic healthy meals...
Place tighter controls on the weight loss industry - Yes!
Stop promoting physical activity as the solution for weight loss - No!
Create better access to evidence-based weight management programs - I don't think access is restricted as really it is based on knowledge. There has to be a shift on health in general and promotion of the healthy individual. The very low vacation, almost non-existant manternity/paternity leaves...
Create national advertising campaigns that promote healthier eating - Yes!
Make prejudice against people with obesity against the law - Discrimination is already illegal...but you have to be careful.
Create greater access to bariatric surgery - No!
Continue research into weight loss pharmaceuticals - No! But it will happen.0 -
Sorry, but I am so not into the whole "the government should tax and control unhealthy things." That is not the solution. At all.0
-
endlessfall16 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »I disagree that portions are getting bigger. I've been eating fast foods for decades and the portions served in many places have actually shrunk.
Portions, including fast food portions, have objectively gotten larger.
(I don't know why this article was written way in the future.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4798717&page=1
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2013/04/15/are-portion-sizes-shrinking
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/homestyle/04/19/shrinking.your.food/
The "common folks'" feedbacks
http://www.yelp.com/topic/chicago-whats-with-all-the-shrinking-food-portions
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20825325/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/any-other-name-its-still-supersize/
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/serving-sizes-fast-food-changed-1427.html
Here are two of a million articles demonstrating that fast food servings have increased. The "supersize" options did not exist in the 80s. Regular then was small now.
McD got rid of its "Supersize" option. On the other hands they keep or add a ton of 1 dollar or cheap items. You are not "forced", in consumerism sense, to get a large option at all. For every one of your claim of increased portion, I could find a countering fact of "downsizing". So, it's not really "objectively" one way like you claimed, is it?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4798717&page=1
Excerpt:
"Restaurants are offering smaller, cheaper portions, but that doesn't mean dainty dining. Instead, people are using smaller dishes as an excuse to add to their orders, spending -- and probably eating -- just as much as before.
T.G.I. Friday's, Quiznos and Au Bon Pain and other "fast-casual" restaurants have introduced smaller, cheaper alternatives to supersize portions. The twist: Diners who order the petite portions are also likely to indulge in an appetizer or dessert."
Regardless, the argument on portion size is not an argument. As I stated before, people just get more if the portion is not enough. Portion size is largely irrelevant.
You're saying it is irrelevant because you're looking at one side only, the side that least matter.
If the portion size is past sufficiency and into excess (as it has become) people may feel eating the whole thing is appropriate and overeat. There was a study once that showed that if a bowl of soup was rigged to keep putting soup back out so that the bowl never seemed empty, people required far more soup to be full than if the bowl was normal. Appetite tends to expand to the calories in front of the eyes.
For portion size to matter and relevant it has to be relatively the only choice in town, and you grew up conditioned to eat a particular order/dish portion.
However, reality is that there are more and more choices and variety added every year. More people live in big, diversified cities than ever. I doubt anyone is really stuck to one menu.
I don't know how the soup study figures into this. Were the participants more or less required to eat that soup and only that soup? Or, were they like me who were taught that it was a sin not to finish up your bowl? In which case it has nothing to do with expanded appetite.
0 -
Back to the question what to do to help reduce obesity, the most effective solution may be to hit where it hurts the most -- the pocket/economy/money.
Lower taxes, healthcare costs for healthy people. The positive way of punishing the unhealthy.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Why are we bigger? Simple answer? An obesogenic environment.
Longer answer?
http://www.bodyforwife.com/what-is-the-solution-to-obesity/
"Long work hours spent in a chair, high stress levels, overuse of screen-based entertainment, lack of cooking skills, lack of desire to cook after a long day, the ability to hit a drive-through or dial for delivery at any time of day, emotional trauma, misinformation promoted by the weight loss industry, gigantic portions, government subsidies to fattening foods, food marketing run amok (much of which specifically targets children), ever tastier concoctions created by brain scientists working for food corporations that makes their treat foods ever more compelling, a society that places emphasis on eating for pleasure instead of fuelling your body … all these things just scratch the surface."
What do we do about it?- Subsidizing the right foods, and taxing the wrong ones
- Placing tighter restrictions on food labeling
- Restricting food advertising to children
- Stop corporate-government partnerships and rein in lobbying
- Revamp home economics in school, and make it mandatory
- Place tighter controls on the weight loss industry
- Stop promoting physical activity as the solution for weight loss
- Create better access to evidence-based weight management programs
- Create national advertising campaigns that promote healthier eating
- Make prejudice against people with obesity against the law
- Create greater access to bariatric surgery
- Continue research into weight loss pharmaceuticals
What do we do right now?
"A good first step is to realize that food corporations and most weight loss programs are lying to you. Any time something sounds too good to be true, it is. When it comes to weight loss, calories are all that matter"
Sorry, big fail on the "what do we do now". All of the "solutions" blame/put the responsibility on others. How about the individual eats less and moves more at the top of the list in red, bolded?
No matter how snarky your response, Orphia is right. Humans are not rational actors who make perfect decisions. Never have been, never will be. It's not about "other people" either - it is about changing social relations, which involve the self as much as the others, as well as cultures, economies, and environments.
Sorry it's not a snarky response. Regardless of all the factors listed, the biggest factor is what people put in their mouths and how much they more (absent a medical condition). To not even list anything regarding personal responsibility to eat less/move more makes the list worthless.
Playing the victim doesn't get most people too far with any endeavor. Eating less and moving more is actionable by the individual, not dependent on public policy, marketing decisions, etc.
You're both talking past each other because you're viewing different levels of analysis. There are influences at the macro level that definitively correlate far to strongly with changes to be coincidence in terms of affect weight. That does not mean at the micro level that those influences force anyone to do something.
Nobody forces any person to take a salary, but it would anyone say salary is based purely on one's negotiating skills without respect to the skills the job involves, and the demand in the market for those skills?
At the macro level most developed countries are taking in more calories and burning less than they were 20-30 years ago.
Many factors, but you have to agree, assuming some personal responsibility along with blaming "them" is needed.0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »I disagree that portions are getting bigger. I've been eating fast foods for decades and the portions served in many places have actually shrunk.
Portions, including fast food portions, have objectively gotten larger.
(I don't know why this article was written way in the future.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4798717&page=1
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2013/04/15/are-portion-sizes-shrinking
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/homestyle/04/19/shrinking.your.food/
The "common folks'" feedbacks
http://www.yelp.com/topic/chicago-whats-with-all-the-shrinking-food-portions
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20825325/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/any-other-name-its-still-supersize/
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/serving-sizes-fast-food-changed-1427.html
Here are two of a million articles demonstrating that fast food servings have increased. The "supersize" options did not exist in the 80s. Regular then was small now.
McD got rid of its "Supersize" option. On the other hands they keep or add a ton of 1 dollar or cheap items. You are not "forced", in consumerism sense, to get a large option at all. For every one of your claim of increased portion, I could find a countering fact of "downsizing". So, it's not really "objectively" one way like you claimed, is it?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4798717&page=1
Excerpt:
"Restaurants are offering smaller, cheaper portions, but that doesn't mean dainty dining. Instead, people are using smaller dishes as an excuse to add to their orders, spending -- and probably eating -- just as much as before.
T.G.I. Friday's, Quiznos and Au Bon Pain and other "fast-casual" restaurants have introduced smaller, cheaper alternatives to supersize portions. The twist: Diners who order the petite portions are also likely to indulge in an appetizer or dessert."
Regardless, the argument on portion size is not an argument. As I stated before, people just get more if the portion is not enough. Portion size is largely irrelevant.
You're saying it is irrelevant because you're looking at one side only, the side that least matter.
If the portion size is past sufficiency and into excess (as it has become) people may feel eating the whole thing is appropriate and overeat. There was a study once that showed that if a bowl of soup was rigged to keep putting soup back out so that the bowl never seemed empty, people required far more soup to be full than if the bowl was normal. Appetite tends to expand to the calories in front of the eyes.
For portion size to matter and relevant it has to be relatively the only choice in town, and you grew up conditioned to eat a particular order/dish portion.
However, reality is that there are more and more choices and variety added every year. More people live in big, diversified cities than ever. I doubt anyone is really stuck to one menu.
I don't know how the soup study figures into this. Were the participants more or less required to eat that soup and only that soup? Or, were they like me who were taught that it was a sin not to finish up your bowl? In which case it has nothing to do with expanded appetite.
Argument by obstinacy doesn't work. Your first point shows the soup idea went completely past you and you just wanted to repeat your own points. People who were in that experiment have had soup before. They have some semblance of a reasonable amount of soup - they stop when the bowl is empty in one case, but when the portion size became bigger without them registering it, they ate more. It doesn't have to be the only option in town, it just has to be an option that some people have sometimes - people will gladly believe that one plate of food is an appropriate amount to eat. And who picks restaurants based on them having portion sizes that are reasonable? By that reasoning, buffets would be out of business. Instead people seem them as a deal.
Perhaps your issue is you think it is human nature to stay at a set weight and that appetite self-regulates around that figure regardless of activity, and that people are just ignoring their appetite to become overweight. The whole thing is a much more complex mess than that. The soup bowl shows that you can trick people's satiety by distorting mental cues. People can come to believe too much food is the right amount of food if that is something they're exposed to repeatedly.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Why are we bigger? Simple answer? An obesogenic environment.
Longer answer?
http://www.bodyforwife.com/what-is-the-solution-to-obesity/
"Long work hours spent in a chair, high stress levels, overuse of screen-based entertainment, lack of cooking skills, lack of desire to cook after a long day, the ability to hit a drive-through or dial for delivery at any time of day, emotional trauma, misinformation promoted by the weight loss industry, gigantic portions, government subsidies to fattening foods, food marketing run amok (much of which specifically targets children), ever tastier concoctions created by brain scientists working for food corporations that makes their treat foods ever more compelling, a society that places emphasis on eating for pleasure instead of fuelling your body … all these things just scratch the surface."
What do we do about it?- Subsidizing the right foods, and taxing the wrong ones
- Placing tighter restrictions on food labeling
- Restricting food advertising to children
- Stop corporate-government partnerships and rein in lobbying
- Revamp home economics in school, and make it mandatory
- Place tighter controls on the weight loss industry
- Stop promoting physical activity as the solution for weight loss
- Create better access to evidence-based weight management programs
- Create national advertising campaigns that promote healthier eating
- Make prejudice against people with obesity against the law
- Create greater access to bariatric surgery
- Continue research into weight loss pharmaceuticals
What do we do right now?
"A good first step is to realize that food corporations and most weight loss programs are lying to you. Any time something sounds too good to be true, it is. When it comes to weight loss, calories are all that matter"
Sorry, big fail on the "what do we do now". All of the "solutions" blame/put the responsibility on others. How about the individual eats less and moves more at the top of the list in red, bolded?
No matter how snarky your response, Orphia is right. Humans are not rational actors who make perfect decisions. Never have been, never will be. It's not about "other people" either - it is about changing social relations, which involve the self as much as the others, as well as cultures, economies, and environments.
Sorry it's not a snarky response. Regardless of all the factors listed, the biggest factor is what people put in their mouths and how much they more (absent a medical condition). To not even list anything regarding personal responsibility to eat less/move more makes the list worthless.
Playing the victim doesn't get most people too far with any endeavor. Eating less and moving more is actionable by the individual, not dependent on public policy, marketing decisions, etc.
You're both talking past each other because you're viewing different levels of analysis. There are influences at the macro level that definitively correlate far to strongly with changes to be coincidence in terms of affect weight. That does not mean at the micro level that those influences force anyone to do something.
Nobody forces any person to take a salary, but it would anyone say salary is based purely on one's negotiating skills without respect to the skills the job involves, and the demand in the market for those skills?
At the macro level most developed countries are taking in more calories and burning less than they were 20-30 years ago.
Many factors, but you have to agree, assuming some personal responsibility along with blaming "them" is needed.
I agree people have to eat less and move more if they want to weigh less, and that is an individual choice. While I'll call it someone's own responsibility, choice, or control, I don't see it as a blamable state. Blame implies people have done a wrong to others. A person's weight doesn't do me any harm.0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »This will be very unpopular here; but the kind of food we are chosing to eat plays a big role as well.
I don't think that's "wrong" per se, I just don't think it gets us anywhere. Sure "what we choose" plays a role.
As a social scientist PhD with a degree in public health though, I am MUCH more interested in WHY certain "choices" even exist in the first place, WHAT shapes those choices (they're not just incidental), WHERE certain "choices" exist (geographically, because some places are 'fatter' than others), and WHY people make certain choice, and if they're even aware that they're making them.
I think you have to get to that level of questioning if you want answers.
I agree @Mapalicious and @RobD520 . Obesity is way more than CICO results. I had to learn how to eat so the cravings would leave and not come back. Healthy people do not get obese from research and my own experience. Why, What, Where, etc answers must be found to even state to understand the cause of obesity and high CI's.
Emotional answers may be cute in the minds of some but never will be of value in reducing obesity.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions