Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

New Guardian Piece - More Calories Are Consumed Through Alcohol Than Sugar Sweetened Beverages

Options
2»

Replies

  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Options
    I don't see why the numbers are so surprising. They are averages, meaning there will be people who eat less than that number and people who eat more.

    It says that the average person in India consumes 761 calories per day. So there must be people eating 400 calories per day for this to be true. I find that surprising and hard to believe.

    https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger

    People starve to death in India every day, many of them children.

    This.

    Looking more closely at the data cited in the Guardian article (http://www.euromonitor.com/nutrition-industry), it looks like the averages were based off of the nutrients of products sold. I'm assuming this would not include data from locally-grown produce or locally-acquired meat/dairy. It may also exclude rarer brands or categories of foods. Based off of that observation, I will admit that the numbers may be a bit low, but it does not surprise me that poorer countries, such as India, have much lower calorie intake averages than one might expect.


  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    I don't see why the numbers are so surprising. They are averages, meaning there will be people who eat less than that number and people who eat more.

    It says that the average person in India consumes 761 calories per day. So there must be people eating 400 calories per day for this to be true. I find that surprising and hard to believe.

    https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger

    People starve to death in India every day, many of them children.

    This.

    Looking more closely at the data cited in the Guardian article (http://www.euromonitor.com/nutrition-industry), it looks like the averages were based off of the nutrients of products sold. I'm assuming this would not include data from locally-grown produce or locally-acquired meat/dairy. It may also exclude rarer brands or categories of foods. Based off of that observation, I will admit that the numbers may be a bit low, but it does not surprise me that poorer countries, such as India, have much lower calorie intake averages than one might expect.


    Also, have you SEEN people in India? The country was once the pinnacle of strong and jacked *kitten*. Now it looks like a retirement home for starvation models.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Options
    I don't see why the numbers are so surprising. They are averages, meaning there will be people who eat less than that number and people who eat more.

    It says that the average person in India consumes 761 calories per day. So there must be people eating 400 calories per day for this to be true. I find that surprising and hard to believe.

    https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger

    People starve to death in India every day, many of them children.

    This.

    Looking more closely at the data cited in the Guardian article (http://www.euromonitor.com/nutrition-industry), it looks like the averages were based off of the nutrients of products sold. I'm assuming this would not include data from locally-grown produce or locally-acquired meat/dairy. It may also exclude rarer brands or categories of foods. Based off of that observation, I will admit that the numbers may be a bit low, but it does not surprise me that poorer countries, such as India, have much lower calorie intake averages than one might expect.


    This quote from the article appears in the first post of the thread: "It also shows that most of the developing countries it tracked (78%) get more calories from packaged food than fresh food."

    Seems to imply at least that the 761 calories per day that the average Indian eats includes local produce. I mean if they're able to say that people in India eat less produce than packaged food, then they must have numbers for both categories.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    Options
    I don't see why the numbers are so surprising. They are averages, meaning there will be people who eat less than that number and people who eat more.

    It says that the average person in India consumes 761 calories per day. So there must be people eating 400 calories per day for this to be true. I find that surprising and hard to believe.

    https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger

    People starve to death in India every day, many of them children.

    This.

    Looking more closely at the data cited in the Guardian article (http://www.euromonitor.com/nutrition-industry), it looks like the averages were based off of the nutrients of products sold. I'm assuming this would not include data from locally-grown produce or locally-acquired meat/dairy. It may also exclude rarer brands or categories of foods. Based off of that observation, I will admit that the numbers may be a bit low, but it does not surprise me that poorer countries, such as India, have much lower calorie intake averages than one might expect.


    This quote from the article appears in the first post of the thread: "It also shows that most of the developing countries it tracked (78%) get more calories from packaged food than fresh food."

    Seems to imply at least that the 761 calories per day that the average Indian eats includes local produce. I mean if they're able to say that people in India eat less produce than packaged food, then they must have numbers for both categories.

    Perhaps the numbers are from store-bought items and don't include bartered items or home grown/raised. I can think of a couple of reasons that there could be non-packaged foods that are not tracked in India.
  • savithny
    savithny Posts: 1,200 Member
    Options
    In 2006, 48% of children in India were so malnourished they were classified as "stunted," meaning that because of malnutrition they are more than 2 standard deviations shorter than they should be (can't tell whether that's median or mean height per age).

    Since India also has a population curve that skews very young, and since that average consumption number presumably includes children, I actually wouldn't be surprised if the number is accurate.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/opinion/half-these-kids-are-stunted.html
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Options
    I don't see why the numbers are so surprising. They are averages, meaning there will be people who eat less than that number and people who eat more.

    It says that the average person in India consumes 761 calories per day. So there must be people eating 400 calories per day for this to be true. I find that surprising and hard to believe.

    https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger

    People starve to death in India every day, many of them children.

    This.

    Looking more closely at the data cited in the Guardian article (http://www.euromonitor.com/nutrition-industry), it looks like the averages were based off of the nutrients of products sold. I'm assuming this would not include data from locally-grown produce or locally-acquired meat/dairy. It may also exclude rarer brands or categories of foods. Based off of that observation, I will admit that the numbers may be a bit low, but it does not surprise me that poorer countries, such as India, have much lower calorie intake averages than one might expect.


    This quote from the article appears in the first post of the thread: "It also shows that most of the developing countries it tracked (78%) get more calories from packaged food than fresh food."

    Seems to imply at least that the 761 calories per day that the average Indian eats includes local produce. I mean if they're able to say that people in India eat less produce than packaged food, then they must have numbers for both categories.

    Right, but the data that was used to come up with the averages (from the Euromonitor link) was acquired through
    -6 years of historical market size data and 5 years of forecasts
    -Nutrient content per 100 grams of each brand is available at the lowest category and country level
    -230 food and soft drinks categories
    -More than 57,000 food and soft drink brands
    -Examine how product categories and brands contribute to the purchase of nutrients, on a per-capita, per-day basis
    -Includes nutrition shares by company and brand

    So it's not out of the realm of reality to suggest that certain brands and types of foods would not be included in the data.

  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Options
    stealthq wrote: »
    I don't see why the numbers are so surprising. They are averages, meaning there will be people who eat less than that number and people who eat more.

    It says that the average person in India consumes 761 calories per day. So there must be people eating 400 calories per day for this to be true. I find that surprising and hard to believe.

    https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger

    People starve to death in India every day, many of them children.

    This.

    Looking more closely at the data cited in the Guardian article (http://www.euromonitor.com/nutrition-industry), it looks like the averages were based off of the nutrients of products sold. I'm assuming this would not include data from locally-grown produce or locally-acquired meat/dairy. It may also exclude rarer brands or categories of foods. Based off of that observation, I will admit that the numbers may be a bit low, but it does not surprise me that poorer countries, such as India, have much lower calorie intake averages than one might expect.


    This quote from the article appears in the first post of the thread: "It also shows that most of the developing countries it tracked (78%) get more calories from packaged food than fresh food."

    Seems to imply at least that the 761 calories per day that the average Indian eats includes local produce. I mean if they're able to say that people in India eat less produce than packaged food, then they must have numbers for both categories.

    Perhaps the numbers are from store-bought items and don't include bartered items or home grown/raised. I can think of a couple of reasons that there could be non-packaged foods that are not tracked in India.

    I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. @Alyssa_Is_LosingIt looked more deeply and what you suggest seems to probably be the case. If so, it means the average person in India is consuming more than 761 calories.
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,182 Member
    edited October 2016
    Options
    It is more often than not alcohol in the food diary, rather than carbonated beverages, when I peek at my friend's over-their-calorie-target days.

    At the bottom of the story is says Indians get 761 calories per day. I say BS. There aren't enough starving Indians on CNN to make that happen.
  • DorkothyParker
    DorkothyParker Posts: 618 Member
    Options
    If I don't drink regional craft beer, I will be deported from Cascadia and dropped somewhere that only has Bud Light. So, I always make sure to meet my quota.

    I would love to see this study done in America and looking at generational differences. I think younger millennials have a reputation for being more health conscious (many have never eaten a Big Mac!) Most people I know only drink soda if there is alcohol in it. Somehow that makes it ok?
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    It is more often than not alcohol in the food diary, rather than carbonated beverages, when I peek at my friend's over-their-calorie-target days.

    At the bottom of the story is says Indians get 761 calories per day. I say BS. There aren't enough starving Indians on CNN to make that happen.

    It says here (https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger) that India has the largest amount of undernourished people in the world.
  • stephanne13
    stephanne13 Posts: 212 Member
    Options
    knelson095 wrote: »
    jemhh wrote: »
    Most people are unaware that alcohol can make you gain weight, because – unlike food – the number of calories are not routinely marked on beer cans and bottles of wines and spirits.

    I've noticed this here in the US as well and it always makes me scratch my head. I'm guessing the alcohol lobby has been able to prevent a requirement to include nutrition info on alcohol packaging.

    Interesting info. I would be interested to see how the numbers were calculated.

    Is that quote at the top from the article? Are they serious? Most people are unaware that alcohol can make you gain weight?? Most people? Where the heck did they get that "data"? Who the heck drinks alcohol and thinks it's calorie free?

    My dad has no idea about calories. He thinks because he buys the keystone light that it's fine to drink 12 because, hey, it's light beer. Then tells me I shouldn't eat my pudding because I'm on a diet and it's bad. Doesn't matter how many times I tell him it's accounted for in my day, he just doesn't understand. Then my mom told him that honey is better for him than sugar, so he makes his peanut butter and honey sandwiches and just piles it on like it's totally fine. It's like the blind leading the blind at my parents house.

    Did your dad eat peanut butter & sugar sandwiches before she told him about the honey?!