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.
2006 vs 1988: BMI 2.3 higher today even when eating same diet
Replies
-
I blame it on the recent bodybuilding craze. We're all lifting weights now and packing on the muscle...
3 -
StarBrightStarBright wrote: »Biggest take away from article:
"They found a very surprising correlation: A given person, in 2006, eating the same amount of calories, taking in the same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat, and exercising the same amount as a person of the same age did in 1988 would have a BMI that was about 2.3 points higher. In other words, people today are about 10 percent heavier than people were in the 1980s, even if they follow the exact same diet and exercise plans."
Here is the whole thing:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/why-it-was-easier-to-be-skinny-in-the-1980s/407974/
thoughts? BS? interesting?
I wanted to discuss this with friends but none of my real life friends are into food/environment stuff.
@StarBrightStarBright clearly something has changed and thanks for the link. The person below states weight is a factor of our mind set it seems. Maybe that is the fourth factor.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wzJiMp-P_lY
This "How to Lose Weight" 19 minute video seems to have some background noise. The second time I watched it I turned the volume down and used the CC feature and got more of her points even if they were not the same as ones that I have heard before.
The first time I went on a diet was in 1978 when in college and I lost down from 198 back to my Navy weight of 172 over the summer eating basically the same diet that I ate that lead to the weight gain but just did not eat anything after 5 PM until breakfast the next morning. Lunch week days was milkshake, cheeseburger fries and a Coke. I still have some of the HSU glasses the Coke came in.0 -
I also think that lower NEAT could be the culprit. So much is so convenient now, we're a lot less active, even incidentally. Simple household tasks are easier or have become automated. We work longer hours, many of us at a desk.3
-
Less NEAT. There is more commuting today then there was in the 80's. People of today move around less when NOT EXERCISING than they 80's counterparts. Also, the stress level is likely higher which may mean less sleep or restless sleep. This affects hormones such as GH which is responsible for helping to burn stored fat.
This was pretty much my thought too. It was (around here anyway) much more common for families to be one car households, so more walking in general, or biking.
Even if people used public transport, they generally walked to the bus or train station - now we have lots of "park and ride" hubs that people drive to.
And another difference I have noticed is a smaller property size - many in my community had large gardens and yards that needed quite a bit of physical work to maintain (most had vege gardens too). We spent many hours tending the gardens, and when visiting people would often wander through the garden and swap seedlings & cuttings.
The home I grew up in has been subdivided, now with 5 dwellings in the space that used to be 2 houses.
Obviously there are still many homes with a large area to maintain, but I'd think the proportion of those is less.
On metal bikes! That weren't even very aerodynamic! And people had to reach all the way to the downtube to shift gears.3 -
FreyasRebirth wrote: »...I don't know when most people would have had a microwave.
I can remember having a microwave as far back as in the mid/late 1970s.
I do agree that there has been a very significant reduction in NEAT during that time period, though. And it starts with the kids, where many schools have cut/eliminated physical education programs and for many of the ones that haven't, just showing up is enough. When I drive by the local high school, PE class looks like it mostly consists of kids walking slowly around the running track in groups with their faces glued to their cell phones. We're establishing habits in childhood that carry over into adulthood.2 -
FreyasRebirth wrote: »...I don't know when most people would have had a microwave.
I can remember having a microwave as far back as in the mid/late 1970s.
OMG and the old 70s/80s microwave cookbooks! Blergh! haha
1 -
And powdering hamburger patties with gravy mix to make them brown instead of eating the unappealing gray patty. YumAlatariel75 wrote: »FreyasRebirth wrote: »...I don't know when most people would have had a microwave.
I can remember having a microwave as far back as in the mid/late 1970s.
OMG and the old 70s/80s microwave cookbooks! Blergh! haha
1 -
People underestimate the impact of movement, in general, and assume only gym time counts. (Conversely, they over-estimate the effect of ten minutes on the treadmill and buy McDonalds on the way home. Ell Oh Ell)
If there is a discussion on health and fitness and longevity between several people, someone always says, "weight/health has nothing to do with exercise. My grandmother never exercised a day in her life and she was always slim/healthy."
*rolls eyes*
I've seen that phenomenon first-hand too, and what they should actually say is "my grandmother never ever took Spin classes, Zumba, aerobics or participated in any organised exercise class of any kind because she was too busy walking huge dogs daily, scrubbing the front step, digging the garden, washing up by hand, walking back and forth to the shops, walking back and forth for Church services".4 -
Less NEAT. There is more commuting today then there was in the 80's. People of today move around less when NOT EXERCISING than they 80's counterparts. Also, the stress level is likely higher which may mean less sleep or restless sleep. This affects hormones such as GH which is responsible for helping to burn stored fat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The average commute in 1988 was a bit over 22 minutes, 26 minutes in 2015 so not really a deal breaker:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/25/how-much-of-your-life-youre-wasting-on-your-commute/?utm_term=.45e178260047
Agree with less general movement and sleep as issues.3 -
FreyasRebirth wrote: »...I don't know when most people would have had a microwave.
I can remember having a microwave as far back as in the mid/late 1970s.
Yeah, I think we got ours in '78 -- we moved into a new house then and I think we got it when we moved in.
I do believe NEAT was higher in a lot of ways on average. (Even comparing with the early '90s, so much I used to have to walk somewhere to do I can now do just sitting at a computer.) However, I still suspect the various reasons for the reporting being less accurate now that I listed above may be an even bigger factor.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »StarBrightStarBright wrote: »Biggest take away from article:
"They found a very surprising correlation: A given person, in 2006, eating the same amount of calories, taking in the same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat, and exercising the same amount as a person of the same age did in 1988 would have a BMI that was about 2.3 points higher. In other words, people today are about 10 percent heavier than people were in the 1980s, even if they follow the exact same diet and exercise plans."
Here is the whole thing:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/why-it-was-easier-to-be-skinny-in-the-1980s/407974/
thoughts? BS? interesting?
I wanted to discuss this with friends but none of my real life friends are into food/environment stuff.
@StarBrightStarBright clearly something has changed and thanks for the link.
It's not so clear, but I do think it's amusing that the study authors seem to blame in part increased meat in the diet, when most of the people you cite to seem to deny that's even a true thing.
(Getting accurate information about the overall diet is hard, because again all sources have problems.)
My impression is that the average person may consume more highly processed things, but the highly processed things consumed may be better for you. For example, transfats were almost certainly more common in '88. My memory is that in the '80s we rarely ate dinners from non whole foods, but when we did they were things like breaded fish, fries and tater tots, salisbury steak in a TV dinner, stuff like that. My parents (who like to minimize time on cooking) eat a bunch of packaged mixes (veg and a sauce) you mix with chicken and then eat with rice now, and I'd imagine the ingredients in those kinds of things compare favorably to the kinds of stuff we ate.
I also find that fresh (or "fresh") and frozen fruit and veg are much more common, canned veg less common. I am thinking back really to earlier in the '80s, admittedly, because I was 18 and in college in 1988 (and walked a ton -- we were active throughout childhood, though, just playing games and running around and stuff, and the only video game options were pretty lame).2 -
FreyasRebirth wrote: »...I don't know when most people would have had a microwave.
I can remember having a microwave as far back as in the mid/late 1970s.
The Amana Radarange was first on the market in the late 60's.2 -
The impression that the authors have an agenda is further reinforced in the discussion portion of their study. Despite declines in NEAT over the years and issues with dietary recall accuracy, they theorize chemicals (OMG, chemikills!), prescription drugs, and microbiome changes for the reasons why we are fatter, instead of the much more feasible declines in NEAT. They present those as the more likely reasons despite recognizing and acknowledging those more likely reason for their results! From the discussion section:When caloric intake was expressed as a function of body weight, there remained a clear inverse association between caloric intake and BMI. This finding is in line with those of several other studies in which individuals with obesity reported consuming similar or fewer daily calories than those who are normal weightWhether self-reported dietary intake accurately reflects an individual's true dietary intake has been questioned [34]. Indeed, doubly-labelled water studies typically show that individuals underreport their energy intake, and that the magnitude of the underreporting may be larger in people who are obese
So obese folks are more likely to under report their intake, and more folks are now obese, but that's not part of the reason you think you are seeing these trends over the years?!5 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »The impression that the authors have an agenda is further reinforced in the discussion portion of their study. Despite declines in NEAT over the years and issues with dietary recall accuracy, they theorize chemicals (OMG, chemikills!), prescription drugs, and microbiome changes for the reasons why we are fatter, instead of the much more feasible declines in NEAT. They present those as the more likely reasons despite recognizing and acknowledging those more likely reason for their results! From the discussion section:
I have to admit - I assumed that the study took NEAT into account. Coming at it from a personal place, both of my parents work essentially the same jobs that they worked in the late 70s early 80s with the same amount of desk time and I work a similar job to my father's from 35 years ago so was assuming that the researchers sort of compared apples to apples (ie desk jobs in 88 to desk jobs in 2006).
I would love a further study that looked at the difference of 30 years in a job like teaching or nursing, both of which still have similar "on the feet time" now compared to the 80s.1 -
Putting down a fork takes, quite literally, no effort. Eating less requires less money.
I would like to respectfully disagree with this with a caveat. I'm sure I could eat more cheaply and lose weight - BUT - I would be starving and wouldn't be able to maintain weightloss.
To feel both full and healthy, I find that I need to eat "healthier", made from scratch type food which costs more both in time and money.
You can always put your fork down - but if you feel starving it won't be long until you pick it up again.
3 -
StarBrightStarBright wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »The impression that the authors have an agenda is further reinforced in the discussion portion of their study. Despite declines in NEAT over the years and issues with dietary recall accuracy, they theorize chemicals (OMG, chemikills!), prescription drugs, and microbiome changes for the reasons why we are fatter, instead of the much more feasible declines in NEAT. They present those as the more likely reasons despite recognizing and acknowledging those more likely reason for their results! From the discussion section:
I have to admit - I assumed that the study took NEAT into account. Coming at it from a personal place, both of my parents work essentially the same jobs that they worked in the late 70s early 80s with the same amount of desk time and I work a similar job to my father's from 35 years ago so was assuming that the researchers sort of compared apples to apples (ie desk jobs in 88 to desk jobs in 2006).
I would love a further study that looked at the difference of 30 years in a job like teaching or nursing, both of which still have similar "on the feet time" now compared to the 80s.
I think the problem here is even the same jobs have lower amounts of physical activity than they did years ago, as others have mentioned. A desk job in the 70s or 80s included more walking around and socializing. Now, with the advent of computers and internet, the socializing is done while they sit, and folks are less likely to walk around because they have the internet and their smartphone with them to keep entertained and take breaks while never needing to get up out of their seat. As a kid, if I wanted to play a video game with friends, I had to ride my bike over to their house. Now, kids can put on headsets and play online with their group of friends without leaving their own home. And when kids are outside, I see many more riding electric "hoverboards" or scooters where they would be riding a bike or running around in the 80's.
Even in active jobs where you are on your feet, advances have made it so there is less "heavy lifting". There are more labor saving devices in occupations to prevent stress injuries or increase productivity. Even in jobs where there is heavy physical work like construction, air/power tools are more common and allow folks to be more productive with less physical work.
And this goes as well for the physical activity at home. Folks are spending more time sitting when they get home outside of deliberate physical work. And the perception of what "heavy" or "moderate" work is has changed.
If anything, I do agree with the authors that it is easier to be heavier at the same intake than years ago, But that has nothing to do with the various reasons they are giving. We are simply less active as a society, and it takes more deliberate activity to reach the same TDEE.6 -
The scientific article is linked within the popular article. I read the original research article and found it interesting that all of their results are based on self-reported measures. This led me to the thought that perhaps our ability to self-report on calories consumed and exercise might vary from 1988 to 2008. Indeed, the authors themselves discussed this possible source of error in the discussion of the paper on the second column of page 280, saying:
"Whether self-reported dietary intake accurately reflects an individual’s true dietary intake has been questioned [34]. Indeed, doubly-labelled water studies typically show that individuals underreport their energy intake, and that the magnitude of the underreporting may be larger in people who are obese [35]."
...
"The assessment of changes in energy intake is difficult as over time there have been some changes in dietary intake methodology and food consumption databases [36]. Over the years food databases were continually updated to include new and ethnic-specific foods, and 24-h dietary recalls are now available for any day of the week. These improved dietary assessment methods should be able to capture more of foods individuals are actually consuming over time. While it has been suggested that self-report bias in dietary intake may have increased over time [34], our results indicate that self-report bias has remained relatively consistent or has slightly improved over time. However, females may be more likely to under report energy intake than males. A potential explanation for this is that females may have a greater degree of social desirability for low body weights and social approval bias compared to males [37,38]."
Note that citation 34 is: Schoeller D, Thomas D, Archer E, Heymsfield S, Sn B, Goran M, et al. Self-report-based estimates of energy intake offer an inadequate basis for scientific conclusions. Am J Clin Nutr 2013;97:1413—5.
Overall, I would say that, although interesting, the authors of the original research article have not conducted a robust analysis of the data. The italicized statement that their own results indicate self-report bias has remained relatively consistent was not evidenced in either their statistical analysis or results section. Later in the discussion, they also indicate that physical activity may also be incorrectly self-reported.
Don't believe everything you read, folks! Especially if it's an article written by a non-scientist, such as this piece in The Atlantic.3 -
StarBrightStarBright wrote: »
Putting down a fork takes, quite literally, no effort. Eating less requires less money.
I would like to respectfully disagree with this with a caveat. I'm sure I could eat more cheaply and lose weight - BUT - I would be starving and wouldn't be able to maintain weightloss.
To feel both full and healthy, I find that I need to eat "healthier", made from scratch type food which costs more both in time and money.
You can always put your fork down - but if you feel starving it won't be long until you pick it up again.
This is just another common LAME excuse for obesity. Unless you're looking only for organic produce, it's just not true that healthy whole foods are MORE expensive. More expensive than what? Junk food? Fast food?
Most Frozen veggies are $1-1.50/lb as are some fresh veggies. A 5 lb bag of potatoes is under $2, dried beans are under $1/lb and when cooked triple in volume. Dry Rice, oats are also under $1.50/lb. Many fruits are under $1.50/lb, bananas are $0.44/lb. Strawberries right now are $1/lb.
All these are healthy, high volume, low calorie density foods which means you can eat a large volume of food which keeps you full while keeping calories low, which supports weight loss, while meeting all essential vitamins and minerals requirements.4 -
StarBrightStarBright wrote: »
Putting down a fork takes, quite literally, no effort. Eating less requires less money.
I would like to respectfully disagree with this with a caveat. I'm sure I could eat more cheaply and lose weight - BUT - I would be starving and wouldn't be able to maintain weightloss.
To feel both full and healthy, I find that I need to eat "healthier", made from scratch type food which costs more both in time and money.
I eat mostly from scratch type foods (did when I was fat too, though). They do not inherently cost more, and most of what I've cut down on to lose weight added to my food budget (i.e., cutting calories reduced my food budget).
Also, in the 1980s we ate mostly from scratch, not specifically "healthy" foods -- basically the boring American standard meat, potato, veg is what I grew up on and how I lost a bunch of my weight (for potato substitute any starchy side -- pasta, rice, sweet potato -- they are somewhat more varied now than what I grew up on).0 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »StarBrightStarBright wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »The impression that the authors have an agenda is further reinforced in the discussion portion of their study. Despite declines in NEAT over the years and issues with dietary recall accuracy, they theorize chemicals (OMG, chemikills!), prescription drugs, and microbiome changes for the reasons why we are fatter, instead of the much more feasible declines in NEAT. They present those as the more likely reasons despite recognizing and acknowledging those more likely reason for their results! From the discussion section:
I have to admit - I assumed that the study took NEAT into account. Coming at it from a personal place, both of my parents work essentially the same jobs that they worked in the late 70s early 80s with the same amount of desk time and I work a similar job to my father's from 35 years ago so was assuming that the researchers sort of compared apples to apples (ie desk jobs in 88 to desk jobs in 2006).
I would love a further study that looked at the difference of 30 years in a job like teaching or nursing, both of which still have similar "on the feet time" now compared to the 80s.
I think the problem here is even the same jobs have lower amounts of physical activity than they did years ago, as others have mentioned. A desk job in the 70s or 80s included more walking around and socializing.
This is what I find even comparing my first real grown-up job (in the same field I'm in now) in the '90s to now.
It's also true when it comes to household chores, IME, vs. when I was growing up, and I think there was a lot more walking -- kids were outside playing as the main activity (even when we were in a cold climate). We only had one car, so when my dad was at work and I was little my mom and sister and I would walk places, including to the store. I walk to the store now, since I live in a city, but people living places like we did when I was little likely would not be doing that.1 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »The impression that the authors have an agenda is further reinforced in the discussion portion of their study. Despite declines in NEAT over the years and issues with dietary recall accuracy, they theorize chemicals (OMG, chemikills!), prescription drugs, and microbiome changes for the reasons why we are fatter, instead of the much more feasible declines in NEAT. They present those as the more likely reasons despite recognizing and acknowledging those more likely reason for their results! From the discussion section:When caloric intake was expressed as a function of body weight, there remained a clear inverse association between caloric intake and BMI. This finding is in line with those of several other studies in which individuals with obesity reported consuming similar or fewer daily calories than those who are normal weightWhether self-reported dietary intake accurately reflects an individual's true dietary intake has been questioned [34]. Indeed, doubly-labelled water studies typically show that individuals underreport their energy intake, and that the magnitude of the underreporting may be larger in people who are obese
So obese folks are more likely to under report their intake, and more folks are now obese, but that's not part of the reason you think you are seeing these trends over the years?!Traveler120 wrote: »StarBrightStarBright wrote: »
Putting down a fork takes, quite literally, no effort. Eating less requires less money.
I would like to respectfully disagree with this with a caveat. I'm sure I could eat more cheaply and lose weight - BUT - I would be starving and wouldn't be able to maintain weightloss.
To feel both full and healthy, I find that I need to eat "healthier", made from scratch type food which costs more both in time and money.
You can always put your fork down - but if you feel starving it won't be long until you pick it up again.
This is just another common LAME excuse for obesity. Unless you're looking only for organic produce, it's just not true that healthy whole foods are MORE expensive. More expensive than what? Junk food? Fast food?
Most Frozen veggies are $1-1.50/lb as are some fresh veggies. A 5 lb bag of potatoes is under $2, dried beans are under $1/lb and when cooked triple in volume. Dry Rice, oats are also under $1.50/lb. Many fruits are under $1.50/lb, bananas are $0.44/lb. Strawberries right now are $1/lb.
All these are healthy, high volume, low calorie density foods which means you can eat a large volume of food which keeps you full while keeping calories low, which supports weight loss, while meeting all essential vitamins and minerals requirements.
At one time I would have agreed with this. But it really does vary by region. I was quite shocked to hear what some folks had to pay for produce - fresh or frozen.2 -
Meh. Self-reported diet and exercise levels are notoriously inaccurate. How many people "eat 1200 calories and exercise two hours a day and can't lose weight" vs. how many in a controlled environment who have a defined meal plan and exercise regimen can't lose weight (hint, in the latter case, there has never been a recorded case of someone unable to lose weight).
Perhaps there are factors contributing to obesity beyond just diet/exercise, but this study does nothing to address that in a scientifically valid manner.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »StarBrightStarBright wrote: »
Putting down a fork takes, quite literally, no effort. Eating less requires less money.
I would like to respectfully disagree with this with a caveat. I'm sure I could eat more cheaply and lose weight - BUT - I would be starving and wouldn't be able to maintain weightloss.
To feel both full and healthy, I find that I need to eat "healthier", made from scratch type food which costs more both in time and money.
I eat mostly from scratch type foods (did when I was fat too, though). They do not inherently cost more, and most of what I've cut down on to lose weight added to my food budget (i.e., cutting calories reduced my food budget).
Also, in the 1980s we ate mostly from scratch, not specifically "healthy" foods -- basically the boring American standard meat, potato, veg is what I grew up on and how I lost a bunch of my weight (for potato substitute any starchy side -- pasta, rice, sweet potato -- they are somewhat more varied now than what I grew up on).
That is interesting to me! I grew up in the 80s and almost never ate scratch food. We ate a ton of hamburger helper, hot dogs, french fries and canned soups - the exceptions were pot roast with scalloped potatoes and chicken and noodles with mashed potatoes:) And my parents were actually pretty thin until the early aughts. I didn't eat much scratch food until I was an adult and learned to cook it myself (also in the aughts).
I'm actually coming to this article from a bit of a different place. This year was the first time in my adult life that I tipped into the overweight category of BMI (which is why I'm here on MFP) but I have been finding it MUCH harder and a ton of work to maintain my weight for the last few years. I suppose that is why this rang true for me.
Obviously all weight loss is personal to a large extent and based on personal satiety, activity, preferences etc. So I personally have been finding that I need to spend more on food to get the same satiety and fewer cravings that non-healthy food may have given me in childhood and young adult hood.
*thanks to everyone for their thoughts on the article - I can tell it certainly didn't ring a bell for you all like it did for me
2 -
StarBrightStarBright wrote: »
Putting down a fork takes, quite literally, no effort. Eating less requires less money.
I would like to respectfully disagree with this with a caveat. I'm sure I could eat more cheaply and lose weight - BUT - I would be starving and wouldn't be able to maintain weightloss.
To feel both full and healthy, I find that I need to eat "healthier", made from scratch type food which costs more both in time and money.
You can always put your fork down - but if you feel starving it won't be long until you pick it up again.
This may be your perception of this issue. That does not make it factual. This is another myth perpetuated by specific interest groups - that fresh is better, organic is better, non-GMO is better...none of which is supported by scientific data.
Recently a local talk show host posed the question "What is the one single invention that changed society in the last 100 years?" Several callers suggested cars, telephone, radio, television, flight, etc. His proposition was the TV remote - how this exacerbated our want of instant gratification. Our behavior is the single potential root cause with the greatest capacity for impact. This article is an exercise in deflecting responsibility.
In the 80s I was on a skateboard and grew up with PSAs like this (imagine the public outrage if this aired today):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb_q9B3NpOY
Most kids today are playing video games. With every invention comes increased convenience and decreased activity.0 -
Smoking rates are down and smoking is an appetite suppressant. Could that play any role in this?4
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »The impression that the authors have an agenda is further reinforced in the discussion portion of their study. Despite declines in NEAT over the years and issues with dietary recall accuracy, they theorize chemicals (OMG, chemikills!), prescription drugs, and microbiome changes for the reasons why we are fatter, instead of the much more feasible declines in NEAT. They present those as the more likely reasons despite recognizing and acknowledging those more likely reason for their results! From the discussion section:When caloric intake was expressed as a function of body weight, there remained a clear inverse association between caloric intake and BMI. This finding is in line with those of several other studies in which individuals with obesity reported consuming similar or fewer daily calories than those who are normal weightWhether self-reported dietary intake accurately reflects an individual's true dietary intake has been questioned [34]. Indeed, doubly-labelled water studies typically show that individuals underreport their energy intake, and that the magnitude of the underreporting may be larger in people who are obese
So obese folks are more likely to under report their intake, and more folks are now obese, but that's not part of the reason you think you are seeing these trends over the years?!Traveler120 wrote: »StarBrightStarBright wrote: »
Putting down a fork takes, quite literally, no effort. Eating less requires less money.
I would like to respectfully disagree with this with a caveat. I'm sure I could eat more cheaply and lose weight - BUT - I would be starving and wouldn't be able to maintain weightloss.
To feel both full and healthy, I find that I need to eat "healthier", made from scratch type food which costs more both in time and money.
You can always put your fork down - but if you feel starving it won't be long until you pick it up again.
This is just another common LAME excuse for obesity. Unless you're looking only for organic produce, it's just not true that healthy whole foods are MORE expensive. More expensive than what? Junk food? Fast food?
Most Frozen veggies are $1-1.50/lb as are some fresh veggies. A 5 lb bag of potatoes is under $2, dried beans are under $1/lb and when cooked triple in volume. Dry Rice, oats are also under $1.50/lb. Many fruits are under $1.50/lb, bananas are $0.44/lb. Strawberries right now are $1/lb.
All these are healthy, high volume, low calorie density foods which means you can eat a large volume of food which keeps you full while keeping calories low, which supports weight loss, while meeting all essential vitamins and minerals requirements.
At one time I would have agreed with this. But it really does vary by region. I was quite shocked to hear what some folks had to pay for produce - fresh or frozen.
True, but these are the prices I pay for food here in Texas and I shop at Kroger, WinCo, Aldi, Walmart, and yet we're the #11 most obese state with 68% overweight & obese. What's our excuse?
Plus, if you travel to poorer regions like Africa, they pay more for food as a % of income compared to the West and their obesity rates are a fraction of that of the US. Bottom line is food in the US, both healthy and junk is very affordable which is why it's so easy to overeat. Combined with sedentary living, high obesity and overweight levels are no surprise.0 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »The impression that the authors have an agenda is further reinforced in the discussion portion of their study. Despite declines in NEAT over the years and issues with dietary recall accuracy, they theorize chemicals (OMG, chemikills!), prescription drugs, and microbiome changes for the reasons why we are fatter, instead of the much more feasible declines in NEAT. They present those as the more likely reasons despite recognizing and acknowledging those more likely reason for their results! From the discussion section:When caloric intake was expressed as a function of body weight, there remained a clear inverse association between caloric intake and BMI. This finding is in line with those of several other studies in which individuals with obesity reported consuming similar or fewer daily calories than those who are normal weightWhether self-reported dietary intake accurately reflects an individual's true dietary intake has been questioned [34]. Indeed, doubly-labelled water studies typically show that individuals underreport their energy intake, and that the magnitude of the underreporting may be larger in people who are obese
So obese folks are more likely to under report their intake, and more folks are now obese, but that's not part of the reason you think you are seeing these trends over the years?!
I agree with you. Just watch the show secret eaters and you can see that a common theme is that overweight/obese people consistently UNDER report what they eat. During the show they film the subjects and a nutritionist adds up what they eat. At the same time the subjects keep a food diary. There were always huge discrepancies where the obese person thought their daily intake was say 2400 calories but it was actually 4400.....yes that big of a difference!2 -
Here's another thought - isn't our society older on average now than we were in the late 80s? After all, those baby boomers are now hitting their senior year. And it seems to me that weight tends to increase, even slightly, as we age. Did they control for age in their examination? (I don't recall if it said so or not).
This could be "majoring in the minors" but it illustrates the point that there are a lot of things that could account for this trend (I also liked the mention of increased muscle mass). We shouldn't be so hasty to jump to chemikillz and hormones.1 -
StarBrightStarBright wrote: »
Putting down a fork takes, quite literally, no effort. Eating less requires less money.
I would like to respectfully disagree with this with a caveat. I'm sure I could eat more cheaply and lose weight - BUT - I would be starving and wouldn't be able to maintain weightloss.
To feel both full and healthy, I find that I need to eat "healthier", made from scratch type food which costs more both in time and money.
You can always put your fork down - but if you feel starving it won't be long until you pick it up again.
This may be your perception of this issue. That does not make it factual. This is another myth perpetuated by specific interest groups - that fresh is better, organic is better, non-GMO is better...none of which is supported by scientific data.
Recently a local talk show host posed the question "What is the one single invention that changed society in the last 100 years?" Several callers suggested cars, telephone, radio, television, flight, etc. His proposition was the TV remote - how this exacerbated our want of instant gratification. Our behavior is the single potential root cause with the greatest capacity for impact. This article is an exercise in deflecting responsibility.
In the 80s I was on a skateboard and grew up with PSAs like this (imagine the public outrage if this aired today):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb_q9B3NpOY
Most kids today are playing video games. With every invention comes increased convenience and decreased activity.
Maybe the problem is we've gone bat *kitten* politically correct and people would be outraged if something like that ran today when it's giving good advice.4 -
With every invention comes increased convenience and decreased activity.
I've heard that bicycles are the only thing we've ever invented for convenience that had the side effect of making us more healthy. While that can't literally be true (other forms of transport like canoes and skis do the same) it's pretty close. And I'd say it's the exception that proves your rule. 3
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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