why were people so skinny in the 70s?
Replies
-
One possible answer for sugar consumption going down and obesity going up is that artificial sweeteners still spike insulin.
Artificial sweeteners produce the counterintuitive effect of inducing metabolic derangements
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772345/?version=meter+at+null&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click
1) No, artificial sweeteners do not spike insulin. Unless you're an in vitro rat cell and have it directly transfused while coupled with glucose: https://examine.com/nutrition/do-artificial-sweeteners-spike-insulin/
2) Protein spikes insulin too - just as much as carbs do: https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
3) You do understand the difference between correlation and causation, right?6 -
AnvilHead - here is a companion to your graph.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/heal-the-mind-heal-the-body/201711/new-diet-ideas-the-artificial-sweeteners-controversy
Is it possible the obese people are using artificial sweeteners in an effort to cut calories, driving up use of artificial sweeteners, but not making enough changes in the rest of their diet and lifestyle to actually lose appreciable weight?
Is it possible that people who cut calories with artificial sweeteners feel like they have been "good" so end up treating themselves and eating back those calories anyway?
Do you honestly think a trend that is happening all over the world, across country, gender, education, and class lines, all comes down to "carbs"?
Are you familiar with the Blue Zones?
Kimny - I think all those things you suggested are possible - i was responding to one specific point about how could sugar use go down and obesity go up.
I am familiar with the Blue Zones - I think that that research is very interesting and suggests that health and weight are multi-factorial problems. I think the issues of sleep and stress, to name just two, have several studies that suggest a link with weight and health. i think that the blue zone research suggests that weight and health are more complicated that simply counting calories and using the CICO model. I think that the literature suggests a hormonal aspect to weight /health that shows that the human body is a complex system where multiple variables interact with each other and that's why weight loss is so challenging to sustain in the long run for so many people.
As for your point about whats going on in the world - I refer you back to the study I cited = the PURE study - published in the Lancet (one of the worlds most prestigious journals) It was a Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study of 135,000 people in 18 countries with a median follow-up of 7·4 years.
I encourage you to watch a video presentation by one of the authors of the study
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w3s2SA6_cc i think its worth the time to watch. 1 -
Well, are they including HFC (High fructose corn syrup) in SUGAR? In the 1970s or 1980s was when they started with the HFC.0
-
1) No, artificial sweeteners do not spike insulin. Unless you're an in vitro rat cell and have it directly transfused while coupled with glucose: https://examine.com/nutrition/do-artificial-sweeteners-spike-insulin/
2) Protein spikes insulin too - just as much as carbs do: https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
3) You do understand the difference between correlation and causation, right?
On the point of insulin response to various macroeconomics, the insulin reactions to different nutrients is different, fat produces a minimal insulin response, protein a greater response and carbs the greatest response. Its why I thing a LCHF diet is preferred.
While correlation does not equal causation - another disturbing trend is the increasing prevalence of prediabetes among people with a HEALTHY weight. Since these are healthy weight people, it suggests that something else is causing the hyper-insulinemia. That could be more carbs, it could be different carbs, it could be sleep, it could be environmental pollutants like endocrine disrupters. In these people a CICO model would suggest that they had reached a healthy homeostasis and yet metabolically they have problems and another reason I thing CICO is too simplistic to reflect what is going on in many people.
Prevalence of Prediabetes and Abdominal Obesity Among Healthy-Weight Adults: 18-Year Trend.
The prevalence of prediabetes among healthy-weight adults, aged 20 years and older and without diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes, increased from 10.2% in 1988-1994 to 18.5% in 2012. Among individuals aged 45 years and older, the prevalence of prediabetes increased from 22.0% to 33.1%. Abdominal obesity does not appear to be the primary cause of the increase. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27401417
Lastly, heres an example where an isocaloric diet shifted carbs from sugar to starch - keeping total carbs the same in the diet and multiple metabolic markers and weight improved - same calories but from different sources produced different results. Again, to me this shows that you cannot say a calories is a calories is a calorie.
Isocaloric fructose restriction and metabolic improvement in children with obesity and metabolic syndrome.
Isocaloric fructose restriction improved surrogate metabolic parameters in children with obesity and metabolic syndrome irrespective of weight change. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/264994471 -
AnvilHead - here is a companion to your graph.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/heal-the-mind-heal-the-body/201711/new-diet-ideas-the-artificial-sweeteners-controversy
Is it possible the obese people are using artificial sweeteners in an effort to cut calories, driving up use of artificial sweeteners, but not making enough changes in the rest of their diet and lifestyle to actually lose appreciable weight?
Is it possible that people who cut calories with artificial sweeteners feel like they have been "good" so end up treating themselves and eating back those calories anyway?
Do you honestly think a trend that is happening all over the world, across country, gender, education, and class lines, all comes down to "carbs"?
Are you familiar with the Blue Zones?
Kimny - I think all those things you suggested are possible - i was responding to one specific point about how could sugar use go down and obesity go up.
I am familiar with the Blue Zones - I think that that research is very interesting and suggests that health and weight are multi-factorial problems. I think the issues of sleep and stress, to name just two, have several studies that suggest a link with weight and health. i think that the blue zone research suggests that weight and health are more complicated that simply counting calories and using the CICO model. I think that the literature suggests a hormonal aspect to weight /health that shows that the human body is a complex system where multiple variables interact with each other and that's why weight loss is so challenging to sustain in the long run for so many people.
As for your point about whats going on in the world - I refer you back to the study I cited = the PURE study - published in the Lancet (one of the worlds most prestigious journals) It was a Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study of 135,000 people in 18 countries with a median follow-up of 7·4 years.
I encourage you to watch a video presentation by one of the authors of the studyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w3s2SA6_cc i think its worth the time to watch.
great point. since having thyroid issues, adrenal issues i have struggled shedding weight. i have to ensure i'm getting the proper nutrients and that's what i'm now trying to figure out now by tracking my intake. thanks for sharing the video.0 -
kids didn't expect to be driven anywhere... walk or ride your bike OUTSIDE! was the expected place for children to dwell3
-
The blog you quote asserts that there is direct relationship between calories and adult obesity. Lets start with the fact that this was simple analysis by a blogger and not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Below is a more sophisticated analysis of the SAME DATA (which was derived from NHANES) that was published in a peer reviewed journal and found that there is no such simple cause and effect with respect to calories and that there is someother unexplained factor.
Secular differences in the association between caloric intake, macronutrient intake, and physical activity with obesity
"Despite an overall increase in caloric intake in the United States over the past four decades when
concurrent increases in obesity were observed, we were unable to demonstrate a direct relationship between caloric intake and increase in BMI over time. This is in line with recent suggestions that other factors beyond total caloric intake may be contributing to the epidemic rise in obesity." https://www.obesityresearchclinicalpractice.com/article/S1871-403X(15)00121-0/pdf0 -
One possible answer for sugar consumption going down and obesity going up is that artificial sweeteners still spike insulin.
Artificial sweeteners produce the counterintuitive effect of inducing metabolic derangements
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772345/?version=meter+at+null&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click
Artificial sweeteners do no such thing. If they did then my diabetic dad would have had issues.5 -
everyone on the go... bennies (small meth tabs)… disco dancing all night. Plus the fast food market was not so omnipresent and advertised like today. Also many people did not have remote controls for their TV sets yet.1
-
Smaller portions.
The people in my family litterally ate 1 serving of meat, 1 serving of veg and 1 serving of starch the size of their fist.
For the record, a big mack by it's self is 2 servings of meat, 3 servings of starch and .5 servings of veg.
1 fry is 1 serving of starch. Add a soda and you have at least 200 extra calories. So one meal from McDonalds = 3 meals of a typical 70s person.
3 -
AnvilHead - here is a companion to your graph.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/heal-the-mind-heal-the-body/201711/new-diet-ideas-the-artificial-sweeteners-controversy
Is it possible the obese people are using artificial sweeteners in an effort to cut calories, driving up use of artificial sweeteners, but not making enough changes in the rest of their diet and lifestyle to actually lose appreciable weight?
Is it possible that people who cut calories with artificial sweeteners feel like they have been "good" so end up treating themselves and eating back those calories anyway?
Do you honestly think a trend that is happening all over the world, across country, gender, education, and class lines, all comes down to "carbs"?
Are you familiar with the Blue Zones?
Kimny - I think all those things you suggested are possible - i was responding to one specific point about how could sugar use go down and obesity go up.
I am familiar with the Blue Zones - I think that that research is very interesting and suggests that health and weight are multi-factorial problems. I think the issues of sleep and stress, to name just two, have several studies that suggest a link with weight and health. i think that the blue zone research suggests that weight and health are more complicated that simply counting calories and using the CICO model. I think that the literature suggests a hormonal aspect to weight /health that shows that the human body is a complex system where multiple variables interact with each other and that's why weight loss is so challenging to sustain in the long run for so many people.
As for your point about whats going on in the world - I refer you back to the study I cited = the PURE study - published in the Lancet (one of the worlds most prestigious journals) It was a Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study of 135,000 people in 18 countries with a median follow-up of 7·4 years.
I encourage you to watch a video presentation by one of the authors of the study i think its worth the time to watch.
I did just read through most of the Lancet study, I will admit I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination so some parts I just skimmed. Did I miss it, or did they not write at all about the calorie level and subsequent weight of the surveyed folks who suffered negative results? Were the respondents all a healthy weight? Was there an association between obesity and negative results? Did they look at any other lifestyle factors than macro distribution? Did all respondents get enough exercise?
Because my first thought is - protein and fat are expensive, carbs are cheap. So if someone is going to eat too much, they are going to prefer cheaper food they can afford to eat more of, ie carbs. So does a healthy person eating higher carb lead to obesity and health risks? Or do people who are already eating too much drift toward eating more and more carbs because it's too expensive/difficult to get fat & protein?
My second thought is, was the real issue another lifestyle factor, and folks who aren't taking care of themselves in other ways are more likely to be choosing diets high in ultra-processed low nutrient foods, which tend to be high in carbs (and they are high in carbs because, again, carbs are cheap)? Are carbs the chicken or the egg?
I apologize if any answers to those questions are in the video, I haven't been able to watch it yet.
Having said all that, I'm not sure what this has to do with people in the 70s being skinny. I'd guess my diet was actually higher carb in the 70's than it is today, and everyone in my immediate family was (and honestly still is) a healthy weight or just a touch into the overweight range.
My takeaway from the Blue Zones is that lifestyle plays far more of a factor in health and longevity than the specific foods you eat. But it seems an odd coincidence that all of these pockets of longevity eat a higher carb diet. I'm not saying I think that means higher carb is required for good health, just that I find it hard to believe that lower carb is "better" overall.
I know some people do better on LCHF. But I feel heavy and "cravey" when I eat higher fat foods - wings, nuts, cheese, cream-based desserts. I feel more energetic and generally better when I exceed the recommended fiber numbers and eat moderate carb. Nothing my body tells me says "you should eat LCHF", so I listen to it
I have never been diagnosed with a hormone related condition and have had no problem maintaining my weight loss, so I will gracefully avoid that subject
2 -
I was a mistreated and deprived kid of the seventies. I only got to drink soda during my summer vacations.3
-
1) No, artificial sweeteners do not spike insulin. Unless you're an in vitro rat cell and have it directly transfused while coupled with glucose: https://examine.com/nutrition/do-artificial-sweeteners-spike-insulin/
2) Protein spikes insulin too - just as much as carbs do: https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
3) You do understand the difference between correlation and causation, right?
On the point of insulin response to various macroeconomics, the insulin reactions to different nutrients is different, fat produces a minimal insulin response, protein a greater response and carbs the greatest response. Its why I thing a LCHF diet is preferred.
While correlation does not equal causation - another disturbing trend is the increasing prevalence of prediabetes among people with a HEALTHY weight. Since these are healthy weight people, it suggests that something else is causing the hyper-insulinemia. That could be more carbs, it could be different carbs, it could be sleep, it could be environmental pollutants like endocrine disrupters. In these people a CICO model would suggest that they had reached a healthy homeostasis and yet metabolically they have problems and another reason I thing CICO is too simplistic to reflect what is going on in many people.
Prevalence of Prediabetes and Abdominal Obesity Among Healthy-Weight Adults: 18-Year Trend.
The prevalence of prediabetes among healthy-weight adults, aged 20 years and older and without diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes, increased from 10.2% in 1988-1994 to 18.5% in 2012. Among individuals aged 45 years and older, the prevalence of prediabetes increased from 22.0% to 33.1%. Abdominal obesity does not appear to be the primary cause of the increase. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27401417
Lastly, heres an example where an isocaloric diet shifted carbs from sugar to starch - keeping total carbs the same in the diet and multiple metabolic markers and weight improved - same calories but from different sources produced different results. Again, to me this shows that you cannot say a calories is a calories is a calorie.
Isocaloric fructose restriction and metabolic improvement in children with obesity and metabolic syndrome.
Isocaloric fructose restriction improved surrogate metabolic parameters in children with obesity and metabolic syndrome irrespective of weight change. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26499447
My only response to this is - no one says CICO determines anything other than weight, and no one says 100 calories of soda has the same nutritional value or health affect as 100 calories of broccoli. Just that the actual calories are the same. CICO has nothing to do with diabetes or any other diseases, just weight, and no one here ever says otherwise. Obviously what you eat affects your health. When we talk about CICO we are talking about weight maintenance only. To say CICO doesn't tell the whole story about what is going on in the body isn't arguing with CICO, it's arguing with a strawman.4 -
It was definitely drugs.3
-
dsjohndrow wrote: »Black beauties by the handful.
Those helped my parents get through medical school too0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »That's almost a liter bottle. I can't even finish that much soda in a whole day, nevermind a single meal. A 1.5l bottle lasts 2-3 days for me.
Yeah, was never a problem for me. A liter of pop with lunch was normal up to a couple years ago. Now it's that much water.
Normal portion size is an 8oz glass at table (maybe a 12oz if you like), so why do people drink more than that when buying meals out??
Your normal portion is not my normal portion.
I can easily drink 40 oz of whatever beverage I’m having with supper, be that water, Coke Zero, regular coke, root beer or milk (though that much milk does weigh heavy on the stomach).
I’m that guy who the waiter can never keep up with when it comes to refills. I drink no less when I eat at home. It’s very rare that I get through a meal without a refill or two.
Okay. So that's your usual portion, not necessarily a "normal" portion.
And what data do you have to show that people only drink 8 oz of fluid with their dinner when dining at home?
You claimed that people drink more when eating out than in their own homes. That isn't my experience nor have I ever witnessed it.
At home, back when I drank Coke, I would have a can with a meal. Out, refills were free and cups were about 32 oz. and I would generally get at least one refill. The same is true of my husband now. I doubt our behavior was that unusual - most people are going to drink more out of a glass which magically refills itself every time a waiter passes than getting up and going to the fridge for another can.1 -
My mum has a theory that heating has something to do with it. When she was growing up, it was not common for people to have central heating. In addition, homes were less well insulated. If you're cold, your body burns more calories. In addition, to warm up, you moved more, rather than just turning the heating up.
I'm sure there are various other reasons as well (raising use of the car, more desk jobs, rising portion sizes, drop in food prices) but it's something to add to the pot of thought that you might not have considered.2 -
scarlett624kh wrote: »It was definitely drugs.
Just to be clear - You think the vast majority of people of all ages in the western world were on recreational drugs in the 70's, causing them to be skinny, but in later decades few people are on recreational drugs that can make you skinny. Is that correct? Do you have any data to back that up?
A number of people have brought up drugs. I mean, how does this explain childhood obesity? Were any of you around in the 70's? Do you think people weren't using uppers in the 80s or 90s?1 -
I think it was supposed to be a joke.scarlett624kh wrote: »It was definitely drugs.
Just to be clear - You think the vast majority of people of all ages in the western world were on recreational drugs in the 70's, causing them to be skinny, but in later decades few people are on recreational drugs that can make you skinny. Is that correct? Do you have any data to back that up?
A number of people have brought up drugs. I mean, how does this explain childhood obesity? Were any of you around in the 70's? Do you think people weren't using uppers in the 80s or 90s?
Although as an aside, there has been a dramatic drop in the number of people who smoke. Smoking is well known to suppress appetite. So arguably the drug of nicotine could have something to do with it (tenuous link
). This could contribute to childhood obesity because of second hand smoke, but also parents enjoying larger portion sizes due to larger appetites and this transferring to the portions they serve their children. 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
- 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