This gallery explains why millions of Americans are obese…

Jestinia

There is way more to it than that. All you have to ask yourself is why Americans choose to eat larger portions. In many cases it is a matter of money.

Given a choice between $10 worth of healthy, filling food that only contains a portion of the calories you need to not starve to death versus $10 worth of unhealthy food with 3000 calories that you won't stop eating until it's gone, leaving you in a surplus, which will you choose?

If you're overweight and intent on losing weight despite the discomfort, you might choose to starve. Otherwise, you can't choose to starve so you will gain weight. The food won't be nutritious and may contain harmful ingredients that will shorten your life, but no one is going to choose to die in months due to starvation over maybe dying fat and sick some undetermined decade down the road.

tigersword

How exactly did so many read this as propaganda? It's nothing of the sort-- the picture on its own doesn't make ANY mention of clean eating nor is it blaming corporations for bloated portion sizes. It is simply pointing out that portions have gotten larger (they have) and one result of this change is that many people now find the larger portions to be a "normal" size which has contributed to higher body weights nationally. That's it.

The larger portions existed 20 years ago (20 years ago McDonald's pioneered SUPERSIZE with 44 oz drinks and massive fries,) and you can still get the smaller portions today. It's a completely false idea.

desolate_angel

not to mention the average size drink now is 20oz

True, I notice a lot of bottled water is 20 oz. And the most common drink size ordered when I worked fast food was the 20 oz. But when you fill those 20 oz. cups up 1/3 full of ice (company standard) then it fits 12 oz. of soda perfectly. I know this because one time our soda machine went down and we had to run to the store and buy cans to keep things running for a few hours. And very few people ordered their drinks light or no ice in the four years I worked in the fast food industry.

ldrosophila

I'm sticking one more thing in here...





not to mention the average size drink now is 20oz

i don't think i've ever had a big gulp or a double big gulp in my life. but why is a big gulp worse than drinking 2 or 3 or 4 cans of soda (or however many cans of soda that is equivalent to it)? why does anybody assume that the person drinking 1 big gulp was only drinking 1 can of soda 20 years ago? when i worked in the corporate world, i'd sit at my computer all day working on IC designs. we had a fridge stocked with free sodas. i probably drank 4 or 5 diet pepsi's during the course of the day (9-10 hours) if i had 1 big gulp that was roughly the same size, i'd have just sipped from that all day. i'm pretty sure my intake would have been about the same amount regardless. and yet because it makes a catchy graphic for the gullible, somebody could easily claim that we now drink more than we did 20 years ago and simply show a photo of a photoshop enlarged big gulp next to a photoshop reduced can of soda and somehow that becomes compelling evidence to the people who might see it and accept it at face value with no further investigation or critical thought.

its just to say our consumption of these quick calorie sources has gone up...if someone is drinking 5 cans of soda a day they have drank the equivalent of that middle big gulp. They have consumed for a Coke Classic 700 extra calories in addition to food.

jwdieter

I think it would be just as simple minded to say larger sizes have NOTHING to do with increased obesity as saying larger sizes have EVERYTHING to do with increased obesity.

If the picture labeling weren't so absurdly wrong in most cases, it would be more compelling of an argument. The general concept probably has some merit when better presented.

Example?

Every example except the coffee drink is silly. That's the only example item that is commonplace and different from the 90s.

If they had picked the largest items available from McD, say, they might have been able to make a consistent point about increased portion size. They just picked a small item (available now and then), and a large item (also available now and then). The larger item has more calories, sure, but it did 20 years ago too.

tigersword

I'm sticking one more thing in here...





not to mention the average size drink now is 20oz

i don't think i've ever had a big gulp or a double big gulp in my life. but why is a big gulp worse than drinking 2 or 3 or 4 cans of soda (or however many cans of soda that is equivalent to it)? why does anybody assume that the person drinking 1 big gulp was only drinking 1 can of soda 20 years ago? when i worked in the corporate world, i'd sit at my computer all day working on IC designs. we had a fridge stocked with free sodas. i probably drank 4 or 5 diet pepsi's during the course of the day (9-10 hours) if i had 1 big gulp that was roughly the same size, i'd have just sipped from that all day. i'm pretty sure my intake would have been about the same amount regardless. and yet because it makes a catchy graphic for the gullible, somebody could easily claim that we now drink more than we did 20 years ago and simply show a photo of a photoshop enlarged big gulp next to a photoshop reduced can of soda and somehow that becomes compelling evidence to the people who might see it and accept it at face value with no further investigation or critical thought.

its just to say our consumption of these quick calorie sources has gone up...if someone is drinking 5 cans of soda a day they have drank the equivalent of that middle big gulp. They have consumed for a Coke Classic 700 extra calories in addition to food.

I used to buy double big gulps on my way home from school as a kid. That was 20 years ago. Not much has really changed.

ndj1979

There is way more to it than that. All you have to ask yourself is why Americans choose to eat larger portions. In many cases it is a matter of money.

Given a choice between $10 worth of healthy, filling food that only contains a portion of the calories you need to not starve to death versus $10 worth of unhealthy food with 3000 calories that you won't stop eating until it's gone, leaving you in a surplus, which will you choose?

If you're overweight and intent on losing weight despite the discomfort, you might choose to starve. Otherwise, you can't choose to starve so you will gain weight. The food won't be nutritious and may contain harmful ingredients that will shorten your life, but no one is going to choose to die in months due to starvation over maybe dying fat and sick some undetermined decade down the road.

WHAT???? My brain hurts just reading this...

ldrosophila

all we have to ask is someone from a different country do Americans serve large portions? And as an American I can attest I regularly eat all of those huge portions and that is the reason I reached nearly 400lbs.

ldrosophila

I'm sticking one more thing in here...





not to mention the average size drink now is 20oz

i don't think i've ever had a big gulp or a double big gulp in my life. but why is a big gulp worse than drinking 2 or 3 or 4 cans of soda (or however many cans of soda that is equivalent to it)? why does anybody assume that the person drinking 1 big gulp was only drinking 1 can of soda 20 years ago? when i worked in the corporate world, i'd sit at my computer all day working on IC designs. we had a fridge stocked with free sodas. i probably drank 4 or 5 diet pepsi's during the course of the day (9-10 hours) if i had 1 big gulp that was roughly the same size, i'd have just sipped from that all day. i'm pretty sure my intake would have been about the same amount regardless. and yet because it makes a catchy graphic for the gullible, somebody could easily claim that we now drink more than we did 20 years ago and simply show a photo of a photoshop enlarged big gulp next to a photoshop reduced can of soda and somehow that becomes compelling evidence to the people who might see it and accept it at face value with no further investigation or critical thought.

its just to say our consumption of these quick calorie sources has gone up...if someone is drinking 5 cans of soda a day they have drank the equivalent of that middle big gulp. They have consumed for a Coke Classic 700 extra calories in addition to food.

I used to buy double big gulps on my way home from school as a kid. That was 20 years ago. Not much has really changed.

ldrosophila

I'm sticking one more thing in here...





not to mention the average size drink now is 20oz

i don't think i've ever had a big gulp or a double big gulp in my life. but why is a big gulp worse than drinking 2 or 3 or 4 cans of soda (or however many cans of soda that is equivalent to it)? why does anybody assume that the person drinking 1 big gulp was only drinking 1 can of soda 20 years ago? when i worked in the corporate world, i'd sit at my computer all day working on IC designs. we had a fridge stocked with free sodas. i probably drank 4 or 5 diet pepsi's during the course of the day (9-10 hours) if i had 1 big gulp that was roughly the same size, i'd have just sipped from that all day. i'm pretty sure my intake would have been about the same amount regardless. and yet because it makes a catchy graphic for the gullible, somebody could easily claim that we now drink more than we did 20 years ago and simply show a photo of a photoshop enlarged big gulp next to a photoshop reduced can of soda and somehow that becomes compelling evidence to the people who might see it and accept it at face value with no further investigation or critical thought.

its just to say our consumption of these quick calorie sources has gone up...if someone is drinking 5 cans of soda a day they have drank the equivalent of that middle big gulp. They have consumed for a Coke Classic 700 extra calories in addition to food.

I used to buy double big gulps on my way home from school as a kid. That was 20 years ago. Not much has really changed.

I did too and my body shows the results

Jestinia

There is way more to it than that. All you have to ask yourself is why Americans choose to eat larger portions. In many cases it is a matter of money.

Given a choice between $10 worth of healthy, filling food that only contains a portion of the calories you need to not starve to death versus $10 worth of unhealthy food with 3000 calories that you won't stop eating until it's gone, leaving you in a surplus, which will you choose?

If you're overweight and intent on losing weight despite the discomfort, you might choose to starve. Otherwise, you can't choose to starve so you will gain weight. The food won't be nutritious and may contain harmful ingredients that will shorten your life, but no one is going to choose to die in months due to starvation over maybe dying fat and sick some undetermined decade down the road.

WHAT???? My brain hurts just reading this...

Let me try another way. Do you think Americans decades ago maybe cooked more nutritious food at home and used little portions of unhealthy foods outside the home as treats?

Compared to now, when many people eat these foods as their main meals?

And which is cheaper? A homecooked meal of 1000 calories, or a giant soda?

Bry_Fitness70

This is what we call "cherry picking." For starters, EVERY single "20 years ago" item is something you can still purchase today. Plus the "today" pictures are all extreme examples, and nowhere near accurate with either the stats or the commonality.
You can still buy small french fries, you can still buy 7 oz sodas (in glass bottles or cans,) you can still buy smaller bagels. Also, I LOVE the comparison between a plain cup of coffee and a "mocha coffee." Yeah, because those are exactly the same thing. Why not compare it to a regular cup of coffee? Oh yeah, because then it wouldn't be a wildly ridiculous calorie count to scare people with.
In short, the only thing this gallery explains is the fact that the person that made it is clueless.

The point isn't whether or not people can buy things in smaller portions today, it’s the fact that many don’t.

20-30 years ago most people were drinking regular brewed coffee with cream and sugar (as depicted), not 300-500 calorie cappuccinos and other fancy high calorie drinks available at every gas station or at a Starbucks on every corner. I would find it amazing if you weren't aware of this.

WendyTerry420

that's quite a jump to a conclusion based on a teeny tiny sample size of dubious validity.

this is why it's propaganda.

Dubious validity? Everyone knows there were no big gulps or large fries back in the 90s.

:laugh:

tigersword

This is what we call "cherry picking." For starters, EVERY single "20 years ago" item is something you can still purchase today. Plus the "today" pictures are all extreme examples, and nowhere near accurate with either the stats or the commonality.
You can still buy small french fries, you can still buy 7 oz sodas (in glass bottles or cans,) you can still buy smaller bagels. Also, I LOVE the comparison between a plain cup of coffee and a "mocha coffee." Yeah, because those are exactly the same thing. Why not compare it to a regular cup of coffee? Oh yeah, because then it wouldn't be a wildly ridiculous calorie count to scare people with.
In short, the only thing this gallery explains is the fact that the person that made it is clueless.

The point isn't whether or not people can buy things in smaller portions today, it’s the fact that many don’t.

20-30 years ago most people were drinking regular brewed coffee with cream and sugar (as depicted), not 300-500 calorie cappuccinos and other fancy high calorie drinks available at every gas station or at a Starbucks on every corner. I would find it amazing if you weren't aware of this.

20 years ago McDonald's was making a KILLING selling Supersized french fries and sodas. I find it amazing that you are not aware of this. 20 years ago Dunkin Donuts was selling plenty of flavored coffees and iced coffees in various sizes (I bought them all the time when in high school.) Apparently you aren't aware of that either.

None of what you posted is relevant. These things really haven't changed like you think they have.

BrainyBurro

This is what we call "cherry picking." For starters, EVERY single "20 years ago" item is something you can still purchase today. Plus the "today" pictures are all extreme examples, and nowhere near accurate with either the stats or the commonality.
You can still buy small french fries, you can still buy 7 oz sodas (in glass bottles or cans,) you can still buy smaller bagels. Also, I LOVE the comparison between a plain cup of coffee and a "mocha coffee." Yeah, because those are exactly the same thing. Why not compare it to a regular cup of coffee? Oh yeah, because then it wouldn't be a wildly ridiculous calorie count to scare people with.
In short, the only thing this gallery explains is the fact that the person that made it is clueless.

The point isn't whether or not people can buy things in smaller portions today, it’s the fact that many don’t.

20-30 years ago most people were drinking regular brewed coffee with cream and sugar (as depicted), not 300-500 calorie cappuccinos and other fancy high calorie drinks available at every gas station or at a Starbucks on every corner. I would find it amazing if you weren't aware of this.

i thought the premise of this thread (and according to the title, the "explanation" for) was that we're all getting fatter because the foods we buy now all come in larger sizes (which is i think the only reasonable meaning that can be gleaned from the use of "portion" or "portion size" in the image you linked).

now you're saying that even though foods still come in the same sizes we used to get 20 years ago, it's that we are choosing to eat more food (larger sizes).

so which is it? are we being forced to eat more or are we choosing to eat more?

WendyTerry420

See, I don't think it's the size of the food stuffs, it's the access and marketing thereof. Families used to cook dinners, now they see how 'easy and convenient' a hamburger helper dinner or a quick drive thru at McDonald's would be. I don't think it's just the size, it's the marketing as well.

And some of us have taught our kids about propaganda...

Lives2Travel

Let me try another way. Do you think Americans decades ago maybe cooked more nutritious food at home and used little portions of unhealthy foods outside the home as treats?

Compared to now, when many people eat these foods as their main meals?

And which is cheaper? A homecooked meal of 1000 calories, or a giant soda?

The Big Gulp is cheaper, but people aren't substituting a Big Gulp for dinner. People are drinking the Big Gulp with dinner or in the middle of the afternoon.

And, if you've ever looked at a cookbook from the 50s or 60s, you won't see any healthy recipes. They were crammed full of fat and calories. Perhaps people ate less, but the quality of the food was not any better.

WendyTerry420

Portion sizes are a part of it yes (I can remember when a large soda from McD was only 16 oz). Another part of it is the availability of fast food (I can count 4 McD on my route to work and that's just McD). Another part is the constant propaganda to get us to eat something (advertising works or nobody would be doing it). Another part is the increased sedentary lifestyle of society as a whole (our ancestors did not need exercise equipment to be healthy)....

I can go on all day.

who cares? there are four waffles houses on my way to work each day..I just keep on driving by...

Did you know that the Waffle House doesn't serve pancakes? IHOP has waffles. I think it's crap, and I'm not going to stand for it.

The best thing at Waffle House is the hash browns. Get 'em both smothered and covered FTW.

Ed98043

People don't get fat because food gets bigger. Food gets bigger because people demand it.

Has anyone seen the new 1-lb Snickers bars? 2,070 calories! Sure, the wrappers say "Slice and Share", but you know the manufacturers are just making them bigger because "King size" isn't enough anymore.

Is this really a thing?! I'm thinking it's a great stocking stuffer. :happy:

jwdieter

A little research could have made a decent argument though. Obesity is rising, but was in the 90s as well. Kick this back 40 more years and I'd imagine the presentation would be more compelling.