Why Do We Overeat? A Neurobiological Perspective

Fuzzipeg

People gain weight in general because our bodies are so good at finding the nutrition we need and some from the meal we eat. As a population we are less active than many of our ancestors and have more foods high calorie available. Then some of us have bodies which are on a go slow in many ways because I thyroids are challenged by low iodine in our diets and living in the 21C. Mine is stressed by contending with salicylate.

Point202

Just tagging this to watch later. Sounds interesting.

tigersword

Not really. I don't have USDA data going back that far on hand, but around 1900 humans consumed far more sugar than we do today. It was consumed to the amount of over 100 pounds per capita yearly, in both the UK and the US. We've been heavy grain consumers all throughout history, and sugar has been highly consumed since it first became cheap in the late 1700s.

False.

http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-5906/MindBlowing-Sugar-Consumption-Infographic.html

(refs at he end, if you're not lazy)

Mostly, in economic terms, sugars and other processed foods have progressively become cheaper and more affordable only through industrialization. And still increasing in consumption.

Think about old movies (I think this is a scene fromt o kill a mockingbird) - it used to be a treat to have syrup on your pancakes that the lower economic classes couldn't afford. Conversely, coke is cheaper than milk now. It has never been easier to consume copious amounts of simple sugars.

Oh, THAT info graphic. I've seen it before. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. For one thing, its "sources" include livestrong and the daily mail. Those aren't valid sources for scientific information.

Secondly, sugar has been a bulk commodity, and began getting cheaper from about 1500 onward, becoming a huge booming business by the 1700s, so much so that the British and French West Indies ripped up their tobacco crops and replaced them with sugar.

We are a ton of sugar in the 1700s and 1800s, and we invented quite a few sugary desserts in that time period.

Also, maple syrup has absolutely nothing to do with sugar. They are two completely different foods, made in completely different ways. Maple syrup is sap from a maple tree that's been boiled until the natural sugars in the sap concentrate to a specific thickness. Exactly how does that being expensive have anything to do with cane or beef sugar, which has nothing at all to do with that process? Hell, even now, maple syrup is far more expensive per ounce than table sugar.

lindsey1979

Not really. I don't have USDA data going back that far on hand, but around 1900 humans consumed far more sugar than we do today. It was consumed to the amount of over 100 pounds per capita yearly, in both the UK and the US. We've been heavy grain consumers all throughout history, and sugar has been highly consumed since it first became cheap in the late 1700s.

False.

http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-5906/MindBlowing-Sugar-Consumption-Infographic.html

(refs at he end, if you're not lazy)

Mostly, in economic terms, sugars and other processed foods have progressively become cheaper and more affordable only through industrialization. And still increasing in consumption.

Think about old movies (I think this is a scene fromt o kill a mockingbird) - it used to be a treat to have syrup on your pancakes that the lower economic classes couldn't afford. Conversely, coke is cheaper than milk now. It has never been easier to consume copious amounts of simple sugars.

Oh, THAT info graphic. I've seen it before. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. For one thing, its "sources" include livestrong and the daily mail. Those aren't valid sources for scientific information.

Secondly, sugar has been a bulk commodity, and began getting cheaper from about 1500 onward, becoming a huge booming business by the 1700s, so much so that the British and French West Indies ripped up their tobacco crops and replaced them with sugar.

We are a ton of sugar in the 1700s and 1800s, and we invented quite a few sugary desserts in that time period.

Also, maple syrup has absolutely nothing to do with sugar. They are two completely different foods, made in completely different ways. Maple syrup is sap from a maple tree that's been boiled until the natural sugars in the sap concentrate to a specific thickness. Exactly how does that being expensive have anything to do with cane or beef sugar, which has nothing at all to do with that process? Hell, even now, maple syrup is far more expensive per ounce than table sugar.

What do you base your assertions on? I see that you are quite critical of quite a few of the sources (including mine) cited by others -- though they include UC Berkeley, Forbes, New Hampshire Department of Health, etc. And yet, you make blanket assertions without any cites supporting them.

Geez, just look at how much more readily available fruit is. 100 years ago it wasn't easy to get oranges in most of the US, and when you could, they were very expensive -- treats for Christmas for the few that could actually afford them. Now, you go down to a store virtually anywhere and can pick one up for less than a buck.

There are lots of sources for sugar -- not just sugar cane.

tigersword

Moving the goal posts again, eh? Fine. Fruit consumption has decreased in the last 40 years, based on USDA data (incidentally, the USDA is the primary source, as they get their data direct from the industry.)

Forbes is a business magazine, not a science journal. As for UC Berkely, you stated that was 20 years ago, and I believe I mentioned that sugar consumption peaked in 2000 which was less than 20 years ago. Not sure the relevance of that stat.

Holly_Roman_Empire

Not really. I don't have USDA data going back that far on hand, but around 1900 humans consumed far more sugar than we do today. It was consumed to the amount of over 100 pounds per capita yearly, in both the UK and the US. We've been heavy grain consumers all throughout history, and sugar has been highly consumed since it first became cheap in the late 1700s.

False.

http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-5906/MindBlowing-Sugar-Consumption-Infographic.html

(refs at he end, if you're not lazy)

Mostly, in economic terms, sugars and other processed foods have progressively become cheaper and more affordable only through industrialization. And still increasing in consumption.

Think about old movies (I think this is a scene fromt o kill a mockingbird) - it used to be a treat to have syrup on your pancakes that the lower economic classes couldn't afford. Conversely, coke is cheaper than milk now. It has never been easier to consume copious amounts of simple sugars.

I love how it's written in the same font as Coca-Cola. I guess that's what the graphic is trying to demonize. I think people drink coke more than milk because it tastes better than milk, not because it's more readily available and cheaper.

It's still a treat for me to have syrup on my pancakes. I don't think that's an ancient thing.

lindsey1979

Moving the goal posts again, eh? Fine. Fruit consumption has decreased in the last 40 years, based on USDA data (incidentally, the USDA is the primary source, as they get their data direct from the industry.)

Forbes is a business magazine, not a science journal. As for UC Berkely, you stated that was 20 years ago, and I believe I mentioned that sugar consumption peaked in 2000 which was less than 20 years ago. Not sure the relevance of that stat.

How is this moving the goal posts? We're talking about sugar consumption being greater now than it was previously -- whether 100 or 200 years ago. People gave my examples -- whether maple syrup, fruit, HFCS, cane sugar, etc. -- and cited many authorities. You insist that they're all wrong and yet fail to cite ONE source that supports your assertions.

Do you know how the USDA determined that Americans only ate 40 lbs of sugar in 1986? They sent out flyers asking people to describe their diets. They took that data from 5,000 people TOTAL and extrapolated out. They later admitted that this wasn't very scientific or the best method.

Yeah, so relying solely on the USDA isn't necessarily the best of ideas. Any other sources to support your assertions that sugar consumption hasn't skyrocketed in the past 100-200 years?

lindsey1979

Oh, wait, the USDA does say American ingest 152 lbs of extra caloric sweeetners:

"In 2000, Americans ingested 152 lbs of caloric sweeteners". 65.6 lbs was from cane and beet sweeteners, 85.3 was from corn sweeteners. In 1950-1959, it was 109.6 lbs total -- unfortunately, it doesn't go back further than that. But, that means in 50 years, consumption increased nearly 40%.

Page 21 of cite from USDA (link below).

http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf

Holly_Roman_Empire

Not really. I don't have USDA data going back that far on hand, but around 1900 humans consumed far more sugar than we do today. It was consumed to the amount of over 100 pounds per capita yearly, in both the UK and the US. We've been heavy grain consumers all throughout history, and sugar has been highly consumed since it first became cheap in the late 1700s.

False.

http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-5906/MindBlowing-Sugar-Consumption-Infographic.html

(refs at he end, if you're not lazy)

Mostly, in economic terms, sugars and other processed foods have progressively become cheaper and more affordable only through industrialization. And still increasing in consumption.

Think about old movies (I think this is a scene fromt o kill a mockingbird) - it used to be a treat to have syrup on your pancakes that the lower economic classes couldn't afford. Conversely, coke is cheaper than milk now. It has never been easier to consume copious amounts of simple sugars.

I love how it's written in the same font as Coca-Cola. I guess that's what the graphic is trying to demonize. I think people drink coke more than milk because it tastes better than milk, not because it's more readily available and cheaper.

It's still a treat for me to have syrup on my pancakes. I don't think that's an ancient thing.

I really want to stay out of this except you are making this about you. And, it's not about you. It's a fact. My grandfather has talked about this. They'd be lucky to have syrup on their pancakes. They usually ate them without, but when they had it, they'd get a dime size drop on top. it is an ancient thing. Now, I buy pancake syrup and on Sunday me and my kids pour it on like it's nothing. They drown their pancakes in it. We don't think about conserving the syrup because it's valuable and hard to get. Sometimes, we run out, and I hop in the car, and 5 mins later, have a new bottle of it.

I concede that anecdotal evidence is hardly evidence.

lindsey1979

Here's another one -- from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. In 1700, in England, average consumption was 4 lbs. In 1800, it was 18 lbs. In 1950, it was 100 lbs -- with the amount doubling in both the US and UK between 1900 and 1967. In 2002, it was nearly 150 lbs (67.6 kb) per person.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.long

tigersword

Oh, wait, the USDA does say American ingest 152 lbs of extra caloric sweeetners:

"In 2000, Americans ingested 152 lbs of caloric sweeteners". 65.6 lbs was from cane and beet sweeteners, 85.3 was from corn sweeteners. In 1950-1959, it was 109.6 lbs total -- unfortunately, it doesn't go back further than that. But, that means in 50 years, consumption increased nearly 40%.

Page 21 of cite from USDA (link below).

http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf

What part of IT PEAKED IN 2000 AND HAS BEEN DECREASING EVER SINCE are you having problems understanding, since you keep quoting data from 2000, not 2014?

Also, "The data reported in tables 2-1 through
2-6 are unadjusted for spoilage and
waste, so they may overstate what is
actually eaten. "

I'm using the numbers also from the USDA Economic Research Service, using the most recent data available, adjusted for spoilage. In other words, what we actually ate, rather than what we produced.

tigersword

Not really. I don't have USDA data going back that far on hand, but around 1900 humans consumed far more sugar than we do today. It was consumed to the amount of over 100 pounds per capita yearly, in both the UK and the US. We've been heavy grain consumers all throughout history, and sugar has been highly consumed since it first became cheap in the late 1700s.

False.

http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-5906/MindBlowing-Sugar-Consumption-Infographic.html

(refs at he end, if you're not lazy)

Mostly, in economic terms, sugars and other processed foods have progressively become cheaper and more affordable only through industrialization. And still increasing in consumption.

Think about old movies (I think this is a scene fromt o kill a mockingbird) - it used to be a treat to have syrup on your pancakes that the lower economic classes couldn't afford. Conversely, coke is cheaper than milk now. It has never been easier to consume copious amounts of simple sugars.

I love how it's written in the same font as Coca-Cola. I guess that's what the graphic is trying to demonize. I think people drink coke more than milk because it tastes better than milk, not because it's more readily available and cheaper.

It's still a treat for me to have syrup on my pancakes. I don't think that's an ancient thing.

I really want to stay out of this except you are making this about you. And, it's not about you. It's a fact. My grandfather has talked about this. They'd be lucky to have syrup on their pancakes. They usually ate them without, but when they had it, they'd get a dime size drop on top. it is an ancient thing. Now, I buy pancake syrup and on Sunday me and my kids pour it on like it's nothing. They drown their pancakes in it. We don't think about conserving the syrup because it's valuable and hard to get. Sometimes, we run out, and I hop in the car, and 5 mins later, have a new bottle of it.

You do realize that the cheap pancake syrup you can buy today, and the syrup your granpdparents couldn't afford are vastly different products, right? You could buy about 11 GALLONS of pancake syrup for the same price as one gallon of the cheapest maple syrup on the market today. About 44 gallons of pancake syrup if you want to buy a gallon of the more expensive maple syrup. Pancake syrup is basically corn syrup and caramel color.

tigersword

Here's another one -- from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. In 1700, in England, average consumption was 4 lbs. In 1800, it was 18 lbs. In 1950, it was 100 lbs -- with the amount doubling in both the US and UK between 1900 and 1967. In 2002, it was nearly 150 lbs (67.6 kb) per person.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.long

You left out the part where it peaked at about 100lbs per capita in 1900, before dropping and rising again to about 100lbs per capita in 1950.

What was it I said? Oh yeah, that consumption of sugar was 100 lbs per capita in 1900...

lindsey1979

You're right, Tigersword. There has been no significant increase in consumption of sugar in the average American's diet in the past couple hundred years. Nope. Hasn't happened.

SanteMulberry

Not really. I don't have USDA data going back that far on hand, but around 1900 humans consumed far more sugar than we do today. It was consumed to the amount of over 100 pounds per capita yearly, in both the UK and the US. We've been heavy grain consumers all throughout history, and sugar has been highly consumed since it first became cheap in the late 1700s.

False.

http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-5906/MindBlowing-Sugar-Consumption-Infographic.html

(refs at he end, if you're not lazy)

Mostly, in economic terms, sugars and other processed foods have progressively become cheaper and more affordable only through industrialization. And still increasing in consumption.

Think about old movies (I think this is a scene fromt o kill a mockingbird) - it used to be a treat to have syrup on your pancakes that the lower economic classes couldn't afford. Conversely, coke is cheaper than milk now. It has never been easier to consume copious amounts of simple sugars.

Oh, THAT info graphic. I've seen it before. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. For one thing, its "sources" include livestrong and the daily mail. Those aren't valid sources for scientific information.

Secondly, sugar has been a bulk commodity, and began getting cheaper from about 1500 onward, becoming a huge booming business by the 1700s, so much so that the British and French West Indies ripped up their tobacco crops and replaced them with sugar.

We are a ton of sugar in the 1700s and 1800s, and we invented quite a few sugary desserts in that time period.

Also, maple syrup has absolutely nothing to do with sugar. They are two completely different foods, made in completely different ways. Maple syrup is sap from a maple tree that's been boiled until the natural sugars in the sap concentrate to a specific thickness. Exactly how does that being expensive have anything to do with cane or beef sugar, which has nothing at all to do with that process? Hell, even now, maple syrup is far more expensive per ounce than table sugar.

Well, at least maple trees are not sprayed with glyphosate (Roundup) as non-organic sugar beets and sugar cane (not to mention that non-organic wheat, corn, soy, and potatoes are as well. And wheat and potatoes are not yet even GMO!). Scientists are starting to raise the alarm over glyphosate residue in more and more food crops. There will be some horrific consequences from feeding the people an unending supply of glyphosate-tainted food. Here's at least one MIT scientist's examination of the issue. As usual, Monsanto has come roaring out in defense of their poison (they make many billions of $$ off of it). And they fight dirty--I hope this woman is prepared for the onslaught. http://www.alternet.org/food/meet-controversial-mit-scientist-who-claims-have-discovered-cause-gluten-sensitivty?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

ETA: I wonder if the CEO of Monsanto eats Roundup-tainted food or if he like Oprah, and others in the Elite, eats nothing but organic food from his own organic farm.

Natmarie73

You do realize that the cheap pancake syrup you can buy today, and the syrup your granpdparents couldn't afford are vastly different products, right? You could buy about 11 GALLONS of pancake syrup for the same price as one gallon of the cheapest maple syrup on the market today. About 44 gallons of pancake syrup if you want to buy a gallon of the more expensive maple syrup. Pancake syrup is basically corn syrup and caramel color.

Not sure how this means Americans (and other western civilisations) don't eat much more sugar now than we used to.
I too would like to see data that disproves it. I assume the OP means sugar as any processed sugar whether it be cane sugar, beet sugar HFCS or whatever. The fact we have easy access to cheap pancake syrup now, when our grandparents only had access to very expensive maple syrup would suggest that they had no choice but to go without the syrup.

And I do think that what our older generations say about the matter is valid evidence. Ask anyone over the age of 80 and they will tell you they didn't eat a lot of sugar at all when they were growing up.

SanteMulberry

You do realize that the cheap pancake syrup you can buy today, and the syrup your granpdparents couldn't afford are vastly different products, right? You could buy about 11 GALLONS of pancake syrup for the same price as one gallon of the cheapest maple syrup on the market today. About 44 gallons of pancake syrup if you want to buy a gallon of the more expensive maple syrup. Pancake syrup is basically corn syrup and caramel color.

Not sure how this means Americans (and other western civilisations) don't eat much more sugar now than we used to.
I too would like to see data that disproves it. I assume the OP means sugar as any processed sugar whether it be cane sugar, beet sugar HFCS or whatever. The fact we have easy access to cheap pancake syrup now, when our grandparents only had access to very expensive maple syrup would suggest that they had no choice but to go without the syrup.

And I do think that what our older generations say about the matter is valid evidence. Ask anyone over the age of 80 and they will tell you they didn't eat a lot of sugar at all when they were growing up.

So true. My grandmother said that a sugary-treat was a rare event and she blamed teenage acne and childhood obesity on the eating of sugar. Interestingly, the movies of the 1930s reflected the suspicions that people had about sugar consumption. Eating candy was thought to be the province of spoiled children and self-indulgent women.

SanteMulberry

Oh, wait, the USDA does say American ingest 152 lbs of extra caloric sweeetners:

"In 2000, Americans ingested 152 lbs of caloric sweeteners". 65.6 lbs was from cane and beet sweeteners, 85.3 was from corn sweeteners. In 1950-1959, it was 109.6 lbs total -- unfortunately, it doesn't go back further than that. But, that means in 50 years, consumption increased nearly 40%.

Page 21 of cite from USDA (link below).

http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf

What part of IT PEAKED IN 2000 AND HAS BEEN DECREASING EVER SINCE are you having problems understanding, since you keep quoting data from 2000, not 2014?

Also, "The data reported in tables 2-1 through
2-6 are unadjusted for spoilage and
waste, so they may overstate what is
actually eaten. "

I'm using the numbers also from the USDA Economic Research Service, using the most recent data available, adjusted for spoilage. In other words, what we actually ate, rather than what we produced.

The USDA does not track consumption, only production. And the U.S. is a net importer of sugar.

ETA: Food processors, fearing that there would be a shortage of sugar, argued with the government that the importation of sugar should be expanded.