How important is it to "eat clean"

waldo56

When it comes to health technology doesn't necessarily beget results. Didn't the access and availability of gyms make training easier? Didn't treadmills make being able to run more convenient? Hasn't the internet made learning how to do any free weight exercise easy? Yet people still avoid free weights, activity isn't increasing, and obesity still is increasing. Go figure...

Interestingly, there is one demographic group that is seeing the rate of obesity decline.

18-29 year olds

They've always been low, but are tracking even lower.

According to gallup (obesity rate among 18-29 yr olds):
2008 - 17.4
2009 - 18.3
2010 - 18.1
2011 - 17.3
2012 - 17.2
2013 - 17.2

Interestingly, this would also be the most tech-savvy group that is much further ahead of the general population in terms of smartphone adoption and useage.

Another group that is fairly stable are the well off (income >90K/yr)
2008 - 21.1
2009 - 21.4
2010 - 21.6
2011 - 20.9
2012 - 21.2
2013 - 22.0

Who would also be more likely to be tech savvy and adopters than the general population.

I really don't see how you would think gyms make training easier. They are inconvenient and expensive. Maybe if it was normal for the gov't to provide them free of charge for the public a la parks, but that is not the case at all. Treadmills take up a ton of space and are expensive, a fairly small subset of the population can both afford one and house one.

jmv7117

When it comes to health technology doesn't necessarily beget results. Didn't the access and availability of gyms make training easier? Didn't treadmills make being able to run more convenient? Hasn't the internet made learning how to do any free weight exercise easy? Yet people still avoid free weights, activity isn't increasing, and obesity still is increasing. Go figure...

Interestingly, there is one demographic group that is seeing the rate of obesity decline.

18-29 year olds

They've always been low, but are tracking even lower.

According to gallup (obesity rate among 18-29 yr olds):
2008 - 17.4
2009 - 18.3
2010 - 18.1
2011 - 17.3
2012 - 17.2
2013 - 17.2

Interestingly, this would also be the most tech-savvy group that is much further ahead of the general population in terms of smartphone adoption and useage.

Another group that is fairly stable are the well off (income >90K/yr)
2008 - 21.1
2009 - 21.4
2010 - 21.6
2011 - 20.9
2012 - 21.2
2013 - 22.0

Who would also be more likely to be tech savvy and adopters than the general population.

I really don't see how you would think gyms make training easier. They are inconvenient and expensive. Maybe if it was normal for the gov't to provide them free of charge for the public a la parks, but that is not the case at all. Treadmills take up a ton of space and are expensive, a fairly small subset of the population can both afford one and house one.

There are other factors besides being tech savvy for both groups. Many 18 to 29 year old adults are just starting their independent journey through life. They are testing ideals so may be very health conscious which reflects in their weight. They may be in university and for those just entering careers at about age 24, image plays a huge role. This age group likely aren't parents so have more time to spend on themselves and are more active in general. In the income bracket, those with >90K/year have more disposable income. They can easily afford to shop at health food stores, buy organic, buy gym memberships and/or the services of a personal trainer, and home gym equipment. Thus, I don't feel the lower obesity rate in either group can be attributed to being tech savvy alone.

likitisplit

Didn't treadmills make being able to run more convenient?

<snicker>

No

likitisplit

According to gallup (obesity rate among 18-29 yr olds)
...
Another group that is fairly stable are the well off (income >90K/yr)

1. A gallup poll is going to have much more than a 1% margin of error so you can hardly consider that data to be showing a trend. Even NHANES shows some small blips here and there.
2. The 70 - 90 year olds have the lowest rates of adulthood obesity. Is this the most tech savvy group then? Of course not, and tech savvy doesn't have anything to do with the 18 - 29 year old obesity rates either. The lower in age you are the less time you have to build up obesity which is why people below 50 have lower rates of obesity. The impact of early death is why obesity rates start to level off in the 50's because more people are dying from obesity related diseases than becoming obese. The 70 - 90 year olds have the lowest because the largest percentage of obese people died off before that age bracket.
3. If you didn't know education and wealth are very tightly couple with obesity. No one who is wealthy lives in a food desert for example. It also has a lot to do about affording medical services, education, and overall well being. Again nothing to do with tech savvy.
4. All of these trends have been apparent for the last 30 years not just since MFP and other advancements in tech.

I really don't see how you would think gyms make training easier. They are inconvenient and expensive. Maybe if it was normal for the gov't to provide them free of charge for the public a la parks, but that is not the case at all. Treadmills take up a ton of space and are expensive, a fairly small subset of the population can both afford one and house one.

So you don't see how having 1 gym 15 miles away is not as convenient as 10 gyms to pick from within 5 miles? Seeing how many gyms offer $10 monthly memberships (in America anyway) it's far from out of reach of the majority of the population.

You still need a credit card.

However, to your point, MFP requires a computer or decent phone and the tracking devices are still expensive.

I know a number of people who have gotten to their goal weight and just can't be bothered to track daily.

waldo56

According to gallup (obesity rate among 18-29 yr olds)
...
Another group that is fairly stable are the well off (income >90K/yr)

1. A gallup poll is going to have much more than a 1% margin of error so you can hardly consider that data to be showing a trend. Even NHANES shows some small blips here and there.
2. The 70 - 90 year olds have the lowest rates of adulthood obesity. Is this the most tech savvy group then? Of course not, and tech savvy doesn't have anything to do with the 18 - 29 year old obesity rates either. The lower in age you are the less time you have to build up obesity which is why people below 50 have lower rates of obesity. The impact of early death is why obesity rates start to level off in the 50's because more people are dying from obesity related diseases than becoming obese. The 70 - 90 year olds have the lowest because the largest percentage of obese people died off before that age bracket.
3. If you didn't know education and wealth are very tightly couple with obesity. No one who is wealthy lives in a food desert for example. It also has a lot to do about affording medical services, education, and overall well being. Again nothing to do with tech savvy.
4. All of these trends have been apparent for the last 30 years not just since MFP and other advancements in tech.

I really don't see how you would think gyms make training easier. They are inconvenient and expensive. Maybe if it was normal for the gov't to provide them free of charge for the public a la parks, but that is not the case at all. Treadmills take up a ton of space and are expensive, a fairly small subset of the population can both afford one and house one.

So you don't see how having 1 gym 15 miles away is not as convenient as 10 gyms to pick from within 5 miles? Seeing how many gyms offer $10 monthly memberships (in America anyway) it's far from out of reach of the majority of the population.

Give it time, I'd wager good $$ that a few demographic groups will have the trend reversed in a few years (in a more statistically significant manner), for a number of reasons, but one of the being technology (another one being the strong decline in rate of smoking among the same demographic groups).

Very few gyms are that cheap. Most are a good bit more. Heck a Crossfit membership can run $200+ per month. They are every bit as expensive in time as they are in $$. And if you have kids.... the number of gyms that offer daycare is very small. The private for profit gym industry is a horrendous way to promote fitness for the general population. It is in fact hard to think of something that would actually be worse.

likitisplit

According to gallup (obesity rate among 18-29 yr olds)
...
Another group that is fairly stable are the well off (income >90K/yr)

1. A gallup poll is going to have much more than a 1% margin of error so you can hardly consider that data to be showing a trend. Even NHANES shows some small blips here and there.
2. The 70 - 90 year olds have the lowest rates of adulthood obesity. Is this the most tech savvy group then? Of course not, and tech savvy doesn't have anything to do with the 18 - 29 year old obesity rates either. The lower in age you are the less time you have to build up obesity which is why people below 50 have lower rates of obesity. The impact of early death is why obesity rates start to level off in the 50's because more people are dying from obesity related diseases than becoming obese. The 70 - 90 year olds have the lowest because the largest percentage of obese people died off before that age bracket.
3. If you didn't know education and wealth are very tightly couple with obesity. No one who is wealthy lives in a food desert for example. It also has a lot to do about affording medical services, education, and overall well being. Again nothing to do with tech savvy.
4. All of these trends have been apparent for the last 30 years not just since MFP and other advancements in tech.

I really don't see how you would think gyms make training easier. They are inconvenient and expensive. Maybe if it was normal for the gov't to provide them free of charge for the public a la parks, but that is not the case at all. Treadmills take up a ton of space and are expensive, a fairly small subset of the population can both afford one and house one.

So you don't see how having 1 gym 15 miles away is not as convenient as 10 gyms to pick from within 5 miles? Seeing how many gyms offer $10 monthly memberships (in America anyway) it's far from out of reach of the majority of the population.

Give it time, I'd wager good $$ that a few demographic groups will have the trend reversed in a few years (in a more statistically significant manner), for a number of reasons, but one of the being technology (another one being the strong decline in rate of smoking among the same demographic groups).

Very few gyms are that cheap. Most are a good bit more. Heck a Crossfit membership can run $200+ per month. They are every bit as expensive in time as they are in $$. And if you have kids.... the number of gyms that offer daycare is very small. The private for profit gym industry is a horrendous way to promote fitness for the general population. It is in fact hard to think of something that would actually be worse.

Especially when you factor in the ineffectiveness of the workouts and diet plans that are promoted there.

lemurcat12

Why not make and share something tasty that is healthy? That's in every way better than sharing and making cookies.

I do that too, but people got irritated the last time I brought gazpacho to our Christmas cookie exchange. Didn't fit in their bags very well.

Broader point is that eating an overall healthy diet with occasional cookies is not going to leave you unhealthy as compared to a "clean" diet that cuts out all added sugar or grains or whatever people have decided are unclean foods. And for many the occasional cookies might make the diet more sustainable--not in the least because you can join in Christmas cookie exchanges or eat a piece of grandma's apple pie--and there are probably unhealthy elements to the impulse to declare particular foods that you like "unclean" or off-limits. IMO, it's essentially a way of trying to combat one's attraction to certain foods by telling yourself they are really disgusting and shameful, and that messes some people up when they perceive that they are wanting to eat (or eat) foods that they have convinced themselves are disgusting. Indeed, one could probably make a comparison to some kinds of attitudes toward sex, but that's probably not going to make the discussion less controversial. ;-)

likitisplit

Why not make and share something tasty that is healthy? That's in every way better than sharing and making cookies.

I do that too, but people got irritated the last time I brought gazpacho to our Christmas cookie exchange. Didn't fit in their bags very well.

Broader point is that eating an overall healthy diet with occasional cookies is not going to leave you unhealthy as compared to a "clean" diet that cuts out all added sugar or grains or whatever people have decided are unclean foods. And for many the occasional cookies might make the diet more sustainable--not in the least because you can join in Christmas cookie exchanges or eat a piece of grandma's apple pie--and there are probably unhealthy elements to the impulse to declare particular foods that you like "unclean" or off-limits. IMO, it's essentially a way of trying to combat one's attraction to certain foods by telling yourself they are really disgusting and shameful, and that messes some people up when they perceive that they are wanting to eat (or eat) foods that they have convinced themselves are disgusting. Indeed, one could probably make a comparison to some kinds of attitudes toward sex, but that's probably not going to make the discussion less controversial. ;-)

In summary: It's impossible to fall off the wagon when there is no wagon.

lemurcat12

Except it's a known fact that these foods are created to manipulate our body and brain chemistry to find them most pleasurable.

Most food is created in an effort to make it most pleasurable. That's what learning to cook teaches you how to do. That's every bit as true about traditional home-cooked meals as marketed stuff, and most people will agree with me that really good home-cooked or restaurant food, cooked to their taste using fresh, whole ingredients (and, sure, butter) is much tastier and harder to resist than packaged stuff or fast food, I expect, although obviously taste is subjective.

It just sounds scarier if it's some big corporation doing that, vs. mom or Julia Child.

If anything, a lot of the additives in packaged food and fast food is because they are trying to make them tasty on the cheap, and as indicated above they still generally don't taste as good. Compare a frozen pizza to a pizza cooked at a really good local pizza place or home-cooked by someone with the right equipment.

If you are claiming that transfats or HFCS or whatever are as addictive as truly addictive drugs, provide the evidence. It's certainly not my experience.

kgeyser

Give it time, I'd wager good $$ that a few demographic groups will have the trend reversed in a few years (in a more statistically significant manner), for a number of reasons, but one of the being technology (another one being the strong decline in rate of smoking among the same demographic groups).

You do understand that since the 1980's smoking rates have decreased by 50% while the number of adults that are obese doubled right? And that there is no sign yet of any adult demographic decreasing right?

So other than smoking and technology which have done nothing to curb obesity to date, what other significant societal changes do you think will reverse the trend of obesity?

Very few gyms are that cheap. Most are a good bit more. Heck a Crossfit membership can run $200+ per month. They are every bit as expensive in time as they are in $$. And if you have kids.... the number of gyms that offer daycare is very small. The private for profit gym industry is a horrendous way to promote fitness for the general population. It is in fact hard to think of something that would actually be worse.

But the point is that there are cheap gyms available. If you're low on money is asinine to pay $200 per month for a gym membership but that doesn't mean you say f*** it to the $10 per month ones you can afford. My YMCA membership is $60 per month for my family which includes 2 hours of daycare each day. I mean that's worth it just for the baby sitter time and is something most medium income families could afford.

The YMCA where I live is $100 per month for a family. And there's no YMCA nearby, I'd be looking at a 30 min drive at least. The gym within walking distance of my home is over $100 for a family and you have to pay for childcare. No $10 gyms in my area with free childcare. Where you live has a huge impact on cost and accessibility.

likitisplit

Except it's a known fact that these foods are created to manipulate our body and brain chemistry to find them most pleasurable.

Most food is created in an effort to make it most pleasurable. That's what learning to cook teaches you how to do. That's every bit as true about traditional home-cooked meals as marketed stuff, and most people will agree with me that really good home-cooked or restaurant food, cooked to their taste using fresh, whole ingredients (and, sure, butter) is much tastier and harder to resist than packaged stuff or fast food, I expect, although obviously taste is subjective.

It just sounds scarier if it's some big corporation doing that, vs. mom or Julia Child.

If anything, a lot of the additives in packaged food and fast food is because they are trying to make them tasty on the cheap, and as indicated above they still generally don't taste as good. Compare a frozen pizza to a pizza cooked at a really good local pizza place or home-cooked by someone with the right equipment.

If you are claiming that transfats or HFCS or whatever are as addictive as truly addictive drugs, provide the evidence. It's certainly not my experience.

I dare anybody to stop eating my strawberry cake.

ValGogo

lemurcat12

A couple of years ago, the food industry started using maltodextrin as an additive in potato chips. Do some research on maltodextrin then get back to me how it doesn't cause cravings and increase the desire to eat more in one sitting.

I didn't find anything reputable, but will read a link if you have one. It seems like the argument is more that it has a high GI.

Also, the idea that people are addicted to potato chips doesn't make much sense to me, however, given real world experience.

Just_Ceci

[img]http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j370/Jezey/Fail Funny Gifs/samba-girl-double-fail-giftumblr.gif[/img]

FIFY

MrTolerable

If you are putting hours and hours into your body at the gym and doing cardio then it just feels rewarding eating lean.

and in my opinion 300 cal of crap vs 600 calories of broccoli and chicken - I think your body would appreciate the lean food more.

I feel like if you are eating at a deficit especially is really important the small amount of food you do eat is food that is healthy for you.

- if due to financial reasons you simply can't afford it I recommend taking a mulch-vitamin

waldo56

Give it time, I'd wager good $$ that a few demographic groups will have the trend reversed in a few years (in a more statistically significant manner), for a number of reasons, but one of the being technology (another one being the strong decline in rate of smoking among the same demographic groups).

You do understand that since the 1980's smoking rates have decreased by 50% while the number of adults that are obese doubled right? And that there is no sign yet of any adult demographic decreasing right?

So other than smoking and technology which have done nothing to curb obesity to date, what other significant societal changes do you think will reverse the trend of obesity?

It was the same with smoking. People knew it was bad for you for a long time; slowly but surely the ball started rolling and it just became flat out uncool to smoke. It took a couple generations, but people eventually figured out how to deal with that particular negative in society.

We are only a generation or two removed from the start of the substantial rise in obesity. Modern computer-TV-video game lifestyle is really only about 30 years old. People will figure out how to deal with it. Once the ball starts rolling, it will go. Just like the rise, it will be impossible to pinpoint the reason for the decline, instead being a combination of factors.

Very few gyms are that cheap. Most are a good bit more. Heck a Crossfit membership can run $200+ per month. They are every bit as expensive in time as they are in $$. And if you have kids.... the number of gyms that offer daycare is very small. The private for profit gym industry is a horrendous way to promote fitness for the general population. It is in fact hard to think of something that would actually be worse.

But the point is that there are cheap gyms available. If you're low on money is asinine to pay $200 per month for a gym membership but that doesn't mean you say f*** it to the $10 per month ones you can afford. My YMCA membership is $60 per month for my family which includes 2 hours of daycare each day. I mean that's worth it just for the baby sitter time and is something most medium income families could afford.

Time matters. You may be motivated to spend the money to go to the gym, but to expect this particular industry to have any impact on the health of the population is foolish at best.

Heck the city I live in specifically does not do anything with its public $$ or park spaces that could remotely promote fitness in order not to step on the toes of the gym businesses in town. That is flat out idiotic, but that's how it works here in 'murica.

MrTolerable

Give it time, I'd wager good $$ that a few demographic groups will have the trend reversed in a few years (in a more statistically significant manner), for a number of reasons, but one of the being technology (another one being the strong decline in rate of smoking among the same demographic groups).

You do understand that since the 1980's smoking rates have decreased by 50% while the number of adults that are obese doubled right? And that there is no sign yet of any adult demographic decreasing right?

So other than smoking and technology which have done nothing to curb obesity to date, what other significant societal changes do you think will reverse the trend of obesity?

Very few gyms are that cheap. Most are a good bit more. Heck a Crossfit membership can run $200+ per month. They are every bit as expensive in time as they are in $$. And if you have kids.... the number of gyms that offer daycare is very small. The private for profit gym industry is a horrendous way to promote fitness for the general population. It is in fact hard to think of something that would actually be worse.

But the point is that there are cheap gyms available. If you're low on money is asinine to pay $200 per month for a gym membership but that doesn't mean you say f*** it to the $10 per month ones you can afford. My YMCA membership is $60 per month for my family which includes 2 hours of daycare each day. I mean that's worth it just for the baby sitter time and is something most medium income families could afford.

The YMCA where I live is $100 per month for a family. And there's no YMCA nearby, I'd be looking at a 30 min drive at least. The gym within walking distance of my home is over $100 for a family and you have to pay for childcare. No $10 gyms in my area with free childcare. Where you live has a huge impact on cost and accessibility.

I paid $100 for one year

I was a senior in college and got the hook up.

Mr_Knight

So other than smoking and technology which have done nothing to curb obesity to date, what other significant societal changes do you think will reverse the trend of obesity?

More and more people are going to realize that being obese is costing them money, opportunity, prosperity. Throw in more and more kids realizing that cute girl (boy) with fat mom (dad) is a solid portend of the future...

It'll happen.

It always does.