There's something very wrong here...
Replies
-
"During 1971--2000, a statistically significant increase in average energy intake occurred (Table). For men, average energy intake increased from 2,450 kcals to 2,618 kcals (p<0.01), and for women, from 1,542 kcals to 1,877 kcals (p<0.01). For men, the percentage of kcals from carbohydrate increased between 1971--1974 and 1999--2000, from 42.4% to 49.0% (p<0.01), and for women, from 45.4% to 51.6% (p<0.01) (Table). The percentage of kcals from total fat decreased from 36.9% to 32.8% (p<0.01) for men and from 36.1% to 32.8% (p<0.01) for women. In addition, the percentage of kcals from saturated fat decreased from 13.5% to 10.9% (p<0.01) for men and from 13.0% to 11.0% (p<0.01) for women. A slight decrease was observed in the percentage of kcals from protein, from 16.5% to 15.5% (p<0.01) for men and from 16.9% to 15.1% (p<0.01) for women."
Clearly not the carbs then. LOL0 -
In the 50's, the average dinner plate was 8 inches in diameter. Now, it's 14 inches. WTF happened?It is amazing if you look at how much our portion sizes have increased and what is considered a normal meal.0 -
Portion size, not serving size. You know, like when you go out to a restaurant and the entree is 2 or 3 times the size of what you actually need?It is amazing if you look at how much our portion sizes have increased and what is considered a normal meal.
Protein sizes have increased? A serving should be the size of a deck of cards. There are lots of neat ways to measure your foods when you are out or at home, if you dont have other means. Good luck!0 -
Another thing to take into consideration is where you live in the US. I guarantee you, the average Texas woman is consuming WAY more that 1800 a day.If you still have it, would you mind posting the link to this study? 1500 calories a day for a women is below many ladies' BMR! At least its below mine, so I would like to check this out
Sure no probs:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
Oh and 1500 a day is too little for a lot of ladies because the average height of a woman has also increased over the years.0 -
Smart *kitten* fail.It is amazing if you look at how much our portion sizes have increased and what is considered a normal meal.
Protein sizes have increased? A serving should be the size of a deck of cards. There are lots of neat ways to measure your foods when you are out or at home, if you dont have other means. Good luck!0 -
It's increased significantly since 1971?Oh and 1500 a day is too little for a lot of ladies because the average height of a woman has also increased over the years.0 -
I found it was much easier to deliberately manage my total calories consumed each day when I stopped eating grains, added sugars and almost all processed foods. Almost no cravings...and this was true when I was eating at a deficit to lose (~30 pounds in first 6 months) or eating to gain (~15 pounds in past 7.5 months).0
-
In the 50's, the average dinner plate was 8 inches in diameter. Now, it's 14 inches. WTF happened?It is amazing if you look at how much our portion sizes have increased and what is considered a normal meal.
I would have a hard time fitting 19oz of chicken breast on an 8" plate0 -
Glad you posted this. There seems to be a chunk of people who like to pin obesity on singular things outside of thermodynamics and this post is a pretty good example of the problem. We're eating more and moving less. Period.
I'm just waiting for someone to say "yeah, but the increase in calories was mainly due to increased carbs" and then it will become about insulin and metabolic advantage and the tooth fairy....
I'm not saying it, the study you took the numbers from does:During 1971--2000, a statistically significant increase in average energy intake occurred (Table). For men, average energy intake increased from 2,450 kcals to 2,618 kcals (p<0.01), and for women, from 1,542 kcals to 1,877 kcals (p<0.01). For men, the percentage of kcals from carbohydrate increased between 1971--1974 and 1999--2000, from 42.4% to 49.0% (p<0.01), and for women, from 45.4% to 51.6% (p<0.01) (Table). The percentage of kcals from total fat decreased from 36.9% to 32.8% (p<0.01) for men and from 36.1% to 32.8% (p<0.01) for women. In addition, the percentage of kcals from saturated fat decreased from 13.5% to 10.9% (p<0.01) for men and from 13.0% to 11.0% (p<0.01) for women. A slight decrease was observed in the percentage of kcals from protein, from 16.5% to 15.5% (p<0.01) for men and from 16.9% to 15.1% (p<0.01) for women.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
That said, I'm not a carb hater or have any problems with my lovely insulin but quoting a part of study and assuming what people may think is not objective, no offense.0 -
I think there are three components - all equally damaging to our waistline and all need to be addressed if we are going to be successful on this journey -
1) We exercise/move less.
2) We eat more fast and processed foods.
3) Our portions are out of whack.
Everyone has their own version of what worked for them. I'm working on all three.0 -
No, my reading comprehension failed me and I read the 7 as a 5. Disregard and carry on.
It's increased significantly since 1971?Oh and 1500 a day is too little for a lot of ladies because the average height of a woman has also increased over the years.0 -
Oh ok. That would make sense.
No, my reading comprehension failed me and I read the 7 as a 5. Disregard and carry on.
It's increased significantly since 1971?Oh and 1500 a day is too little for a lot of ladies because the average height of a woman has also increased over the years.0 -
It all comes down to the fact that there are so many more 'convenient' ways to do something.
In 1971 we didn't have 900 cable channels to watch (let alone a remote to change the channel), prepackaged dinners weren't as prevalent (if at all) and I don't think microwaves were in every home, and if you wanted to talk on the phone you had to get up and go to it, not take it with you.
Have you ever seen the movie WALL-E? The people living on the space ship are the epitome of laziness. They never have to get out of their chairs for anything - and that's what this country is headed to if people don't start getting up and moving and taking the TIME to do things for themselves. Convenience isn't a bad thing, but it shouldn't be the only thing.0 -
Side note, people were still pretty fat and lazy in the 70's. The fast food craze in the 50's ensured that.0
-
This post reminds me of something. I was in McDonald's the other day getting a coffee when I saw a young boy that was probably about 6 years old. His mother had ordered him the pancake meal as well as am egg McMuffin, and he looks up to her and says "Come on, mom. I eat more than that!" She then proceeded to order him an additional egg McMuffin and 2 sausage burritos.
I have no idea how many calories that added up to, but it was WAY too much for even a grown man to consume. This little boy was obese and it just made me sad. Even sadder? He sat and played video games on his mom's iPhone instead of playing outside after his meal.0 -
I could not agree with this more... also, the "normal" weight has shifted too over the years making it so obesity is basically stated as "that's normal" now where as back in the day, it was important to be fit.
Actually, in 1971 the focus was more on being thin or skinny (it was good word back then) than fit. Just the other day we were watching some re-runs from the first season of SNL and Gilda Radner and Candace Bergen, both of whom were very thin, were talking about being jealous of those that were skinnier than them.0 -
That said, I'm not a carb hater or have any problems with my lovely insulin but quoting a part of study and assuming what people may think is not objective, no offense.
No offense taken.
The findings of the study, or indeed its focus, were not about overall carb consumption and its affect on increasing weight gain but rather overall calorie consumption. Therefore, it would have been a little disingenuous for me to cloud the discussion by saying it was in fact over consumption of carbs that lead to a general weight gain over time based on that study alone. It would be putting the cart before the horse.
I suppose if my post was about evaluating isoclaoric diets with differing macronutrient breakdowns using strictly controlled clinical trials and their affect on fat derived weight loss it would have been relevant.
But everyone knows the answer to that one...0 -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-465769/Can-modern-family-survive-wartime-rations.html
Here is an interesting article about war time rationing in the UK. Calorie intake (3,000 per day for men) remains almost the same. However, fat, sugar and protein consumption have increased.
That 3000 a day would have assumed that most men were working in jobs that involved physical labour, plus any men who were not serving as soldiers during the war would have been involved in military activities (e.g. "dad's army") and other wartime efforts. Many women were doing jobs that were done by men before the war, i.e. fairly physical work in factories etc, plus coming home to do housework without all the mod cons we have today, so both men and women would have needed more calories per day than people doing modern office jobs and coming home and sitting on the sofa watching TV. Plus kids spent far more time playing outdoors than modern kids do.
The modern obesity epidemic is a combination of eating too much, eating the wrong foods, and being sedentary. All three of these contribute to a lesser or greater extent. Mostly it's eating too much and not moving enough, but the quality of food is still an issue because highly processed food is less filling than homecooked wholefoods, and if something doesn;t fill you up it's going to be easier to overeat on it.0 -
Plates and cups and portion sizes have also increased..lending a false sense of "being good"
I have my great grandmothers china and it's HALF the size of the Gordon Ramsey plates I bought last year...
back then you would eat one helping on a dinner plate that was the size of a side plate now...
so we tell ourselves we stopped with one helping and we were good people...but if we TRULY stopped with one helping on a plate the size they were 40 years ago...we would be eating half as much as we eat now...
that's terrifying...as a result? I put away the dinner plates, I eat off of the side plates only...or...my great grandmothers china.
So true. Now that my food is measured out, when put my serving on our regular plates, there are huge expanses of empty white surface. At holiday meals, I'll have double portions, and relatives will still be asking why my plate is empty. Lord forbid I don't go up to get seconds! And don't forget the pie!
Also: Gordon Ramsey has plates?!?!?0 -
That said, I'm not a carb hater or have any problems with my lovely insulin but quoting a part of study and assuming what people may think is not objective, no offense.
No offense taken.
The findings of the study, or indeed its focus, were not about overall carb consumption and its affect on increasing weight gain but rather overall calorie consumption. Therefore, it would have not been a little disingenuous for me to cloud the discussion by saying it was in fact over consumption of carbs that lead to a general weight gain over time based on that study alone. It would be putting the cart before the horse.
I suppose if my post was about evaluating isoclaoric diets with differing macronutrient breakdowns using strictly controlled clinical trials and their affect on fat derived weight loss it would have been relevant.
But everyone knows the answer to that one...
But the findings of that study also shows that on average despite the decrease in fat and protein intake, carbohydrate is the only macro that is consumed more between 1971 and 2000. People are eating more but they're focusing on carbs. Does carbs make them "fatter"? Not necessarily but carbs aren't famous for keeping one satiated and needless to say most of the carb increase is from simple carbs with processed foods. Compared to that, decreasing protein and fat intake... Bad idea. Is it about lack of exercise? Mostly yes and it's not just about US. Europe is the same except walking and cycling are still plausible exercise of transportation for most cities, metropolis or not. I guess nowadays 90% children in US or Europe can't climb a tree, either from lack of exercise or they're too used to climbing it on Wii and that's not the same ****.0 -
I often wonder how much of this is attributable to the fact that people seem less able to cook than they used to. I'm 26 and people my age act completely astounded that I can cook simple meals that aren't burnt or disgusting. Even people in my mom's generation frequently seem baffled by how to make food themselves without getting at least some of it pre-prepared.
When I went to visit my mom a little more than a year ago, she invited over a bunch of friends over for dinner one night and some of my brother's friends came over as well. To feed everyone, we spent a couple hours cooking a variety of foods, mostly from recipes we'd made up ourselves and tweaked over time. After we fed everyone, people asked where we'd bought the various items so that they could go pick some up. People did not believe that it was made from scratch; they actually opened up the trash in an attempt to find packaging and catch us in our lies (in a joking/friendly fashion). When we tried to explain the simple recipes, we might as well have been trying to explain wizardry.
It's not that people are lazy or anything, they just have no clue how to turn ingredients into food that goes on a plate. And unfortunately, people who don't know are raising kids who then won't know either. It's sort of sad to me how many people struggle with losing weight just because they really can't make something that tastes better than fast food. If I honestly thought that healthy food was gross, I'd probably avoid it as well.0 -
I often wonder how much of this is attributable to the fact that people seem less able to cook than they used to. I'm 26 and people my age act completely astounded that I can cook simple meals that aren't burnt or disgusting. Even people in my mom's generation frequently seem baffled by how to make food themselves without getting at least some of it pre-prepared.
When I went to visit my mom a little more than a year ago, she invited over a bunch of friends over for dinner one night and some of my brother's friends came over as well. To feed everyone, we spent a couple hours cooking a variety of foods, mostly from recipes we'd made up ourselves and tweaked over time. After we fed everyone, people asked where we'd bought the various items so that they could go pick some up. People did not believe that it was made from scratch; they actually opened up the trash in an attempt to find packaging and catch us in our lies (in a joking/friendly fashion). When we tried to explain the simple recipes, we might as well have been trying to explain wizardry.
It's not that people are lazy or anything, they just have no clue how to turn ingredients into food that goes on a plate. And unfortunately, people who don't know are raising kids who then won't know either. It's sort of sad to me how many people struggle with losing weight just because they really can't make something that tastes better than fast food. If I honestly thought that healthy food was gross, I'd probably avoid it as well.
I think you're on the right track, but I think it's even more than that. What these studies don't account for is that more people are going to work now and working longer hours. In the 70s most women still worked at home doing the cooking/cleaning/etc. Women were able to cook meals from scratch. Today women and men are at work. We get home at 7 or 8, there isn't a lot of time to cook a meal from scratch any more. And after working at 12 hour day instead of an 8 hour day, we don't spend as much time walking, cleaning, etc.0 -
Side note, people were still pretty fat and lazy in the 70's. The fast food craze in the 50's ensured that.
Much less than now, and at a much older age though, expecially when it came to being fat. It was very rare to see an overweight child or teenager. Even up through their 20's and 30's most women were much smaller than today. And the really obese, those that can barely walk across the street without getting winded were extremely rare. Women were considered 'fat' at a much smaller size then than now too.
More of the weight was probably lost by calorie cutting than exercise then than now though. But lifestyle demanded more movement back then. We even had to get up to change the TV channel and adjust the antenna.0 -
I often wonder how much of this is attributable to the fact that people seem less able to cook than they used to. I'm 26 and people my age act completely astounded that I can cook simple meals that aren't burnt or disgusting. Even people in my mom's generation frequently seem baffled by how to make food themselves without getting at least some of it pre-prepared.
When I went to visit my mom a little more than a year ago, she invited over a bunch of friends over for dinner one night and some of my brother's friends came over as well. To feed everyone, we spent a couple hours cooking a variety of foods, mostly from recipes we'd made up ourselves and tweaked over time. After we fed everyone, people asked where we'd bought the various items so that they could go pick some up. People did not believe that it was made from scratch; they actually opened up the trash in an attempt to find packaging and catch us in our lies (in a joking/friendly fashion). When we tried to explain the simple recipes, we might as well have been trying to explain wizardry.
It's not that people are lazy or anything, they just have no clue how to turn ingredients into food that goes on a plate. And unfortunately, people who don't know are raising kids who then won't know either. It's sort of sad to me how many people struggle with losing weight just because they really can't make something that tastes better than fast food. If I honestly thought that healthy food was gross, I'd probably avoid it as well.
I think you're on the right track, but I think it's even more than that. What these studies don't account for is that more people are going to work now and working longer hours. In the 70s most women still worked at home doing the cooking/cleaning/etc. Women were able to cook meals from scratch. Today women and men are at work. We get home at 7 or 8, there isn't a lot of time to cook a meal from scratch any more. And after working at 12 hour day instead of an 8 hour day, we don't spend as much time walking, cleaning, etc.
I think people overestimate how much cooking was done from scratch in the 70's. Pre-packaged food and frozen or canned vegetables were pretty common in a meal. Except for homegrown, fresh fruits and vegetables were not as readily available as now and were fairly expensive. And because only one parent usually worked, food budgets were tighter back then for many people. You just didn't walk into the local grocery and find the huge fresh produce sections that you do now.0 -
But the findings of that study also shows that on average despite the decrease in fat and protein intake, carbohydrate is the only macro that is consumed more between 1971 and 2000. People are eating more but they're focusing on carbs. Does carbs make them "fatter"? Not necessarily but carbs aren't famous for keeping one satiated and needless to say most of the carb increase is from simple carbs with processed foods. Compared to that, decreasing protein and fat intake... Bad idea.
I pretty much agree with all of that.
However, once again, the focus was not on differing macronutrient breakdowns so essentially it is speculation extrapolated from a study where the focus was on increased calorie consumption.
You can base a hypothesis off it and then test it out in a study of course or compare it with studies that have gone before.0 -
So, after a wonderful couple of weeks watching the Olympics I was inspired to research the training schedules of the athletes and see how they compared with my own. This lead me to seeing what an average person would do in general as well.
I couldn't find a lot of readily accessible data about the UK where I live but there was a fair amount of data from the US floating around which honestly shocked me. Given the UK is similar to the US I believe we are probably much the same.
In 1971, the average US woman consumed about 1,542 calories per day. In 2000, this had risen to 1,877 a difference of 335 calories per day. This is equivalent to 122, 275 calories a year or an extra 35lbs of fat...
For men the numbers rose from 2,450 to 2,618 an increase of 168 calories per day. This is equivalent to an extra 17.5lbs of fat.
80% watch TV every day, with the average person watching a whopping 5 hours per day or 35 hours per week. Only 5% were engaged in vigorous exercising daily, with 16% engaging is sports or exercise per day.
This doesn't even factor in increasing automation meaning we are more sedentary and engage in less physical activity.
Our perception of what is normal has become hugely distorted with time. Is it any wonder our respective nations are getting fatter and fatter? I wager if people reverted to a 1970 calorie intake and devoted a meagre 1/5th of the time they spent watching TV on average to exercise then our obesity problem would rapidly diminish.
We have become pampered, complacent and self delusional. No wonder our waistlines are expanding...
Just to point out though that the average cals for woman, even today, is still lower than the recommended levels and not necessarily adding extra fat as such!0 -
The very last part of your post made me very happy to see that somebody else has made it obvious for the rest of the world to read because you are SO right. Thank you!0
-
What recommended levels?Just to point out though that the average cals for woman, even today, is still lower than the recommended levels and not necessarily adding extra fat as such!0 -
So, after a wonderful couple of weeks watching the Olympics I was inspired to research the training schedules of the athletes and see how they compared with my own. This lead me to seeing what an average person would do in general as well.
I couldn't find a lot of readily accessible data about the UK where I live but there was a fair amount of data from the US floating around which honestly shocked me. Given the UK is similar to the US I believe we are probably much the same.
In 1971, the average US woman consumed about 1,542 calories per day. In 2000, this had risen to 1,877 a difference of 335 calories per day. This is equivalent to 122, 275 calories a year or an extra 35lbs of fat...
For men the numbers rose from 2,450 to 2,618 an increase of 168 calories per day. This is equivalent to an extra 17.5lbs of fat.
80% watch TV every day, with the average person watching a whopping 5 hours per day or 35 hours per week. Only 5% were engaged in vigorous exercising daily, with 16% engaging is sports or exercise per day.
This doesn't even factor in increasing automation meaning we are more sedentary and engage in less physical activity.
Our perception of what is normal has become hugely distorted with time. Is it any wonder our respective nations are getting fatter and fatter? I wager if people reverted to a 1970 calorie intake and devoted a meagre 1/5th of the time they spent watching TV on average to exercise then our obesity problem would rapidly diminish.
We have become pampered, complacent and self delusional. No wonder our waistlines are expanding...
I think you nailed it !
I've seen similar comparisons for the average portion size in the 1970's to the average portion size today . It's shocking to see the difference ! As we become more and more electronically dependent we become less active . Thankfully I rarely watch tv but I am guilty of over indulging on my iPad . I think a health and fitness revolution is in order !0 -
This thread started out using wonderful logic and everything made sense. I appreciate that. People need to stop blaming everything else like carbs, sugar, and processed food. Yes, I'm sure the women in Ruebens paintings ate too many Twinkies. There may be an increase in obesity now, but there have always been obese people. Queen Hapsetsut's (first and only female Pharaoh) mummy was recently discovered and she was obese. Henry VIII? Most artwork dating back thousands of years unless the figures are idealized, depict fat people. And they didn't get there from processed food.
Edited because I'm on my phone and it messed up and my post made no sense.
Back in the day (the ancient history day, that is) fat equaled wealthy. If someone was overweight, it was because they came from a family that could afford more food. And they could afford a painter to do their portraits. So, we are still at the cause of obesity being that people eat too much and don't get enough exercise (which I'm sure was also something that rich people were lacking back then.....they had servants & such and didn't have to do as much physical activity as a peasant).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions