There's something very wrong here...

Options
124

Replies

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm

    "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. LOL
  • DontStopB_Leakin
    DontStopB_Leakin Posts: 3,863 Member
    Options
    It is amazing if you look at how much our portion sizes have increased and what is considered a normal meal.
    In the 50's, the average dinner plate was 8 inches in diameter. Now, it's 14 inches. WTF happened?
  • ElizabethRoad
    ElizabethRoad Posts: 5,138 Member
    Options
    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!
    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?
  • DontStopB_Leakin
    DontStopB_Leakin Posts: 3,863 Member
    Options
    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 :wink:

    Sure no probs:

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
    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.

    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.
  • DontStopB_Leakin
    DontStopB_Leakin Posts: 3,863 Member
    Options
    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!
    Smart *kitten* fail.
  • ElizabethRoad
    ElizabethRoad Posts: 5,138 Member
    Options
    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.
    It's increased significantly since 1971?
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    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).
  • Jacwhite22
    Jacwhite22 Posts: 7,012 Member
    Options
    It is amazing if you look at how much our portion sizes have increased and what is considered a normal meal.
    In the 50's, the average dinner plate was 8 inches in diameter. Now, it's 14 inches. WTF happened?

    I would have a hard time fitting 19oz of chicken breast on an 8" plate
  • xarge
    xarge Posts: 484 Member
    Options

    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.
  • popzork
    popzork Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    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.
  • DontStopB_Leakin
    DontStopB_Leakin Posts: 3,863 Member
    Options
    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.
    It's increased significantly since 1971?
    No, my reading comprehension failed me and I read the 7 as a 5. Disregard and carry on.
  • ElizabethRoad
    ElizabethRoad Posts: 5,138 Member
    Options
    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.
    It's increased significantly since 1971?
    No, my reading comprehension failed me and I read the 7 as a 5. Disregard and carry on.
    Oh ok. That would make sense.
  • JoolieW68
    JoolieW68 Posts: 1,879 Member
    Options
    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.
  • DontStopB_Leakin
    DontStopB_Leakin Posts: 3,863 Member
    Options
    Side note, people were still pretty fat and lazy in the 70's. The fast food craze in the 50's ensured that.
  • HeavyLiftGirl
    HeavyLiftGirl Posts: 1,267 Member
    Options
    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.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    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.
  • myofibril
    myofibril Posts: 4,500 Member
    Options

    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...
  • dhakiyya
    dhakiyya Posts: 481 Member
    Options
    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.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Options
    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?!?!?
  • xarge
    xarge Posts: 484 Member
    Options

    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 ****.

Categories