There's something very wrong here...
myofibril
Posts: 4,500 Member
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 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...
0
Replies
-
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...
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.0 -
We have become pampered, complacent and self delusional. No wonder our waistlines are expanding...
This pretty much sums it all up right here. Brilliant as always, my dear!0 -
Yes, people eat more now. What did you think was causing the obesity problem?0
-
I gained weight because I didn't eat enough and ate too much sugar.0
-
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....0 -
Yes, people eat more now. What did you think was causing the obesity problem?
Carbs.0 -
Well said!0
-
UK is not quite as up there with obesity as USA:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity0 -
Thats v interesting. No wonder I ve been so curvy and my mum was so slim!0
-
Spot on....nice post.
Ignore the smartas ses0 -
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.
Interesting, but I'd find it even more so if you'd found information about physical activity levels in 1971 as well. The TV was fairly well-established by then, and the cult of 'exercise' was not yet as dominant as it is today.0 -
It is amazing if you look at how much our portion sizes have increased and what is considered a normal 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.0
-
This post doesn't take into account the special snowflakes.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.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.
Are you sure about this?0 -
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....
^LOL
And yes, that is exactly what will happen. Or someone will choose a singular food item.0 -
It is also the quality of the food. Our food is so processed these days that a meal that we had back in the 70's has more calories in it now then it did then. I'm not talking about homemade stuff, but instead the tendency to, instead of making say homemade dinner, going and buying a TV dinner, or instead of a grilled hamburger you did yourself, going to McDonalds. We are packing in food that is so bastardized most people can't even decipher the ingredient contents.
And this may actually be different in the UK then here in the US. I spent two months there for school last year and noticed a lot of the ingredients were actually Real rather then chemical compositions; but that may have also been where I shopped? I was really quite surprised at not only the actually food in food (so sad I even have to say that) but it's improved taste.
Like Coca-cola? I can't stomach it here, there, with real sugar? Best soda in the world.0 -
I think that the perception of what is 'fat' has changed hugely (no pun intended over the years). I was considered 'the fat kid' in school; I was not THAT much larger than your average schoolkid in the playground now.
Vanity sizing also has a LOT to answer for.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.
3000 calories per day. Good lord, what kind of rationing is that exactly? Having said that the article does sensibly state:Under rationing, men were allowed 3,000 calories a day - slightly higher than 2,500 recommended today. But the reality is most of us consume as much as 3,100 calories.
As Dr Toni Steer, a nutritionist with the Medical Research Council, explains: "Whatever people consume today, it is too much. The reason so many of us are overweight is because we eat too much and exercise too little.0 -
well the diabetic has to cut back the carbs it converts to sugar in the blood to fast specially potatoes... high school biology was amazingly useful those are the simplest forms of sugar its why if you chew a fry long enough it actually starts to taste sweet... but it wasnt the carbs that got me here it was the soda addiction and the sweet tea at work i miss my cherry cokes so much sigh oh well atleast i can drink diet doctor pepper
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....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...0 -
This post doesn't take into account the special snowflakes.
You are right.
Caveat: it applies to the vast majority of the general population and does not take into account the minority of people who have some sort of medical condition etc.0 -
Healthy, quickly prepared food can be pretty difficult to find. If you put in the time and effort to research it and join this kind of website, you can figure out how to incorporate healthy foods into your diet, sure. However, food in general is a lot less healthy now than it was in 1971. Obviously our TV habits contribute, as well as fast food and serving sizes. I definitely agree with you, but I do place part of the blame on the food industry as well as related education. I went to one of the best public school systems in the US, but even still, no one ever told me about the basics of being healthy. We had sex ed, but nothing about how many calories you should eat a day (aside from the 2000 calorie daily value on labels--too much!), how to eat cheap AND healthy food (vs one or the other), that sort of thing. Vitamins = good, carbs = bad, that's the extent of the health based education I received. (And I actually paid attention in school, so who knows what other people took from it!) They also told us about the food pyramid, but according to that, we are supposed to eat more grains than anything else. Just fill up on those carbs! There are a lot of things that have contributed to our nation's weight gain.0
-
Carbs, NO.....its John Wayne's fault0
-
Thank you so much...I see people blaming the food, blaming their genes...but if you look back a few generations, when people had to regularly get off their bums to do most things and eating out was a rare treat, people weighed less. Here in America, people love to blame their genetic makeup for their size, but if you look at the countries that their ancestors emmigrated from, they are a lot less heavy, ironically.
Carbs, protein, high fructose corn syrup...whatever. Some things are harder to burn than others, but the fact is, if you burn off more than you eat, you will lose weight. If you consume more than you burn, you will gain weight.
We are all, genetically predisposed to eat as much of salty, fatty, sweet things because those things historically held hard-to-obtain minerals or calories. Sorry...but that's the truth. At the end of the day, those that can through sheer force of will say no, will succeed in keeping their size down, or through even greater force of will reduce what they've already put on.
Here's to hoping for daily re-fortification of our force of will. :P0 -
The problem is that, since 1971, we've gotten farther from our caveman roots. Everything will be fine if we all go on the paleo diet.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.0 -
I am overweight, have always been overweight (minus a small stint on adderall in the late 90s), and I can tell you without a doubt that it is not from carbs, juice, fruit, soda, super sizing, fast food, chips, twinkies, stress, cortisol, metabolic syndrome, obamacare, gay marriage, or tax increases on the rich. It is simply because I STRONGLY dislike exercise, and I STRONGLY love food. My ins have never equaled my outs.0
-
Interesting stats.
The only thing I'd add is that although average calorie intake might have been better in the 1970's there's a lot more opportunity to eat selectively these days, even if people ignore that in favour of quick fix calorie laden fastfoods. In the UK my diet in those days, (and I wasn't even slightly overweight), included lots of deep fried, fat and sugar heavy foods, desserts with cream, etc.
Even if I was better informed I wouldn't have really had the chance to buy healthier foods in the supermarket unless I concentrated on fresh veg and salad. These days practically everything, including processed items, comes with a breakdown of nutritional values.
I think people have become lazy and it's an attitude change that's needed. Look how public opinion has changed about things like drink and smoking, it can't be beyond the wit of our respective governments to make a concerted effort for food stuffs too.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