Why Do We Overeat? A Neurobiological Perspective

tedrickp
tedrickp Posts: 1,229 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Great video...maybe a little dry and long :laugh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp2p4TdLn_8
Summary:

In the United States, the "obesity epidemic" has paralleled a gradual increase in daily calorie intake. Why do we eat more than we used to, and more than we need to remain lean-- despite negative consequences? This talk reviews the neurobiology of eating behavior, recent changes in the US food system, and why the brain's hardware may not be up to the task of constructively navigating the modern food environment.

I bolded the above line, because it is important to note that our increase in caloric intake is almost directly parallel to the rise in Obesity. i.e. its not because we eat more sugar and wheat.

Video is long, but wildly informative. Ill admit parts of it are far over my head, but this is def worth a watch if you are into this kind of stuff.
«134

Replies

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    do they cite a source for the calorie in trend matching the obesity trend ? In the UK we keep seeing reports citing a reduction in calorie intake that doesn't match the obesity trend.
  • tedrickp
    tedrickp Posts: 1,229 Member
    Im not sure on that specific point in video but most of the claims he makes in the video include a source in the bottom left of the video (or he audibly mentions it).

    Here is an article from the creator of the video that talks about the calorie and obesity correlation...

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2014/04/calorie-intake-and-us-obesity-epidemic.html

    He mentions his sources, as well as the limitations of said sources.
  • RunsOnEspresso
    RunsOnEspresso Posts: 3,218 Member
    This sounds like it might be interesting. I will have to watch it later.
  • chubby_checkers
    chubby_checkers Posts: 2,352 Member
    Bookmarked for later. Thanks for sharing!
  • bethlaf
    bethlaf Posts: 954 Member
    UK - secret Eaters ... a lot of people grossly underestimate the food they intake

    ETA: this is a tv show so the most extreme are the only ones that make it, but , truthfully this is why i love my scale like a best friend
  • TheGymGypsy
    TheGymGypsy Posts: 1,023 Member
    UK - secret Eaters ... a lot of people grossly underestimate the food they intake

    ETA: this is a tv show so the most extreme are the only ones that make it, but , truthfully this is why i love my scale like a best friend

    Love that show. And it's true, a lot of people have no idea what a calorie is, not to mention how many are actually in their big mac and fries.
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    Any connection between the fact that people eat more calories because more of the calories they are eating are sugar or grains (i.e. have less nutrients in them -- or "empty calories")?

    At least one of the theories I've seen is that if you're eating low-nutrient food like sugars and grains, your body craves more of it in order to meet its nutrient requirements. So, you end up eating more calories than necessary. I don't know if that's true or not, but definitely seems like a plausible theory on why people are driven to eat more calories than they really need.
  • tedrickp
    tedrickp Posts: 1,229 Member
    @Lindsey1979 - The video touches on a lot of reasons why people overeat. One of the many reasons is the palatability and caloric density of certain foods (which can include items with loads of sugar) but that is just one factor among a lot of other ones mentioned in the video.
  • Holly_Roman_Empire
    Holly_Roman_Empire Posts: 4,440 Member
    I overate because I love food that tastes good, i.e. that palatability thing you're talking about.

    In to see where this goes.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Any connection between the fact that people eat more calories because more of the calories they are eating are sugar or grains (i.e. have less nutrients in them -- or "empty calories")?

    At least one of the theories I've seen is that if you're eating low-nutrient food like sugars and grains, your body craves more of it in order to meet its nutrient requirements. So, you end up eating more calories than necessary. I don't know if that's true or not, but definitely seems like a plausible theory on why people are driven to eat more calories than they really need.
    According to USDA data, the intake of sugar and grains has been relatively unchanged over the last 25 years. In fact, since 1989, 75% of the increase in total calorie consumption has come from added fats and oils. In fact, sugar and grain consumption actually peaked in 2000, and has been declining ever since.
  • Lonestar5775
    Lonestar5775 Posts: 740 Member
    Why do we eat more than we used to, and more than we need to remain lean-- despite negative consequences?

    I think the easy answer to this question is delayed consequences. Over-eating, either a little or a lot, has no immediate short term effect; much the same as smoking. Psychologically, over-eating helps us believe we are safe (at least momentarily) from the problems of life; a full belly is satiating.

    Conversely, when over-eating does begin to have a health impact, then we have to perform actions we do not like such as denying one's desires and delaying gratification. That goes against our child-like nature. That's just my two cents. Thanks for posting the video although I have not watched it yet, it is an interesting topic.
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    Any connection between the fact that people eat more calories because more of the calories they are eating are sugar or grains (i.e. have less nutrients in them -- or "empty calories")?

    At least one of the theories I've seen is that if you're eating low-nutrient food like sugars and grains, your body craves more of it in order to meet its nutrient requirements. So, you end up eating more calories than necessary. I don't know if that's true or not, but definitely seems like a plausible theory on why people are driven to eat more calories than they really need.
    According to USDA data, the intake of sugar and grains has been relatively unchanged over the last 25 years. In fact, since 1989, 75% of the increase in total calorie consumption has come from added fats and oils. In fact, sugar and grain consumption actually peaked in 2000, and has been declining ever since.

    Sure, 25 years, that wouldn't surprise me -- since 1990. Yeah, that's no surprise. The typical American diet didn't do any radical shifts in the 80s and 90s.

    How about 75-100 years? I bet it's considerably different there.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    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.
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    I'll see if I can dig something up, but that's not what I've heard. 100 years ago we didn't have things like high fructose corn syrup that allowed us to pour even more sugar into things like Coke and other sodas. If they had to use actual sugar, it wouldn't dissolve into the liquid because it's past its saturation point. Things like that are considerably different than 100 years ago.

    Edit -- perhaps the time frame should be expanded a little. From a quick google search, I found an article that says 200 years ago, the average American consumed 2 POUNDS of sugar per year. In 1970, it was 123 POUNDS of sugar per year. Today, it's 152 POUNDS per year.

    There are roughly 1750 calories in a lb of sugar (I found several different numbers). So, that's 266,000 calories from sugar per year -- or the equivalent of 76 POUNDS of body fat. That's a LOT of empty calories.

    Coincidence that Americans are a lot fatter?

    http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/dphs/nhp/adults/documents/sugar.pdf
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Again, not really. HFCS was invented in the 60s. As HFCS use increased, the use of sucrose decreased inversely. We just shifted the source of it, we haven't changed the amount we consume. In fact, since HFCS is slightly sweeter than sucrose, food companies have actually been able to use LESS sugar in products, instead of more.

    Perhaps you're familiar with the West Indies slave trade? The only reason that was a thing was because of sugar demand.

    EDIT - OOH an edit. I'd like to see that random Google source, as it's reporting exactly double what the USDA is reporting, which is 75lbs per capita currently.

    EDIT #2, wow, a very colorful pdf without a single source cited. Not exactly something I'd refer to as credible.
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    Again, not really. HFCS was invented in the 60s. As HFCS use increased, the use of sucrose decreased inversely. We just shifted the source of it, we haven't changed the amount we consume. In fact, since HFCS is slightly sweeter than sucrose, food companies have actually been able to use LESS sugar in products, instead of more.

    Perhaps you're familiar with the West Indies slave trade? The only reason that was a thing was because of sugar demand.

    EDIT - OOH an edit. I'd like to see that random Google source, as it's reporting exactly double what the USDA is reporting, which is 75lbs per capita currently.

    EDIT #2, wow, a very colorful pdf without a single source cited. Not exactly something I'd refer to as credible.

    It is from the department of health of a state agency -- not a private for-profit enterprise. Perhaps New Hampshire's Department of Health is terrible --- but seems to be a more credible source than many I've seen on the internet.

    Here's another one from Forbes. They say 7 lbs in 1822 and 130 lbs today. Different, but the difference is still in crazy high multiples. With this math, the difference would be 215,000+ calories or 61.1 lbs of body fat.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/08/30/how-much-sugar-are-americans-eating-infographic/

    Or another one with case studies -- and links.
    http://onlinestatbook.com/2/case_studies/sugar.html

    The UC Berkeley Wellness Letter reported more than two decades ago that each American consumed about 133 pounds of sugar each year. The University of California, Berkeley Wellness Letter. 6:3, (Dec. 1989) p. 4-5.

    Still HUGE.
  • QueenMaryam04
    QueenMaryam04 Posts: 43 Member
    BUMP!!!
  • mighty_aphrodite
    mighty_aphrodite Posts: 13 Member
    UK - secret Eaters ... a lot of people grossly underestimate the food they intake

    Which is precisely why keeping a food journal is one of the best tools for weight loss.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    "Since the eighteenth century, the rise in the per capita consumption of sugar has been closely associated with industrialization, increased personal income, the use of processed foods, and the consumption of beverages to which people add sugar, such as tea, coffee, and cocoa. In addition, the relatively recent popularity of soft drinks has also expanded the use of sugar. Annual per capita sugar consumption is now highest in its places of production, such as Brazil, Fiji, and Australia, where it exceeds 50 kilograms (kg). Consumption in Cuba has been exceptionally high, exceeding 80 kg per capita around the beginning of the 1990s. Subsequently, consumption has fallen to a still very high 60 kg per person."

    http://www.cambridge.org/us/books/kiple/sugar.htm

    North america is considered 2nd tier sugar consumers...not first..
  • tycho_mx
    tycho_mx Posts: 426 Member
    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.
  • Fuzzipeg
    Fuzzipeg Posts: 2,301 Member
    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
    Point202 Posts: 55 Member
    Just tagging this to watch later. Sounds interesting.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    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
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    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
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    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
    Holly_Roman_Empire Posts: 4,440 Member
    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.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    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
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    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
    Holly_Roman_Empire Posts: 4,440 Member
    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.

Categories