Why Do We Overeat? A Neurobiological Perspective

24

Replies

  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    Here's another one -- from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. In 1700, in England, average consumption was 4 lbs. In 1800, it was 18 lbs. In 1950, it was 100 lbs -- with the amount doubling in both the US and UK between 1900 and 1967. In 2002, it was nearly 150 lbs (67.6 kb) per person.

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.long
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 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
    What part of IT PEAKED IN 2000 AND HAS BEEN DECREASING EVER SINCE are you having problems understanding, since you keep quoting data from 2000, not 2014?

    Also, "The data reported in tables 2-1 through
    2-6 are unadjusted for spoilage and
    waste, so they may overstate what is
    actually eaten. "

    I'm using the numbers also from the USDA Economic Research Service, using the most recent data available, adjusted for spoilage. In other words, what we actually ate, rather than what we produced.
  • 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.

    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.
    You do realize that the cheap pancake syrup you can buy today, and the syrup your granpdparents couldn't afford are vastly different products, right? You could buy about 11 GALLONS of pancake syrup for the same price as one gallon of the cheapest maple syrup on the market today. About 44 gallons of pancake syrup if you want to buy a gallon of the more expensive maple syrup. Pancake syrup is basically corn syrup and caramel color.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Here's another one -- from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. In 1700, in England, average consumption was 4 lbs. In 1800, it was 18 lbs. In 1950, it was 100 lbs -- with the amount doubling in both the US and UK between 1900 and 1967. In 2002, it was nearly 150 lbs (67.6 kb) per person.

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.long
    You left out the part where it peaked at about 100lbs per capita in 1900, before dropping and rising again to about 100lbs per capita in 1950.

    What was it I said? Oh yeah, that consumption of sugar was 100 lbs per capita in 1900...
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    You're right, Tigersword. There has been no significant increase in consumption of sugar in the average American's diet in the past couple hundred years. Nope. Hasn't happened.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 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.

    Well, at least maple trees are not sprayed with glyphosate (Roundup) as non-organic sugar beets and sugar cane (not to mention that non-organic wheat, corn, soy, and potatoes are as well. And wheat and potatoes are not yet even GMO!). Scientists are starting to raise the alarm over glyphosate residue in more and more food crops. There will be some horrific consequences from feeding the people an unending supply of glyphosate-tainted food. Here's at least one MIT scientist's examination of the issue. As usual, Monsanto has come roaring out in defense of their poison (they make many billions of $$ off of it). And they fight dirty--I hope this woman is prepared for the onslaught. http://www.alternet.org/food/meet-controversial-mit-scientist-who-claims-have-discovered-cause-gluten-sensitivty?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

    ETA: I wonder if the CEO of Monsanto eats Roundup-tainted food or if he like Oprah, and others in the Elite, eats nothing but organic food from his own organic farm.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Natmarie73
    Natmarie73 Posts: 287 Member
    You do realize that the cheap pancake syrup you can buy today, and the syrup your granpdparents couldn't afford are vastly different products, right? You could buy about 11 GALLONS of pancake syrup for the same price as one gallon of the cheapest maple syrup on the market today. About 44 gallons of pancake syrup if you want to buy a gallon of the more expensive maple syrup. Pancake syrup is basically corn syrup and caramel color.

    Not sure how this means Americans (and other western civilisations) don't eat much more sugar now than we used to.
    I too would like to see data that disproves it. I assume the OP means sugar as any processed sugar whether it be cane sugar, beet sugar HFCS or whatever. The fact we have easy access to cheap pancake syrup now, when our grandparents only had access to very expensive maple syrup would suggest that they had no choice but to go without the syrup.

    And I do think that what our older generations say about the matter is valid evidence. Ask anyone over the age of 80 and they will tell you they didn't eat a lot of sugar at all when they were growing up.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    You do realize that the cheap pancake syrup you can buy today, and the syrup your granpdparents couldn't afford are vastly different products, right? You could buy about 11 GALLONS of pancake syrup for the same price as one gallon of the cheapest maple syrup on the market today. About 44 gallons of pancake syrup if you want to buy a gallon of the more expensive maple syrup. Pancake syrup is basically corn syrup and caramel color.

    Not sure how this means Americans (and other western civilisations) don't eat much more sugar now than we used to.
    I too would like to see data that disproves it. I assume the OP means sugar as any processed sugar whether it be cane sugar, beet sugar HFCS or whatever. The fact we have easy access to cheap pancake syrup now, when our grandparents only had access to very expensive maple syrup would suggest that they had no choice but to go without the syrup.

    And I do think that what our older generations say about the matter is valid evidence. Ask anyone over the age of 80 and they will tell you they didn't eat a lot of sugar at all when they were growing up.

    So true. My grandmother said that a sugary-treat was a rare event and she blamed teenage acne and childhood obesity on the eating of sugar. Interestingly, the movies of the 1930s reflected the suspicions that people had about sugar consumption. Eating candy was thought to be the province of spoiled children and self-indulgent women.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 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
    What part of IT PEAKED IN 2000 AND HAS BEEN DECREASING EVER SINCE are you having problems understanding, since you keep quoting data from 2000, not 2014?

    Also, "The data reported in tables 2-1 through
    2-6 are unadjusted for spoilage and
    waste, so they may overstate what is
    actually eaten. "

    I'm using the numbers also from the USDA Economic Research Service, using the most recent data available, adjusted for spoilage. In other words, what we actually ate, rather than what we produced.

    The USDA does not track consumption, only production. And the U.S. is a net importer of sugar.

    ETA: Food processors, fearing that there would be a shortage of sugar, argued with the government that the importation of sugar should be expanded.
  • tedrickp
    tedrickp Posts: 1,229 Member
    @santeMulberry-

    The USDA Economic Research Service, in fact does track consumption - not sure why you think otherwise since you could easily look it up for yourself. In fact you can look up the consumption numbers all the way back to 1909.

    To the sugar people - I apologize for even bringing it up in my post, because I didn't imagine this thread dissolving into yet another sugar argument.

    If you actually watched the video you would realize that it's kind of silly to try and isolate any one single reason we overeat (i.e. the caloric density and palatability of sugar).

    Also - to the sugar people. If you think sugar was the sole (or primary) reason for the obesity increase, check out the post I posted earlier: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2014/04/calorie-intake-and-us-obesity-epidemic.html

    This breaks down the link between calories and obesity...

    Some interesting notes:

    The correlation between calories and obesity is VERY strong (see scatterplot in post)
    The correlation with carbohydrate isn't quite as strong as with calories, but it's still extremely strong.
    The correlation with fat is slightly weaker than with total calories, but still extremely strong.
    Surprisingly the correlation with protein was strongest (weird)

    To sum up...

    We're eating more of everything than we did 50 years ago.
  • 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.
    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.

    Well, at least maple trees are not sprayed with glyphosate (Roundup) as non-organic sugar beets and sugar cane (not to mention that non-organic wheat, corn, soy, and potatoes are as well. And wheat and potatoes are not yet even GMO!). Scientists are starting to raise the alarm over glyphosate residue in more and more food crops. There will be some horrific consequences from feeding the people an unending supply of glyphosate-tainted food. Here's at least one MIT scientist's examination of the issue. As usual, Monsanto has come roaring out in defense of their poison (they make many billions of $$ off of it). And they fight dirty--I hope this woman is prepared for the onslaught. http://www.alternet.org/food/meet-controversial-mit-scientist-who-claims-have-discovered-cause-gluten-sensitivty?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

    ETA: I wonder if the CEO of Monsanto eats Roundup-tainted food or if he like Oprah, and others in the Elite, eats nothing but organic food from his own organic farm.

    Food produced does not get tainted with Roundup. They are genetically engineered to be "Roundup Ready" to resist any pesticides that are broadcast over an entire crop to control weeds. Organic foods producers use pesticides too, you know.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Here's another one -- from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. In 1700, in England, average consumption was 4 lbs. In 1800, it was 18 lbs. In 1950, it was 100 lbs -- with the amount doubling in both the US and UK between 1900 and 1967. In 2002, it was nearly 150 lbs (67.6 kb) per person.

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.long
    You left out the part where it peaked at about 100lbs per capita in 1900, before dropping and rising again to about 100lbs per capita in 1950.

    What was it I said? Oh yeah, that consumption of sugar was 100 lbs per capita in 1900...

    I've read your posts with interest Tigerswood and note that you still have not offered any scientific or factual evidence to support your claims - you do realise that you are the holder of the burden of proof and unless you provide some we will have to assume your information is BS.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    @santeMulberry-

    The USDA Economic Research Service, in fact does track consumption - not sure why you think otherwise since you could easily look it up for yourself. In fact you can look up the consumption numbers all the way back to 1909.

    To the sugar people - I apologize for even bringing it up in my post, because I didn't imagine this thread dissolving into yet another sugar argument.

    If you actually watched the video you would realize that it's kind of silly to try and isolate any one single reason we overeat (i.e. the caloric density and palatability of sugar).

    Also - to the sugar people. If you think sugar was the sole (or primary) reason for the obesity increase, check out the post I posted earlier: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2014/04/calorie-intake-and-us-obesity-epidemic.html

    This breaks down the link between calories and obesity...

    Some interesting notes:

    The correlation between calories and obesity is VERY strong (see scatterplot in post)
    The correlation with carbohydrate isn't quite as strong as with calories, but it's still extremely strong.
    The correlation with fat is slightly weaker than with total calories, but still extremely strong.
    Surprisingly the correlation with protein was strongest (weird)

    To sum up...

    We're eating more of everything than we did 50 years ago.

    I think that goes without saying, also we are less active as nations now.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 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.

    Well, at least maple trees are not sprayed with glyphosate (Roundup) as non-organic sugar beets and sugar cane (not to mention that non-organic wheat, corn, soy, and potatoes are as well. And wheat and potatoes are not yet even GMO!). Scientists are starting to raise the alarm over glyphosate residue in more and more food crops. There will be some horrific consequences from feeding the people an unending supply of glyphosate-tainted food. Here's at least one MIT scientist's examination of the issue. As usual, Monsanto has come roaring out in defense of their poison (they make many billions of $$ off of it). And they fight dirty--I hope this woman is prepared for the onslaught. http://www.alternet.org/food/meet-controversial-mit-scientist-who-claims-have-discovered-cause-gluten-sensitivty?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

    ETA: I wonder if the CEO of Monsanto eats Roundup-tainted food or if he like Oprah, and others in the Elite, eats nothing but organic food from his own organic farm.

    Food produced does not get tainted with Roundup. They are genetically engineered to be "Roundup Ready" to resist any pesticides that are broadcast over an entire crop to control weeds. Organic foods producers use pesticides too, you know.

    That is incorrect. There ARE residues of glyphosate in all foods produced using it (and it is more than just genetically engineered crops that contain it). Your assertion that foods "...are genetically engineered to resist any pesticides that are broadcast over an entire crop to control weeds..." makes no sense. Roundup Ready soy beans have been engineered to resist DYING when sprayed repeatedly with Roundup. As an example, virtually ALL soy crops grown in the U.S. are Roundup/glyphosate saturated.

    As for organic farmers using pesticide--you are missing the whole point of organic farming, which is to maximize safety while maintaining profitability for the organic farmer: "The five main pesticides used in organic farming are Bt (a bacterial toxin), pyrethrin [a natural component of the feverfew plant that is readily broken down by the human body], rotenone, copper and sulphur [naturally found in soil and are, in fact, essential elements in the human body]. Fewer than 10% of organic farmers use botanical insecticides on a regular basis, 12% use sulfur, and 7% use copper-based compounds." Organic farming works because it drastically curbs or eliminates the use of expensive agricultural chemicals. Big Ag is attempting to drive organic farmers out of business in a variety of ways but organic farming is actually more profitable for small farmers and certainly more health-promoting for those who they serve.

    ETA: And while rotenone is highly toxic, it is not synthetic and it has been used without health incident for many, many decades--unlike the synthetic chemicals that are having profound effects in animals exposed to them.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    tedrickp: "...The USDA Economic Research Service, in fact does track consumption - not sure why you think otherwise since you could easily look it up for yourself. In fact you can look up the consumption numbers all the way back to 1909..."

    Those are only estimates.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Depression can do a number on your brain chemistry. Gluttony has become a lit bit less sinful in Christian churches across the country. It's easier to live for the now than it is to plan for the future.

    That's what I got for now.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    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.

    No time to watch the video now, but I approve of the bolded statement. :smokin:
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 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.

    It's also true that we eat a lot more meat than our grandparents did. During the depression, people that were lucky to have employment would often head to work with nothing but a lard sandwich for lunch.
  • tedrickp
    tedrickp Posts: 1,229 Member
    tedrickp: "...The USDA Economic Research Service, in fact does track consumption - not sure why you think otherwise since you could easily look it up for yourself. In fact you can look up the consumption numbers all the way back to 1909..."

    Those are only estimates.

    Well of course it is. I didn't assume they watched how much each of us individually eats. It is still the best estimation we have.

    BTW - for all the Anti-GMO posts (not directed at anyone in particular) - can y'all please go make your own thread about that, because it has nothing to do with the video.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 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.

    Thanks, Uncle Sam!

    1348778638428.gif
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    To sum up...

    We're eating more of everything than we did 50 years ago.

    We are also taller on average than we were 50 years ago. Is that taken into account? Sorry, I don't have time at the moment to read the article. :grumble:
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 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.

    My mom used to use corn syrup on her pancakes because "pancake syrup" or maple syrup was way out of budget. My grandma also used to make a simple sugar syrup that I have used when I couldn't afford syrup. Syrup is still not cheap, imo, especially good syrup.

    My grandparents have said the same. Grandma made "silver dollar pancakes" and they were a breakfast side, with eggs being the main dish.
  • tedrickp
    tedrickp Posts: 1,229 Member
    Average American adult is about an inch taller since 1960. You can probably extrapolate the data from the article yourself and figure out if that increase in height matches the extra calories.

    I don't know how much height effects caloric needs (it clearly does, but I just don't know much - like I personally couldn't say 1 inch of height = X more calories needed) But considering, US adults consumed 363 more calories per day in 2009 than in 1960, my hunch is us being taller isn't covering that many calories.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    I think people drink coke more than milk because it tastes better than milk


    I kinda disagree with this statement. Milk is delicious. Coke is good. Chocolate milk is heaven on earth.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 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.

    My mom used to use corn syrup on her pancakes because "pancake syrup" or maple syrup was way out of budget. My grandma also used to make a simple sugar syrup that I have used when I couldn't afford syrup. Syrup is still not cheap, imo, especially good syrup.

    My grandparents have said the same. Grandma made "silver dollar pancakes" and they were a breakfast side, with eggs being the main dish.
  • craftywitch_63
    craftywitch_63 Posts: 829 Member
    Bump to watch after work. Thanks! :flowerforyou:
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    You're right, Tigersword. There has been no significant increase in consumption of sugar in the average American's diet in the past couple hundred years. Nope. Hasn't happened.

    I'm glad this is settled!
  • KariOrtiz2014
    KariOrtiz2014 Posts: 343 Member
    Lmao I love your tool! "Chance of Sex"... So funny!!
  • HerbertNenenger
    HerbertNenenger Posts: 453 Member
    I'll take anything I can get my hands on in terms of research for weight loss. I am reading now about how 99% of diets fail in the long term, and actually cause people to gain weight due to feelings of deprivation. It's definitely psychological as there is no "real" hunger involved in this. So I'm trying to educate and inform myself so I won't fall into the trap. I thank you for the link, it's appreciated !

Categories