Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
New Guardian Piece - More Calories Are Consumed Through Alcohol Than Sugar Sweetened Beverages
GottaBurnEmAll
Posts: 7,722 Member
in Debate Club
There are some other interesting tidbits too. I really wish the United States had been included in this, though.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/17/brits-calories-alcohol-sugary-drinks
I found the calorie consumption figures at the end fascinating.
Lots of fodder for discussion here.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/17/brits-calories-alcohol-sugary-drinks
I found the calorie consumption figures at the end fascinating.
Euromonitor’s nutrition data also shows that the average daily consumption of calories in the world is 1,398 calories, with the lowest amount in India at 761 calories per capita per day and the highest in Belgium at 2,559 calories per capita per day. It also shows that most of the developing countries it tracked (78%) get more calories from packaged food than fresh food.
Lots of fodder for discussion here.
0
Replies
-
Euromonitor’s nutrition data also shows that the average daily consumption of calories in the world is 1,398 calories, with the lowest amount in India at 761 calories per capita per day and the highest in Belgium at 2,559 calories per capita per day
Ummm... No, just no.2 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »Euromonitor’s nutrition data also shows that the average daily consumption of calories in the world is 1,398 calories, with the lowest amount in India at 761 calories per capita per day and the highest in Belgium at 2,559 calories per capita per day
Ummm... No, just no.
I don't put a lot of faith in The Guardian on a good day, but even these numbers seem a little... off.1 -
I don't see why the numbers are so surprising. They are averages, meaning there will be people who eat less than that number and people who eat more.
India is in essence a third-world country in a lot of areas. That average is not really surprising to me.
The average of 1398 daily average calories worldwide seems low, but that number is skewed by other poverty-stricken countries. Most Western countries will obviously have a higher intake than that. Almost half of the world's population lives on less than $2.50 per day, with 80% living on less than $10 per day (http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats).
With that information, it is not surprising that many places in the world would eat less calories per day than the more wealthy, Westernized nations.
Also, the US was not included in the study - I'd imagine our numbers are higher. I haven't searched for that information, though I'd be interested to see it if anyone knows anything about it.6 -
Most people are unaware that alcohol can make you gain weight, because – unlike food – the number of calories are not routinely marked on beer cans and bottles of wines and spirits.
I've noticed this here in the US as well and it always makes me scratch my head. I'm guessing the alcohol lobby has been able to prevent a requirement to include nutrition info on alcohol packaging.
Interesting info. I would be interested to see how the numbers were calculated.0 -
Even a very small/thin person (5'0", 100lbs) has a BMR of over 1200 calories. And those in poverty are quite often doing large amounts of manual labor and have a relatively high TDEE compared to people in more developed countries with sedentary lifestyles.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I don't see why the numbers are so surprising. They are averages, meaning there will be people who eat less than that number and people who eat more.
India is in essence a third-world country in a lot of areas. That average is not really surprising to me.
The average of 1398 daily average calories worldwide seems low, but that number is skewed by other poverty-stricken countries. Most Western countries will obviously have a higher intake than that. Almost half of the world's population lives on less than $2.50 per day, with 80% living on less than $10 per day (http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats).
With that information, it is not surprising that many places in the world would eat less calories per day than the more wealthy, Westernized nations.
Also, the US was not included in the study - I'd imagine our numbers are higher. I haven't searched for that information, though I'd be interested to see it if anyone knows anything about it.
This data looks more realistic: http://chartsbin.com/view/11501 -
The alcohol calories thing just sounds like sensible drinking behaviour to me: if I'm drinking because I'm thirsty, I'm going to choose water or something else with few calories in it, because I don't want to waste calories on sugary drinks when I could be eating some delicious cake or something. So my drink calories each day are pretty negligible. But if I'm drinking alcohol, I've chosen it because it's alcohol, not just for its thirst-quenching properties.5
-
Most people are unaware that alcohol can make you gain weight, because – unlike food – the number of calories are not routinely marked on beer cans and bottles of wines and spirits.
I've noticed this here in the US as well and it always makes me scratch my head. I'm guessing the alcohol lobby has been able to prevent a requirement to include nutrition info on alcohol packaging.
Interesting info. I would be interested to see how the numbers were calculated.
I always thought it was because Community Red doesn't have calories.2 -
Most people are unaware that alcohol can make you gain weight, because – unlike food – the number of calories are not routinely marked on beer cans and bottles of wines and spirits.
I've noticed this here in the US as well and it always makes me scratch my head. I'm guessing the alcohol lobby has been able to prevent a requirement to include nutrition info on alcohol packaging.
Interesting info. I would be interested to see how the numbers were calculated.
Quoting you because you provided the article quote - I really wonder if people are actually "unaware" that alcohol has a lot of calories. I find it more likely that they don't care. Just like most know that drinking too much is bad for their health, and that drinking and driving endangers lives. People do it anyway because it provides a buzz.
Additionally, there's a culture around alcohol that doesn't exist with soda or other caloric beverages. You don't generally talk about grabbing a Coke after work; you grab a beer. You don't celebrate milestones with Sprite, you pop the champagne. You pair steak with a big red wine, not sweet tea. People plan entire meals around the wine being served. Weekend-long events like craft beer or whiskey tastings get sold out. Alcohol is social and food-friendly. When you don't partake, you risk missing out, so you deal with the extra calories.
Alcohol is also glamorized on TV - skinny people in sitcoms drink a lot of it. While soda certainly sneaks its way in with paid product placement, you don't have entire episode plots unfolding around the time Ted Mosby did shots of soda and blacked out (spoiler alert: he had a great night, so alcohol is good, right?). Hell, skinny people on reality TV drink a lot of it - looking at you, Bachelor franchise. If those sexy men and women can stay thin drinking so much of the stuff, it can't be THAT bad for you, right?
Please note: I do drink. I have no intention of cutting alcohol out of my diet. I love wine, I make meals around wine, I plan vacations around wine. But I recognize that health warnings and calorie labels will only go so far; it will take a big societal shift to significantly reduce consumption.
The other thing to keep in mind about alcohol: this article makes a 200 calorie drink sound scary, but if you're already following guidelines for moderate drinking, it's probably not a big reason why you're gaining weight. You're consuming too much, period. Alcohol is an easy place to cut calories with little nutritional value, but saying it's all alcohol's fault is scapegoating a single item rather than looking at overall behavior with food. If you're NOT moderately drinking, cutting back is important for more reasons than just obesity.7 -
Most people are unaware that alcohol can make you gain weight, because – unlike food – the number of calories are not routinely marked on beer cans and bottles of wines and spirits.
I've noticed this here in the US as well and it always makes me scratch my head. I'm guessing the alcohol lobby has been able to prevent a requirement to include nutrition info on alcohol packaging.
Interesting info. I would be interested to see how the numbers were calculated.
Is that quote at the top from the article? Are they serious? Most people are unaware that alcohol can make you gain weight?? Most people? Where the heck did they get that "data"? Who the heck drinks alcohol and thinks it's calorie free?1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Most people are unaware that alcohol can make you gain weight, because – unlike food – the number of calories are not routinely marked on beer cans and bottles of wines and spirits.
I've noticed this here in the US as well and it always makes me scratch my head. I'm guessing the alcohol lobby has been able to prevent a requirement to include nutrition info on alcohol packaging.
Interesting info. I would be interested to see how the numbers were calculated.
Is that quote at the top from the article? Are they serious? Most people are unaware that alcohol can make you gain weight?? Most people? Where the heck did they get that "data"? Who the heck drinks alcohol and thinks it's calorie free?
Sadly I do know some people like that. According to them the calories in alcohol are 'minimal' to non-existent and as a result negligible. After all, it's alcohol, by which they mean it's something consumed for pleasure and not nourishment. When you point out that that double serving of red wine they've poured is upwards of 200 cals, they just shake their heads in disbelief and look at you as a freak.
0 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Most people are unaware that alcohol can make you gain weight, because – unlike food – the number of calories are not routinely marked on beer cans and bottles of wines and spirits.
I've noticed this here in the US as well and it always makes me scratch my head. I'm guessing the alcohol lobby has been able to prevent a requirement to include nutrition info on alcohol packaging.
Interesting info. I would be interested to see how the numbers were calculated.
Is that quote at the top from the article? Are they serious? Most people are unaware that alcohol can make you gain weight?? Most people? Where the heck did they get that "data"? Who the heck drinks alcohol and thinks it's calorie free?
Sadly I do know some people like that. According to them the calories in alcohol are 'minimal' to non-existent and as a result negligible. After all, it's alcohol, by which they mean it's something consumed for pleasure and not nourishment. When you point out that that double serving of red wine they've poured is upwards of 200 cals, they just shake their heads in disbelief and look at you as a freak.
What's really funny is when they then criticize me at a later date for drinking my calories (adding protein powder or coconut oil to coffee) because they like to "eat their calories" . LOL1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Who the heck drinks alcohol and thinks it's calorie free?
Are we talking beer, or gin?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Most people are unaware that alcohol can make you gain weight, because – unlike food – the number of calories are not routinely marked on beer cans and bottles of wines and spirits.
I've noticed this here in the US as well and it always makes me scratch my head. I'm guessing the alcohol lobby has been able to prevent a requirement to include nutrition info on alcohol packaging.
Interesting info. I would be interested to see how the numbers were calculated.
Is that quote at the top from the article? Are they serious? Most people are unaware that alcohol can make you gain weight?? Most people? Where the heck did they get that "data"? Who the heck drinks alcohol and thinks it's calorie free?
My dad has no idea about calories. He thinks because he buys the keystone light that it's fine to drink 12 because, hey, it's light beer. Then tells me I shouldn't eat my pudding because I'm on a diet and it's bad. Doesn't matter how many times I tell him it's accounted for in my day, he just doesn't understand. Then my mom told him that honey is better for him than sugar, so he makes his peanut butter and honey sandwiches and just piles it on like it's totally fine. It's like the blind leading the blind at my parents house.0 -
Most people are unaware that alcohol can make you gain weight, because – unlike food – the number of calories are not routinely marked on beer cans and bottles of wines and spirits.
I've noticed this here in the US as well and it always makes me scratch my head. I'm guessing the alcohol lobby has been able to prevent a requirement to include nutrition info on alcohol packaging.
Interesting info. I would be interested to see how the numbers were calculated.
Drives me absolutely bonkers that calories aren't included on labels! I don't drink anything with calories besides 1-2 alcoholic beverages on the weekends. I estimate it's around 200 calories per bottle. My husband can easily drink 6 bottles in a weekend, which really adds up in calories.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Most people are unaware that alcohol can make you gain weight, because – unlike food – the number of calories are not routinely marked on beer cans and bottles of wines and spirits.
I've noticed this here in the US as well and it always makes me scratch my head. I'm guessing the alcohol lobby has been able to prevent a requirement to include nutrition info on alcohol packaging.
Interesting info. I would be interested to see how the numbers were calculated.
Is that quote at the top from the article? Are they serious? Most people are unaware that alcohol can make you gain weight?? Most people? Where the heck did they get that "data"? Who the heck drinks alcohol and thinks it's calorie free?
You'd be surprised at how many people think there is no need to log rum and Diet Coke, since there are no calories in Diet Coke.2 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I don't see why the numbers are so surprising. They are averages, meaning there will be people who eat less than that number and people who eat more.
It says that the average person in India consumes 761 calories per day. So there must be people eating 400 calories per day for this to be true. I find that surprising and hard to believe.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I don't see why the numbers are so surprising. They are averages, meaning there will be people who eat less than that number and people who eat more.
It says that the average person in India consumes 761 calories per day. So there must be people eating 400 calories per day for this to be true. I find that surprising and hard to believe.
https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger
People starve to death in India every day, many of them children.4 -
People starve to death in Sudan, too, but India's average is the lowest on the planet. And The Guardian is not a reputable source.0
-
Holy crap! This site never ceases to blow my mind.0
-
See? This is why I enjoy being a total lightweight (and the usual keto diet intensifies that). It only takes about 150 kcal worth of Jameson to have me completely smashed.0
-
chocolate_owl wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I don't see why the numbers are so surprising. They are averages, meaning there will be people who eat less than that number and people who eat more.
It says that the average person in India consumes 761 calories per day. So there must be people eating 400 calories per day for this to be true. I find that surprising and hard to believe.
https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger
People starve to death in India every day, many of them children.
This.
Looking more closely at the data cited in the Guardian article (http://www.euromonitor.com/nutrition-industry), it looks like the averages were based off of the nutrients of products sold. I'm assuming this would not include data from locally-grown produce or locally-acquired meat/dairy. It may also exclude rarer brands or categories of foods. Based off of that observation, I will admit that the numbers may be a bit low, but it does not surprise me that poorer countries, such as India, have much lower calorie intake averages than one might expect.
1 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I don't see why the numbers are so surprising. They are averages, meaning there will be people who eat less than that number and people who eat more.
It says that the average person in India consumes 761 calories per day. So there must be people eating 400 calories per day for this to be true. I find that surprising and hard to believe.
https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger
People starve to death in India every day, many of them children.
This.
Looking more closely at the data cited in the Guardian article (http://www.euromonitor.com/nutrition-industry), it looks like the averages were based off of the nutrients of products sold. I'm assuming this would not include data from locally-grown produce or locally-acquired meat/dairy. It may also exclude rarer brands or categories of foods. Based off of that observation, I will admit that the numbers may be a bit low, but it does not surprise me that poorer countries, such as India, have much lower calorie intake averages than one might expect.
Also, have you SEEN people in India? The country was once the pinnacle of strong and jacked *kitten*. Now it looks like a retirement home for starvation models.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I don't see why the numbers are so surprising. They are averages, meaning there will be people who eat less than that number and people who eat more.
It says that the average person in India consumes 761 calories per day. So there must be people eating 400 calories per day for this to be true. I find that surprising and hard to believe.
https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger
People starve to death in India every day, many of them children.
This.
Looking more closely at the data cited in the Guardian article (http://www.euromonitor.com/nutrition-industry), it looks like the averages were based off of the nutrients of products sold. I'm assuming this would not include data from locally-grown produce or locally-acquired meat/dairy. It may also exclude rarer brands or categories of foods. Based off of that observation, I will admit that the numbers may be a bit low, but it does not surprise me that poorer countries, such as India, have much lower calorie intake averages than one might expect.
This quote from the article appears in the first post of the thread: "It also shows that most of the developing countries it tracked (78%) get more calories from packaged food than fresh food."
Seems to imply at least that the 761 calories per day that the average Indian eats includes local produce. I mean if they're able to say that people in India eat less produce than packaged food, then they must have numbers for both categories.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I don't see why the numbers are so surprising. They are averages, meaning there will be people who eat less than that number and people who eat more.
It says that the average person in India consumes 761 calories per day. So there must be people eating 400 calories per day for this to be true. I find that surprising and hard to believe.
https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger
People starve to death in India every day, many of them children.
This.
Looking more closely at the data cited in the Guardian article (http://www.euromonitor.com/nutrition-industry), it looks like the averages were based off of the nutrients of products sold. I'm assuming this would not include data from locally-grown produce or locally-acquired meat/dairy. It may also exclude rarer brands or categories of foods. Based off of that observation, I will admit that the numbers may be a bit low, but it does not surprise me that poorer countries, such as India, have much lower calorie intake averages than one might expect.
This quote from the article appears in the first post of the thread: "It also shows that most of the developing countries it tracked (78%) get more calories from packaged food than fresh food."
Seems to imply at least that the 761 calories per day that the average Indian eats includes local produce. I mean if they're able to say that people in India eat less produce than packaged food, then they must have numbers for both categories.
Perhaps the numbers are from store-bought items and don't include bartered items or home grown/raised. I can think of a couple of reasons that there could be non-packaged foods that are not tracked in India.2 -
In 2006, 48% of children in India were so malnourished they were classified as "stunted," meaning that because of malnutrition they are more than 2 standard deviations shorter than they should be (can't tell whether that's median or mean height per age).
Since India also has a population curve that skews very young, and since that average consumption number presumably includes children, I actually wouldn't be surprised if the number is accurate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/opinion/half-these-kids-are-stunted.html
3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I don't see why the numbers are so surprising. They are averages, meaning there will be people who eat less than that number and people who eat more.
It says that the average person in India consumes 761 calories per day. So there must be people eating 400 calories per day for this to be true. I find that surprising and hard to believe.
https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger
People starve to death in India every day, many of them children.
This.
Looking more closely at the data cited in the Guardian article (http://www.euromonitor.com/nutrition-industry), it looks like the averages were based off of the nutrients of products sold. I'm assuming this would not include data from locally-grown produce or locally-acquired meat/dairy. It may also exclude rarer brands or categories of foods. Based off of that observation, I will admit that the numbers may be a bit low, but it does not surprise me that poorer countries, such as India, have much lower calorie intake averages than one might expect.
This quote from the article appears in the first post of the thread: "It also shows that most of the developing countries it tracked (78%) get more calories from packaged food than fresh food."
Seems to imply at least that the 761 calories per day that the average Indian eats includes local produce. I mean if they're able to say that people in India eat less produce than packaged food, then they must have numbers for both categories.
Right, but the data that was used to come up with the averages (from the Euromonitor link) was acquired through-6 years of historical market size data and 5 years of forecasts
-Nutrient content per 100 grams of each brand is available at the lowest category and country level
-230 food and soft drinks categories
-More than 57,000 food and soft drink brands
-Examine how product categories and brands contribute to the purchase of nutrients, on a per-capita, per-day basis
-Includes nutrition shares by company and brand
So it's not out of the realm of reality to suggest that certain brands and types of foods would not be included in the data.
1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I don't see why the numbers are so surprising. They are averages, meaning there will be people who eat less than that number and people who eat more.
It says that the average person in India consumes 761 calories per day. So there must be people eating 400 calories per day for this to be true. I find that surprising and hard to believe.
https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger
People starve to death in India every day, many of them children.
This.
Looking more closely at the data cited in the Guardian article (http://www.euromonitor.com/nutrition-industry), it looks like the averages were based off of the nutrients of products sold. I'm assuming this would not include data from locally-grown produce or locally-acquired meat/dairy. It may also exclude rarer brands or categories of foods. Based off of that observation, I will admit that the numbers may be a bit low, but it does not surprise me that poorer countries, such as India, have much lower calorie intake averages than one might expect.
This quote from the article appears in the first post of the thread: "It also shows that most of the developing countries it tracked (78%) get more calories from packaged food than fresh food."
Seems to imply at least that the 761 calories per day that the average Indian eats includes local produce. I mean if they're able to say that people in India eat less produce than packaged food, then they must have numbers for both categories.
Perhaps the numbers are from store-bought items and don't include bartered items or home grown/raised. I can think of a couple of reasons that there could be non-packaged foods that are not tracked in India.
I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. @Alyssa_Is_LosingIt looked more deeply and what you suggest seems to probably be the case. If so, it means the average person in India is consuming more than 761 calories.0 -
It is more often than not alcohol in the food diary, rather than carbonated beverages, when I peek at my friend's over-their-calorie-target days.
At the bottom of the story is says Indians get 761 calories per day. I say BS. There aren't enough starving Indians on CNN to make that happen.0 -
If I don't drink regional craft beer, I will be deported from Cascadia and dropped somewhere that only has Bud Light. So, I always make sure to meet my quota.
I would love to see this study done in America and looking at generational differences. I think younger millennials have a reputation for being more health conscious (many have never eaten a Big Mac!) Most people I know only drink soda if there is alcohol in it. Somehow that makes it ok?0 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »It is more often than not alcohol in the food diary, rather than carbonated beverages, when I peek at my friend's over-their-calorie-target days.
At the bottom of the story is says Indians get 761 calories per day. I say BS. There aren't enough starving Indians on CNN to make that happen.
It says here (https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger) that India has the largest amount of undernourished people in the world.1
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
- 424 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