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.
2006 vs 1988: BMI 2.3 higher today even when eating same diet
StarBrightStarBright
Posts: 97 Member
Biggest take away from article:
"They found a very surprising correlation: A given person, in 2006, eating the same amount of calories, taking in the same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat, and exercising the same amount as a person of the same age did in 1988 would have a BMI that was about 2.3 points higher. In other words, people today are about 10 percent heavier than people were in the 1980s, even if they follow the exact same diet and exercise plans."
Here is the whole thing:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/why-it-was-easier-to-be-skinny-in-the-1980s/407974/
thoughts? BS? interesting?
I wanted to discuss this with friends but none of my real life friends are into food/environment stuff.
"They found a very surprising correlation: A given person, in 2006, eating the same amount of calories, taking in the same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat, and exercising the same amount as a person of the same age did in 1988 would have a BMI that was about 2.3 points higher. In other words, people today are about 10 percent heavier than people were in the 1980s, even if they follow the exact same diet and exercise plans."
Here is the whole thing:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/why-it-was-easier-to-be-skinny-in-the-1980s/407974/
thoughts? BS? interesting?
I wanted to discuss this with friends but none of my real life friends are into food/environment stuff.
2
Replies
-
Interesting. My guess, and that's all it is, would to agree that it's likely the added chemicals.
I'll be honest it does seem a lot harder now than then. I wrote it off to lifestyle changes but maybe there are other factors as well.0 -
Are we still the same height as in 1988?14
-
In 1988 there were half as many "convience foods" with additives and preservatives. That's the only thing I can think of that's different. But I was only 10, a very tall, lanky 10.2
-
How accurate was their calorie counting in 1988? I know, for me, counting calories back then was laborious. Flipping through pages in a calorie counting book, I'm sure the info was not up to date.22
-
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »How accurate was their calorie counting in 1988? I know, for me, counting calories back then was laborious. Flipping through pages in a calorie counting book, I'm sure the info was not up to date.
Why would you assume it was less correct or up-to-date because it was in a book instead of a database? But I believe the study said then and now survey data was used.1 -
There was another thread talking about this a while back, but beats me how to find it.
It's based on the NHANES data, which is based on recollection, and which I am skeptical about. The question is even if it's not accurate, does it still show trends accurately (the argument that the extent to which people misreport would not have changed). I don't think that's likely to be true for a few reasons.
First, although I can't quickly pull it up, my memory is that the NHANES data shows that obese people are particularly bad at reporting calories -- if you believe the information, obese people on average eat many fewer calories than people who are a healthy BMI. I don't think that's as likely to be true as the other possible explanations: they are less likely to report accurately because they are more sensitive to judgment about what they eat OR they are just worse at remembering/being aware of the calories they consume. (See, e.g., Secret Eaters, or really any study of self-estimates even while tracking to see how bad people tend to be at this.)
If you believe that, then the fact that MORE people are overweight and obese now would skew it.
There's also the question of whether people might just be worse at estimating now. I think probably so, and the reason is my own memory of the differences between now and the '80s. I think eating lots of food between meals is much more common now, high calorie foods that aren't really taken notice of/thought of as foods (i.e., high cal coffee and other drinks) are more common now, eating out IS more common now (stats indicate) and those are full of more calories than people realize, etc. So is there more room for estimating issues? I think so.
Knowing how many calories people eat is always tough, though -- there's inconsistencies between the two ways we do it, and both ways we do it aren't that accurate (NHANES and following food sold or something like that).18 -
TavistockToad wrote: »Are we still the same height as in 1988?
It compares BMI, so takes height into account.
4 -
It seems to all be based on data from guided, but self reported, information on food and activity, which are notoriously unreliable. And outside of the recalled and reported physical activity used in the study, folks in general are less active, which effects TDEE.
Link to the actual study:
obesityresearchclinicalpractice.com/article/S1871-403X(15)00121-0/fulltext#sec00157 -
there is also the issue that the BMI charts were changed - moving the weights down (i.e. good range now less than it was originally) sometime during that same time period.2
-
-
One thing it doesn't seem to address as a likely factory is overall activity levels. They discuss exercise being the same, but not overall lifestyle. I believe we spend more time sedentary than even 20 years ago, more time in front of a screen and less time outdoors. Tools to make our work easier are more common and less expensive than they were in the late 80s, from ride-on mowers to dishwashers to Rumba to snowblowers. When I was a kid in 1988, most of my time outside of school was spent out doors, riding my bike or running around with friends, but now kids are more often inside on the computer and when they do go out they "must be supervised constantly."
I don't know how much this change in daily activity comes in to play in the increase they are seeing in BMI, but I'm sure that it is at least part of it. Maybe we should look at that as well as targeting all the scary-sounding chemicals.14 -
Firstly, everything is based on participant reporting, which makes these kinds of studies subject to perception changes over time. For example, the perception of 'moderate to intense effort' home and yard work has likely changed.
Secondly, they didn't control for basic activity levels, just moderate to intense activities performed during leisure hours (only the activities specifically named). Want to bet that not only do jobs today tend to be more sedentary than jobs in the late 80's, but so are the day-to-day lives of today vs the late 80's even if you don't look at 'leisure time activities'?
11 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
IIRC it's just the threshold numbers.0 -
I'll take a look at the original study, but I'd guess there are lifestyle changes as well and people were generally more physically active in their daily activities then. Take a sedentary office worker, for example. Today you have a computer on your desk and looking up a file takes just a few key clicks, but thirty years ago that meant actually getting up, walking to a file cabinet, and physically pulling out a file folder full of documents.3
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »How accurate was their calorie counting in 1988? I know, for me, counting calories back then was laborious. Flipping through pages in a calorie counting book, I'm sure the info was not up to date.
Why would you assume it was less correct or up-to-date because it was in a book instead of a database? But I believe the study said then and now survey data was used.
My calorie counting book had 20 pages. Up to date at the time but still had a lot of missing information. That is what I meant. Today there are thousands of entries with weighted or measured foods.5 -
Secondly, they didn't control for basic activity levels, just moderate to intense activities performed during leisure hours (only the activities specifically named). Want to bet that not only do jobs today tend to be more sedentary than jobs in the late 80's, but so are the day-to-day lives of today vs the late 80's even if you don't look at 'leisure time activities'?
One of the testers who just left is an older guy, with stories about "file rooms," these places where companies had specialized furniture for storing huge quantities of paper. (Er, paper is when you cut a tree down to write on it.)
Nowadays when you want to know something about one of your customers, you interact with a mouse and a keyboard from your chair. Once upon a time, you would have had to walk to another room and go through file cabinets.
Maybe you're on to something.5 -
Survey data often isn't useful, depending on what's being surveyed. Survey data regarding dietary and exercise habits activity level are totally useless.
And the fact that one of the author's of the "study" clearly has an axe to grind, based on her comments in the linked article. Some people go to great lengths to blame their obesity on everything but their behavior.9 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »Survey data often isn't useful, depending on what's being surveyed. Survey data regarding dietary and exercise habits activity level are totally useless.
And the fact that one of the author's of the "study" clearly has an axe to grind, based on her comments in the linked article. Some people go to great lengths to blame their obesity on everything but their behavior.
I agree that self reported survey data isn't perfect - but don't studies usually correct for confounders and over/under reporters? I thought I remember reading an interview with Colin Campbel where he talked about having to correct the data in the nurses health study.
I also agree that CICO covers most weightloss - but I think it is still possible to lose weight and still have it be harder to lose weight at the same time. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.
I'm one of those people who suspects there are lots of environmental factors that are combining to make it easier for everyone to gain weight (chemicals as endocrin disruptors, hormones, gut microbiome, etc). My DH and I are purposefully building our lives in a way that makes it easier for us to be healthy as a family (walkable neighborhood, healthy food sources, good habits, etc) - but it takes a lot of work to be a healthy family. I feel like the point of the study was that it didn't used to BE AS MUCH WORK (not yelling, just emphasizing) to be healthy - now it takes real effort and money.3 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »It seems to all be based on data from guided, but self reported, information on food and activity, which are notoriously unreliable. And outside of the recalled and reported physical activity used in the study, folks in general are less active, which effects TDEE.
Link to the actual study:
obesityresearchclinicalpractice.com/article/S1871-403X(15)00121-0/fulltext#sec0015
Thanks for the link to the Study!1 -
StarBrightStarBright wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Survey data often isn't useful, depending on what's being surveyed. Survey data regarding dietary and exercise habits activity level are totally useless.
And the fact that one of the author's of the "study" clearly has an axe to grind, based on her comments in the linked article. Some people go to great lengths to blame their obesity on everything but their behavior.
I agree that self reported survey data isn't perfect - but don't studies usually correct for confounders and over/under reporters? I thought I remember reading an interview with Colin Campbel where he talked about having to correct the data in the nurses health study.
I also agree that CICO covers most weightloss - but I think it is still possible to lose weight and be harder to lose weight at the same time. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.
I'm one of those people who suspects there are lots of environmental factors that are combining to make it easier for everyone to gain weight (chemicals as endocrin disruptors, hormones, gut microbiome, etc). My DH and I are purposefully building our lives in a way that makes it easier for us to be healthy as a family (walkable neighborhood, healthy food sources, good habits, etc) - but it takes a lot of work to be a healthy family. I feel like the point of the study was that it didn't used to BE AS MUCH WORK (not yelling, just emphasizing) to be healthy - now it takes real effort and money.
That's not what it said. It said it took less calories to gain the same amount of weight now vs. then. But I didn't see where they were doing any type of measurement of fat, so the difference in weight very well could be attributed to something other than calories. Gaining weight and gaining fat are not the same things.0 -
StarBrightStarBright wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Survey data often isn't useful, depending on what's being surveyed. Survey data regarding dietary and exercise habits activity level are totally useless.
And the fact that one of the author's of the "study" clearly has an axe to grind, based on her comments in the linked article. Some people go to great lengths to blame their obesity on everything but their behavior.
I agree that self reported survey data isn't perfect - but don't studies usually correct for confounders and over/under reporters? I thought I remember reading an interview with Colin Campbel where he talked about having to correct the data in the nurses health study.
I also agree that CICO covers most weightloss - but I think it is still possible to lose weight and still have it be harder to lose weight at the same time. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.
I'm one of those people who suspects there are lots of environmental factors that are combining to make it easier for everyone to gain weight (chemicals as endocrin disruptors, hormones, gut microbiome, etc). My DH and I are purposefully building our lives in a way that makes it easier for us to be healthy as a family (walkable neighborhood, healthy food sources, good habits, etc) - but it takes a lot of work to be a healthy family. I feel like the point of the study was that it didn't used to BE AS MUCH WORK (not yelling, just emphasizing) to be healthy - now it takes real effort and money.
The survey data is highly biased, which is one of the many reasons the National Weight Control Registry was formed.
CICO covers all weight management. There are several impacting variables on gain/loss; however these hold little influence over calorie intake and output.
There really isn't. Yes these are factors, but to a very minor degree. From all metabolics testing and clinical data most of these do not constitute as statistically significant.
Putting down a fork takes, quite literally, no effort. Eating less requires less money.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »StarBrightStarBright wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Survey data often isn't useful, depending on what's being surveyed. Survey data regarding dietary and exercise habits activity level are totally useless.
And the fact that one of the author's of the "study" clearly has an axe to grind, based on her comments in the linked article. Some people go to great lengths to blame their obesity on everything but their behavior.
I agree that self reported survey data isn't perfect - but don't studies usually correct for confounders and over/under reporters? I thought I remember reading an interview with Colin Campbel where he talked about having to correct the data in the nurses health study.
I also agree that CICO covers most weightloss - but I think it is still possible to lose weight and be harder to lose weight at the same time. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.
I'm one of those people who suspects there are lots of environmental factors that are combining to make it easier for everyone to gain weight (chemicals as endocrin disruptors, hormones, gut microbiome, etc). My DH and I are purposefully building our lives in a way that makes it easier for us to be healthy as a family (walkable neighborhood, healthy food sources, good habits, etc) - but it takes a lot of work to be a healthy family. I feel like the point of the study was that it didn't used to BE AS MUCH WORK (not yelling, just emphasizing) to be healthy - now it takes real effort and money.
That's not what it said. It said it took less calories to gain the same amount of weight now vs. then. But I didn't see where they were doing any type of measurement of fat, so the difference in weight very well could be attributed to something other than calories. Gaining weight and gaining fat are not the same things.
True, but given the rather poor general physical fitness of the general population, I really can't see it as people gaining muscle mass. Maybe more water retention?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »StarBrightStarBright wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Survey data often isn't useful, depending on what's being surveyed. Survey data regarding dietary and exercise habits activity level are totally useless.
And the fact that one of the author's of the "study" clearly has an axe to grind, based on her comments in the linked article. Some people go to great lengths to blame their obesity on everything but their behavior.
I agree that self reported survey data isn't perfect - but don't studies usually correct for confounders and over/under reporters? I thought I remember reading an interview with Colin Campbel where he talked about having to correct the data in the nurses health study.
I also agree that CICO covers most weightloss - but I think it is still possible to lose weight and be harder to lose weight at the same time. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.
I'm one of those people who suspects there are lots of environmental factors that are combining to make it easier for everyone to gain weight (chemicals as endocrin disruptors, hormones, gut microbiome, etc). My DH and I are purposefully building our lives in a way that makes it easier for us to be healthy as a family (walkable neighborhood, healthy food sources, good habits, etc) - but it takes a lot of work to be a healthy family. I feel like the point of the study was that it didn't used to BE AS MUCH WORK (not yelling, just emphasizing) to be healthy - now it takes real effort and money.
That's not what it said. It said it took less calories to gain the same amount of weight now vs. then. But I didn't see where they were doing any type of measurement of fat, so the difference in weight very well could be attributed to something other than calories. Gaining weight and gaining fat are not the same things.
True, but given the rather poor general physical fitness of the general population, I really can't see it as people gaining muscle mass. Maybe more water retention?
Yes, that's more what I was thinking. Water, not muscle.0 -
kristen8000 wrote: »In 1988 there were half as many "convience foods" with additives and preservatives. That's the only thing I can think of that's different. But I was only 10, a very tall, lanky 10.
I'm not sure I believe that at all. I was in my mid-20's in '88 and the food landscape hasn't changed much since then as far as convenience foods, additives or preservatives.2 -
Less NEAT. There is more commuting today then there was in the 80's. People of today move around less when NOT EXERCISING than they 80's counterparts. Also, the stress level is likely higher which may mean less sleep or restless sleep. This affects hormones such as GH which is responsible for helping to burn stored fat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
In 1988, I was sweating my butt off in the jungles of Okinawa. I also biked to work.
Today, I have a desk job, central AC, and work from home.0 -
kristen8000 wrote: »In 1988 there were half as many "convience foods" with additives and preservatives. That's the only thing I can think of that's different. But I was only 10, a very tall, lanky 10.
I'm not sure I believe that at all. I was in my mid-20's in '88 and the food landscape hasn't changed much since then as far as convenience foods, additives or preservatives.
Yeah, I was a preteen/teen in the 80's and I subsisted on fish sticks, tater tots, Aunt Jemima pancakes and waffles, Chef Boyardee, Coca Cola, candy bars, hot dogs, frozen dinners, pretzels, Hostess cupcakes, etc. And I was skinny. Because I wasn't sitting at a desk, in front of the TV, or with a phone in my hand all day.
I tend to think the "results" of this study reflect (as others have mentioned) the inaccuracies of recollection, and the generally inactive lifestyle compared with 20 years ago.2 -
Less NEAT. There is more commuting today then there was in the 80's. People of today move around less when NOT EXERCISING than they 80's counterparts. Also, the stress level is likely higher which may mean less sleep or restless sleep. This affects hormones such as GH which is responsible for helping to burn stored fat.
This was pretty much my thought too. It was (around here anyway) much more common for families to be one car households, so more walking in general, or biking.
Even if people used public transport, they generally walked to the bus or train station - now we have lots of "park and ride" hubs that people drive to.
And another difference I have noticed is a smaller property size - many in my community had large gardens and yards that needed quite a bit of physical work to maintain (most had vege gardens too). We spent many hours tending the gardens, and when visiting people would often wander through the garden and swap seedlings & cuttings.
The home I grew up in has been subdivided, now with 5 dwellings in the space that used to be 2 houses.
Obviously there are still many homes with a large area to maintain, but I'd think the proportion of those is less.
3 -
I would guess that basic tasks burn fewer calories now. I wasn't concieved yet in 1988 but I remember more things being manual (windows, locks, ect). We didn't have a dishwasher. None of these self-propelled lawn mowers. I don't know when most people would have had a microwave.1
-
Might be on to something here with the lower NEAT today.
Does anyone else remember having to *gasp* walk all the way across the room to change the channel on the television?7
This discussion has been closed.
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