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
Options
Replies
-
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 -
I blame it on the recent bodybuilding craze. We're all lifting weights now and packing on the muscle...3
-
StarBrightStarBright wrote: »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.
@StarBrightStarBright clearly something has changed and thanks for the link. The person below states weight is a factor of our mind set it seems. Maybe that is the fourth factor.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wzJiMp-P_lY
This "How to Lose Weight" 19 minute video seems to have some background noise. The second time I watched it I turned the volume down and used the CC feature and got more of her points even if they were not the same as ones that I have heard before.
The first time I went on a diet was in 1978 when in college and I lost down from 198 back to my Navy weight of 172 over the summer eating basically the same diet that I ate that lead to the weight gain but just did not eat anything after 5 PM until breakfast the next morning. Lunch week days was milkshake, cheeseburger fries and a Coke. I still have some of the HSU glasses the Coke came in.0 -
I also think that lower NEAT could be the culprit. So much is so convenient now, we're a lot less active, even incidentally. Simple household tasks are easier or have become automated. We work longer hours, many of us at a desk.3
-
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.
On metal bikes! That weren't even very aerodynamic! And people had to reach all the way to the downtube to shift gears.3 -
FreyasRebirth wrote: »...I don't know when most people would have had a microwave.
I can remember having a microwave as far back as in the mid/late 1970s.
I do agree that there has been a very significant reduction in NEAT during that time period, though. And it starts with the kids, where many schools have cut/eliminated physical education programs and for many of the ones that haven't, just showing up is enough. When I drive by the local high school, PE class looks like it mostly consists of kids walking slowly around the running track in groups with their faces glued to their cell phones. We're establishing habits in childhood that carry over into adulthood.2 -
FreyasRebirth wrote: »...I don't know when most people would have had a microwave.
I can remember having a microwave as far back as in the mid/late 1970s.
OMG and the old 70s/80s microwave cookbooks! Blergh! haha
1 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »FreyasRebirth wrote: »...I don't know when most people would have had a microwave.
I can remember having a microwave as far back as in the mid/late 1970s.
OMG and the old 70s/80s microwave cookbooks! Blergh! haha
1 -
People underestimate the impact of movement, in general, and assume only gym time counts. (Conversely, they over-estimate the effect of ten minutes on the treadmill and buy McDonalds on the way home. Ell Oh Ell)
If there is a discussion on health and fitness and longevity between several people, someone always says, "weight/health has nothing to do with exercise. My grandmother never exercised a day in her life and she was always slim/healthy."
*rolls eyes*
I've seen that phenomenon first-hand too, and what they should actually say is "my grandmother never ever took Spin classes, Zumba, aerobics or participated in any organised exercise class of any kind because she was too busy walking huge dogs daily, scrubbing the front step, digging the garden, washing up by hand, walking back and forth to the shops, walking back and forth for Church services".4 -
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
The average commute in 1988 was a bit over 22 minutes, 26 minutes in 2015 so not really a deal breaker:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/25/how-much-of-your-life-youre-wasting-on-your-commute/?utm_term=.45e178260047
Agree with less general movement and sleep as issues.3 -
FreyasRebirth wrote: »...I don't know when most people would have had a microwave.
I can remember having a microwave as far back as in the mid/late 1970s.
Yeah, I think we got ours in '78 -- we moved into a new house then and I think we got it when we moved in.
I do believe NEAT was higher in a lot of ways on average. (Even comparing with the early '90s, so much I used to have to walk somewhere to do I can now do just sitting at a computer.) However, I still suspect the various reasons for the reporting being less accurate now that I listed above may be an even bigger factor.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions