Secular Trends in Obesity (i.e. Why We're Fatter)

Stick to training related posts.

Moderators: Dux, seeahill

Post Reply
User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20612
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Secular Trends in Obesity (i.e. Why We're Fatter)

Post by Turdacious » Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:40 pm

Between 1971 and 2008, BMI, total caloric intake and carbohydrate intake increased 10—14%, and fat and protein intake decreased 5—9%. Between 1988 and2006, frequency of leisure time physical activity increased 47—120%. However, for a given amount of caloric intake, macronutrient intake or leisure time physical activity, the predicted BMI was up to 2.3 kg/m2higher in 2006 that in 1988 in the mutually adjusted model (P < 0.05).
Between 1971 and 2008, BMI increased 10% in men(P < 0.001) and 11% in women (P < 0.001) (Table 1).BMI was also significantly higher between 1988and 2008 for both males and females (P < 0.001). There was a 10% higher total caloric intake across time for males, and a 14% high total caloric intake for females (Table 1) (P < 0.001). Com-pared to 1988—1994, total caloric intake continued to increase in males, while it remained relatively consistent in females (Table 1). In both sexes, relative caloric intake was similar between 1971 and 2008, but was moderately elevated in 1988—1994 (P < 0.05). Between 1971 and 2008,consumption of percent daily calories from carbohydrates increased 13% in males and 10% in females (P < 0.001). During this same time period,percent daily intake of fat and protein was 9% and 5% lower in males, respectively, and 8% and 7% lower in females, respectively (P < 0.001). Leisure time physical activity between 1988 and 2006 was 47% higher in males and 120% higher in females(P < 0.001) (Table 1).
In conclusion, BMI, energy intake, carbohydrate intake, and leisure-time physical activity have all significantly increased over the last four decades in the United States, while fat and protein intake have decreased. However, for a given level of energy intake, macronutrient intake, and physical activity, BMI was higher over time. These results maybe a function of other factors significantly modifying how energy intake and expenditure influence body weight over time, or they may be due to biases in reporting of diet and physical activity over time. However, given the consistency of these results and the increasing evidence that multiple factors beyond diet and physical activity are associated with increases in body weight, further investigation of how these novel factors influence body weight independent of lifestyle factors is warranted.
Link
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38185
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: Secular Trends in Obesity (i.e. Why We're Fatter)

Post by Fat Cat » Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:54 pm

M'kay. So my take away is that, despite exercising more, people are fatter. A noticeable trend is they are eating more carbohydrate and less fat and protein than when they were less tubby in the 80s. So...

- Physical exercise is not an effective means of weight control.
- More carbohydrate intake is associated with higher levels of obesity.
- Lower protein intake is associated with higher levels of obesity.
- Lower fat intake is associated with higher levels of obesity.
- Higher caloric intake is associated with obesity, with the corollary that caloric control is important to weight control.
Image
"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20612
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: Secular Trends in Obesity (i.e. Why We're Fatter)

Post by Turdacious » Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:09 pm

I don't think it was mentioned in the study, but I'm guessing that the decrease in smoking was a factor.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38185
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: Secular Trends in Obesity (i.e. Why We're Fatter)

Post by Fat Cat » Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:48 pm

Good point and probably true.
Image
"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6692
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Secular Trends in Obesity (i.e. Why We're Fatter)

Post by Sangoma » Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:33 am

Questionnaires - very unreliable way to get nutritional information from the population, and studies using this methodology have virtually no value. Don't waste your time.
Image

User avatar
Shafpocalypse Now
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21114
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:26 pm

Re: Secular Trends in Obesity (i.e. Why We're Fatter)

Post by Shafpocalypse Now » Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:43 pm

Guyanet went over this with regards to his hyperpalatable foods theory.

Today's junk foods have been scientifically honed to cause over-eating and craving.

Despite what the study says, you can see that kids, in particular, have far less physical activity than they did in the past. Fat kid + fat adult, and then it's a hard fucking road to slog to change it. In fact, I'm going with Sangoma here, questionnaires are so unreliable that they are useless especially around foods and activity.

Take for example, one of my few clients. She recently put about 5 lbs back on after an extended period of keto dieting. And she claimed she was keeping to her diet, etc...but on Facebook, her and her husband went back to their university because their daughter started going there and they got fucking tanked every night, ate in all their old favorite hangouts, etc. When I pointed this out she was like "Oh, yeah, that's right."

User avatar
newguy
Top
Posts: 1931
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:32 am

Re: Secular Trends in Obesity (i.e. Why We're Fatter)

Post by newguy » Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:15 pm

The physical activity component seems to be misleading.

I "exercise" more than my grandfather did. My grandfather was far more physically active.

I think that if you replace 5 to 8 hours of moving, of building, of cleaning, etc. with 1 hour of exercise the net result will be a decrease in calories used.

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38185
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: Secular Trends in Obesity (i.e. Why We're Fatter)

Post by Fat Cat » Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:58 pm

newguy wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:15 pm
The physical activity component seems to be misleading.

I "exercise" more than my grandfather did. My grandfather was far more physically active.

I think that if you replace 5 to 8 hours of moving, of building, of cleaning, etc. with 1 hour of exercise the net result will be a decrease in calories used.
Totally true and an excellent point.
Image
"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6692
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Secular Trends in Obesity (i.e. Why We're Fatter)

Post by Sangoma » Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:50 pm

A better way to analyse food consumption patterns is the use of trade data - how much and what food was sold in a country. Economic data is obviously more reliable than what an individual is going to report.

99% of overweight patients I come across claim to be metabolic aberrations: eat nothing and gain 10 kg a year.
Image

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6692
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Secular Trends in Obesity (i.e. Why We're Fatter)

Post by Sangoma » Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:53 pm

Regarding exercise, newguy and Shaf make valid points. Lots of kid's exercise is playing soccer on the tablet. Manual labor obviously beats an hour of gym, especially if half of that is spent chatting.
Image

User avatar
Alfred_E._Neuman
Sgt. Major
Posts: 4715
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:13 am
Location: The Usual Gang of Idiots

Re: Secular Trends in Obesity (i.e. Why We're Fatter)

Post by Alfred_E._Neuman » Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:19 pm

Haven't had a chance to dive into the article to read the whole thing, but I think another overlooked aspect of the macros reported by the participants is where the carbs/fats/proteins come from. There's a world of difference between 400kcal of pop tart vs. a few pieces of fruit that equals the same total carbs. The pop tarts will have zero fiber and all that refined garbage will spike the blood sugar like crazy. Same goes for fats in junk vs. whole sources like nuts/avocados/meat/etc.
I don't have a lot of experience with vampires, but I have hunted werewolves. I shot one once, but by the time I got to it, it had turned back into my neighbor's dog.

Post Reply