General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWeight gain in the American population 1960-2000
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdfThe definitive data are in the above paper. I used the Excel chart function to see how the numbers came out visually. What really jumped out at me was that the crucial dividing year was 1980. Any discussion of possible causes must use this year as a reference. The internet was not in widespread use until the late 90s, so that isn't it. What about HCFS? Was 1980 a turning point of some sort nutritionally? One obvious point to make is that that year is the start of the destruction of the American middle class.
The NHANES studiess are by decade--1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Do a linear regression on 1960, 1970 and 1980, and then on 1980, 1990, and 2000. You get pretty straight lines as indicated by the correlation coefficients. The slopes are an indication of the rate of increase in average weight gain.
Men 1960-1980
Slope = 3.75
R2 = 0.7899
Women 1960-1980
Slope = 2.56
R2 = 0.9204
Men 1980-2000
Slope = 8.6
R2 = 1.000
Women 1980-2000
Slope = 9.4
R2 = 0.9976
For men, after 1980 the rate of increase increased by a factor of 2.3 times.
For women, after 1980 the rate of increase increased by a factor of 3.6 times.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)coupled with the fast-food explosion..Until the 80's most schools probably still had lunch-ladies who cooked real food..
Junk foods also really came into their own about then too..
eridani
(51,907 posts)SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)and with us moving from state to state ..Our towns until then did not have fast food joints..
I still remember how excited our boys were when we got a Mc Donalds... It was around 1984.. Our town has grown, but we now have a fast food place on practically every corner ... and a shortage of "real
restaurants
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)For one thing we are way more diverse and different cultures have different body types. This is not hard to figure out. Technology and taking gym out of schools didn't help. Parents sent their kids with lunches was way better. So many reasons.
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)I don't know, I just thought I'd throw it in. Even just getting up and walking across the room is exercise.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)technology certainly plays a part, I'm sure.
Skittles
(160,770 posts)anything that encourages one to watch more TV, for sure
eridani
(51,907 posts)But they certainly existed.. Looking for real information as to what was common after 1980, but not before. Anecdotes don't cut it.
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)By that time high end TVs were coming out with them as a standard feature.
Most people got them through their cable providers. It was actually wired to the set--or rather the cable box--and you had to pay for it. Comcast had wireless models but they cost more.
When the cable companies began giving them away with out charge they became much more common.
Cable TV, Ah yes, here's another technological wonder to keep us in our recliners--cable TV. As Bruce Springsteen wrote a few years later "57 Channels and Nothing On." But with a remote you can keep on changing the channel until something catches your interest long enough to watch a commercial. The only reason to get up is to get beer, chips, soda and all the other snacky munchy food guaranteed to expand your waistline.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)my dad used to park himself on the floor in front of the tv, because he was a 'flipper'. We have pictures of him laying on his side in front of the tv, with his rum and coke parked on the carpet beside him. He'd change channels constantly. clickclickclickclickclick. LOL drove my mom nuts. He didn't have to walk across the room, because the tv was right there. I don't think he was the only one. Or, he'd get us kids to go change the channel for him. I think that technique was probably pretty common in families, LOL.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I got nothing really. That's just the first thing that jumped into my head.
I know chronic stress is implicated in weight gain. So maybe Reaganomics really is a factor?
eridani
(51,907 posts)Average Americans have become significantly poorer since then.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Javaman
(63,233 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)Stress causes increased levels of cortisol. Cortisol causes the body to store fat.
As life gets harder and harder in the United States (as it has since 1981), and as Americans become more stressed, it is not difficult to imagine that our bodies are dealing with this stress by jacking-up our cortisol levels ... thereby making us all fatter.
I am neither a doctor, nor a scientist, but that's my operative theory.
-Laelth
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)All my skinny high school friends started putting on the pounds right after they got married. I always thought the real "stress" was in trying to look good as a potential mate and once that was accomplished, looking 'trim' was less important.
I'm neither married nor fat. And, it doesn't "stress" me out to realize I may have got this one all wrong.
.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I have to agree.
-Laelth
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)adding to the problems of bad food and lack of exercise.
age to that, along with mobility issues (leading to not being to exercise) and you've got the perfect recipe for weight gain.
I actually eat LESS now (and healthier) than I did in my 20s and 30s, but various things have come together to make me the Goodyear blimp I am today.
sucks big time
caraher
(6,316 posts)The argument put forth in The Spirit Level is that inequality drives the stress, which in turn drives many ills including weight gain (and they point to animal models where monkeys with lower social status not only have elevated cortisol but tend to gain abdominal weight).
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)have not one positive correlation in society-wide terms. Gee, I wonder why...
caraher
(6,316 posts)is how robust the correlation between inequality and a vast multitude of ills really is, and how little those problems are related to absolute wealth in nations that have reached some minimum level of physical comfort.
Another remarkable lesson is that more equal societies are healthier for everybody, even the people at the top. So our 1%ers are really working against their own best interest, too, when they gobble up ever-increasing shares of wealth. If only they could be persuaded to look at the facts...
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Money is like manure - it's no good unless it is spread around. In a pile it sits there and stinks to no purpose, spread around it can help improve everyone's lot.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)and when people are not chasing every opportunity to get a little more money to pay the bills, they also have time to tend to their needs..like exercise/real food preparation/vacations etc.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Solid evidence for 1980 as the point in time when inequality really started to increase.
caraher
(6,316 posts)Apparently Piketty has a nice chart that pegs 1980 or so as crucial (this is share of income for the top 1%).
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities seems to use 1979 as a key year for when income inequality started to surge.
Emmanuel Saez also notices a similar timeline
A standard measure of inequality is the Gini coefficient. It looks a bit different from the share taken by the top 1% but the basic trend is similar:
caraher
(6,316 posts)This is the actual web page my previous graphic comes from.
Apparently The Spirit Level made a big splash in the UK, less so here, but is well worth reading. Not everything in it is entirely convincing, but there are so many trends between inequality and social ills that it's hard to imagine they're not on to something important.
surrealAmerican
(11,524 posts)... the point at which more Americans lived in suburbs than in cities.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)(like in the 2000s), so their structure and architecture started to shift--towards really big homes far from everything except maybe a Big Box, in a big mat rather than around a little cluster: the suburbs quickly lost what had made them so attractive (lawns and picture windows that invited you outside (and the outside in), a candy shop just around the corner, streets kids can cross safely); in the 80s Culdesackia hypertrophied and burst its own bounds, and after 30 years it's one-third foreclosed and falling apart (since they're built as investments for builder and buyer alike, not as places to be lived in)
a great tool is WalkScore, which lets you eyeball a lot of the characteristics I'm blathering about
surrealAmerican
(11,524 posts)... of "walkscores" and obesity. I suspect, while not the whole problem, that it's a big part of the problem.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)The body recognizes real sugar as "food" and so the old Coke made you feel full. After 1980, a Big Gulp had many calories but your body diod not register the corn sugar as "food" so you were still hungry. I think that the corn industry did it to us.
However, I am not discounting the possibility that Nutrasweet, that artificial sweetener that is related to neuro-transmitters may also stimulate the appetite. I have never used it, since it gives me migraines.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)Didn't corn sugar replace real sugar in most everything? In any case, we were screwed once they added the HFCS.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The explosion in genuine morbid obesity over the last 15 years boggles my mind. And I do not say this to be judgmental - my dad struggled with his weight as long as I was around and his inability or unwillingness to really control it was a significant contributing factor to his death from congestive heart failure at 65.
There is SOME individual responsibility at work, though. For much of the last decade I have been as poor as a church-mouse and I have not gained any weight. In fact I have lost weight when I have been most in need of money. I eat little fast food and little shitty over-processed "food" and am willing to tolerate feeling a bit hungry rather than gorge on empty calories.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)On the other hand, diet soda has been shown to trick the body into acting as if there are no calories in sweet foods and creating a craving for sugars.
http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/7-side-effects-of-drinking-diet-soda
eridani
(51,907 posts)Could it be that people who are the most inclined genetically to gain weight are the ones most likely to use diet sodas? That explains the correlation just as well.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)I read both studies -- Purdue and the Texas one.
Initial study (2004)
http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/2004/040629.Swithers.research.html
Follow Up and meta analysis:
http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2013/Q3/prof-diet-drinks-are-not-the-sweet-solution-to-fight-obesity,-health-problems.html
Turn CO Blue
(4,221 posts)around that same time period.
eom
eridani
(51,907 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)My Newfies enjoy the leftovers!
eridani
(51,907 posts)I'll admit to expecting two meals when I go out on Saturday night. The first in the restaurant, and the second on Suncay reheating the other half of the meal.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)No one wants to waste food especially when eating out.
Yes if lots is left then some will bring it home but some will just stuff it down.
I bring it home only to give give it to my dogs as I don't like most of what i order reheated.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Though I'm surprised you haven't been called out for fat shaming yet, lol.
It is so obvious that the US is getting fatter.
Warpy
(113,131 posts)It's been a rational discussion of some of the reasons we're larding up as a country.
Cortisol shouldn't be overlooked because it also raises blood sugar and the risk of developing metabolic syndrome and dying young from heart failure, something happening coincidentally with increasing rates of obesity.
It's always been interesting to me that exogenous obesity has spread according to the classic pattern of an epidemic disease, from the Gulf of Mexico outward and includes Mexico, now statistically fatter than we are.
We know the disease and some of its causes. We still have no way to cure it.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--opposed to before 1980.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)Thanks for taking the time to crunch the numbers on this.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)American's unhealthy food choices, such as the massive amounts of High Fructose Corn Syrup we consume don't happen in a vacuum--the production of the toxic goop is massively subsidized at all levels by the Federal Government. Ooops!
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)So they took the fat out of food and replaced it with sugar in its many forms and we get to where we are today.
Type 2 diabetes epidemic that alone will bankrupt this nation in another 50 years or so.
http://professional.diabetes.org/admin/UserFiles/0%20-%20Sean/FastFacts%20March%202013.pdf
Explosion of obesity...
U.S. Obesity Rate Climbing in 2013
Increases across almost all demographic groups
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The adult obesity rate so far in 2013 is 27.2%, up from 26.2% in 2012, and is on pace to surpass all annual average obesity rates since Gallup-Healthways began tracking in 2008.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165671/obesity-rate-climbing-2013.aspx
We need to end The War on Fat just like we need to end The War on Marijuana!
http://www.shape.com/blogs/weight-loss-coach/should-we-really-end-war-fat
It seems this all began in 1980 when the USDA issued its first dietary guidelines, and one of the key messages was to avoid cholesterol and fat of all sorts. That same year the government announced the results of a $150 million study that encouraged Americans to eat less fat and cholesterol to reduce their risk of a heart attack, and the National Institutes of Health also jumped on the bandwagon, recommending that all Americans over the age of 2 reduce their fat intake.
However, over the last decade or so researchers began to state otherwise, concluding that there was no significant evidence that saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Most recently a meta-analysis that I blogged about in March reached the same conclusions, as well as revealing that the intake of polyunsaturated fats (the supposedly heart healthy ones) also had no effect on heart disease.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,932 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)In 1977, importing sugar became expensive because of new tariffs and sugar quotas. Those manufacturers who used sugar began searching for a cheap alternative sweetener. Even before this happened, sugar was beginning to lose market share to high fructose corn syrup. The quotas and tariffs only made it more attractive since it was cheaper to produce and transport. To make it, powdery corn starch is processed into glucose, which is then processed into the clear syrup fructose. Corn prices were much lower than sugar prices because of government subsidies and overproduction.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5106547_history-high-fructose-corn-syrup.html
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Standard America Diet. Go to any grocery store and try to find food without some form of sugar in it. Most of the time its HFCS.
We need to eat like humans did thousands of years ago because our bodies still operate the same as then and the absolute flood of sugar the average person gets everyday in this country is killing us all.
Why eating like we did 20,000 years ago may be the way of the future
Part of the problem is that virtually everything we thought we knew about eating is wrong; the current health crisis is in no small part caused by widespread and pervasive food confusion - and much of driven and reinforced by the modern food industry. As counterintuitive as it might seem, we now know that saturated fats are good and that salt has been unfairly vilified. It's becoming apparent that whole grains are extremely unhealthy, and that sugar is far, far worse than we previously thought, a conclusion that has led some experts to essentially describe it as poison.
http://io9.com/5917339/why-eating-like-a-caveman-may-be-the-way-of-the-future
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)It's sometimes hard to do because, frankly, it's expensive, I have kids and busy life and can't always cook for us and, of course, because no one else eats that way and thinks everyone like donuts for breakfast at business meetings (I can avoid that usually - donuts don't tempt me too much, but usually the other available choices on the meeting table aren't any better).
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)The obesity epidemic was created by our agriculture policy. We subsidize the very things that make us fat.
I have always wondered what caused this huge explosion in my lifetime. We blame it on eating too much and exercising too little, but that can't be the only issue. When I was going to school, there was *the* fat kid. Now, when I go to the pool, most of the children are fatter than the fat kid. I travel quite a bit and there is no where I have been where I have seen the same amount of morbidly obese people than I have seen in an American mall. I know the rest of the world is catching up to us because they are adopting our food. I have friends who are overweight that I am shocked how little they can eat and work out like mad women and still lose very little weight. Obviously, something is very wrong.
So I started reading a lot to find the answer. Gary Taubes in Why We Get Fat is a good primer because he lays the story out out in the scientific history. Before WW2, scientists specifically related obesity to consumption of carbohydrate. But since many of the scientists were killed in the war (Germany was a leader in studying obesity), they started over with the law of thermodynamics. But that has never been clinically proven and has led to today's state of affairs.
The best guess is that the obesity epidemic is caused by fear of fat, too much added sugar, HFCS, and our grains that have been hybridized to have even more of the qualities that make us fat. Many of these foods were added because farmers were growing so much due to subsidies, they didn't know what to do with it. So they dressed it up and stuck it in our food, claiming it was so "healthy." We were told to stop eating meat and fat (the diet that humans had evolved upon) and consume loads of carbohydrates: "heart-healthy" wheat, phyto estrogens in soy, and fat-free foods. Industrial oils replaced shelf-stable saturated fats in baked goods such as lard and coconut oil; McDonalds fries used to be fried in tallow but are now fried in "vegetable oil" which is most likely soy and cotton seed.
Dwarf wheat is nothing like original diploid wheat and has far more starch and gluten. Our house has switched to Einkorn wheat whenever we eat wheat, which is very rarely, and you can tell the difference just by digestion. It does not rise very well for high-rising cakes, but it has a golden color and an actual flavor.
The amber waves of grain? They're gone in favor of dwarf wheat. In this photo, from left to right shows the changes. Crossing it with goat grass made it had heavy bulbs of grain at the top so they made it short so it wouldn't fall over. It was meant to feed a starving world but it also changed it's properties. It took over world wide about 1990.
Soy, which is in everything, especially processed food, has been altered to be far more estrogenic than the original soy you imagine slim Asians eating. It is estimated that an infant drinking soy formula gets the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. Soy milk is like mainlining estrogen and soy is a known goitrogen (thyroid disruptor) yet we are exposed to it at a shocking level never seen before. Men should run from it and women should watch out as well as it can lead to estrogen dominance. Soy is also extremely allergenic, so if you have digestion issues, it could be soy.
And then there is corn in everything, making up most of what fast food joints call meat. It too is changed from the original corn to contain far more sugar. So when a person thinks they are eating a balanced meal from processed foods, they are not getting much protein, mostly corn, wheat, sugar (as a preservative) and industrial vegetable oils.
And don't forget the industrial oils which were discovered because they particularly fattened up livestock. Most processed foods contain cheap, rancid oils that they put flavoring/smell ingredients so you can't taste them (as your body reacts to spoiled food like smelling a carton of spoiled milk). Soy, cotton seed, and canola (rapeseed) are all created for industrial uses and are highly inflammatory in the body. When they figured out how to clean it up and sell it, they sold it to us as healthier than traditional fats. Cotton seed oil was originally tested as a form of male birth control as it effected the motility of sperm. It is still used as the number one way to fatten up cows and pigs for market.
There are lots of reasons, and I feel very bad for all the people who have been shamed into thinking they overeat and are lazy and that's the reason they are overweight. There are lots of cooking blogs all over than talk about cooking without these foods and how people have regained their health. I'm sure the armchair scientists will have a lot to say about how everything I wrote is woo. But if you are having health problems, do the research yourself.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Semi dwarf wheat is the original Frankenfood and its horrible for your health.
"Whole wheat goodness" is the biggest oxymoron there is!
Wheat Belly -- The Toll of Hubris on Human Health
by Chris Masterjohn
According to Dr. Davis, the introduction of mutant, high-yield dwarf wheat in the 1960s and the misguided national crusade against fat and cholesterol that caught steam in the 1980s have conspired together as a disastrous duo to produce an epidemic of obesity and heart disease, leaving not even the contours of our skin or the hairs on our heads untouched. Indeed, Dr. Davis argues, this mutant monster we call wheat is day by day acidifying our bones, crinkling our skin, turning our blood vessels into sugar cubes, turning our faces into bagels, and turning our brains into mush.
Dr. Davis's central thesis is that modern wheat is uniquely able to spike our blood sugar with its high-glycemic carbohydrate and to stimulate our appetite with the drug-like digestive byproducts of its gluten proteins. As a result, we get fat. And not just any fat belly fat.
http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2011/10/wheat-belly-toll-of-hubris-on-human.html
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)From your excerpt:
Greater appetites = higher profits. Bread before the meal makes it much more likely you'll order dessert afterwards. Restaurants know which side their high-gluten bread is buttered on...
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)We have a winner here folks!
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The War on Fat has been an unmitigated nutritional disaster.
The Diet-Heart Hypothesis was an enormous scientific mistake that is making obscene profits for the statin industry, with zero apparent benefit for public health. The reason there's no benefit is that the dietary recommendations are 180 degrees out of phase with human biochemical reality - people are being told to eat foods that are making them sicker and sicker.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Eating meat and primarily animal fat is what allowed humans to grow bigger brains. Our large brains take a huge amount of calories, more than can be supplied by an exclusively vegetarian diet. It is how humans evolved to eat differently than other primates. Our digestive tracts are far more similar to dogs than to any herbivore.
http://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128849908/food-for-thought-meat-based-diet-made-us-smarter
Animal fat from healthy, pastured animals also contains vitamins and EFAs. Even lard, so maligned is full of Vitamin D which is the reason why your D levels might be low even if you get plenty of sun. Animals do the work of conversion for us in many cases. That's why we're considered the top of the food chain. It has even been studied that subjects on an all meat diet do not get deficiencies, such as scurvy, which was a surprise because humans cannot make their own Vitamin C. But those who do not consume any animal products do have problems, such as sometimes Vitamin B12 deficiencies.
You're absolutely right that the recommendations are 180 degrees wrong.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It's a remarkable piece of work, even a landmark. The bibliography has over 1400 references. Reading it made me want to cry.
I have metabolic syndrome, just like a third or more of all Americans and Canadians. I've been an occasional low-carber since the Atkins 80's, but my health suffered dramatically from the long stretches of whole wheat goodness in between the short stretches of keto. I'm now a full-time keto-paleo eater. I can't believe the improvement in my health since I stopped eating first wheat and then all starches, sugars and dairy.
Just as we need to keep politics and religion separate, we also need to separate politics and nutrition (yes, I'm talking to you, George McGovern.) Failure to do that will kill us.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)We have been modified paleo (we do raw dairy and butter) for almost a decade and when we are the most vigilant, I feel superhuman. After two weeks of eating very clean, my workouts double and I never konk out, just know when I'm done. My partner who is a soda addict, dropped Coke and lost 30 pounds in one month. I've never had a cavity, but my partner used to have several a year and had moved on to root canals; since switching diet, no cavities in this house.
Taubes is good, and the Why We Get Fat is an easier read for laypeople and connects the dots more easily. But I do have to say the most convincing, amazing book I have ever read on nutrition was Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price. I been yelled at on this board for recommending the book, but he actually doesn't have recommendations, only observations. But the evidence speaks for itself and if you've read anything about evolutionary nutrition, it all makes perfect sense.
It's amazing to see people on DU with more curiosity and knowledge. Nutritional discussions on this board are abysmal in general. I've been told, "It doesn't matter what we eat." And, "We're basically garbage disposals" numerous times. It seems as though the loudest, snarkiest people are usually the most uninformed.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I guess it belongs on my shelf. I much prefer observations over recommendations - show me the science and I'll make my own choices, thanks.
"The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living" by Volek and Phinney is OK, but no more than that (especially after Taubes).
I have the latest "Atkins" book by Eric Westman, but for me it was a waste of money. I don't want recipes, I want references!
I also bought Nora Gedgaudas' "Primal Body Primal Mind" on a FB friend's recommendation, but I wasn't too thrilled with it. Not enough hard science and too much "soft" science for my taste.
Evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychpology and evolutionary nutrition. Absorb those disciplines and your ability to think clearly about the world takes a giant leap.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)The Nora Gedguadas book was a joke and I've given up on most Paleo cookbooks too. Your recommendations sound great. I haven't read anything about evolutionary psychology, but I will keep an eye out. I'm such an avid reader, I went back to checking out books, about 20 a week! I love learning new things.
The most interesting thing about Taubes is how he shows that as a scientist, you must have an open mind about thre results of experiments or you won't be able to explain what actually happens or you will misinterpret the results. Calories In/Calories Out is the epitome of this.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Nice chatting with you!
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Be sure you can see the pictures, because that backs up his statement. I'm going to get it for myself.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)www.w8md.com/nutrition_vs_physical_degeneration_dr_weston_price.pdf
You're right - they really drive the point home!
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)My best friend, his family had to switch their diet because their son had Crohn's. The doctors wanted to take out part of his 8 year-old intestine and put him on antibiotics for the rest of his life. The did the SCD (Specific Carbohydrate) diet which allows for some less inflammatory starches and emphasizes homemade yogurt to build up the gut flora. The son went into remission so now Stanford is recommending the diet. But he also reported to me, no new cavities in their family for 12 years.
The most interesting thing about Price is he studies people from all over the world. They all have different diet, but they live on their native diet. No modern foods such as white flour and sugar. The minute those things are introduced, the children born in the same family show degeneration. Seems like lots of ocean foods are necessary. That's easy for me, but all the organ meats are a little tough.
Let me know what you think
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Horrible drugs.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)for hundreds of years. It is effective and I have never seen anyone have the side effects that people do with statins. The makers of Mevacor tried to ban it----claiming that Red Yeast Rice Extract infringed upon their patent. Sometimes, the natural versions of medicines are better. Nature has a way of creating things by trial and error that benefit species that are inter-dependent.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)There is also lots of research that insulin and cholesterol go hand in hand. Keep insulin low and your cholesterol improves incredibly. Plus, a lot of research is showing the cholesterol has no correlation to heart attacks. That's why statins are a joke and potentially do more harm than good.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)something WILL kill us all.. and we never know when our particular timer will run out..
All the fancy medicines in the world will probably not add all that much time to our clocks..and the side effects may take time away
tridim
(45,358 posts)I can't convince them to dump "low-fat" because they trust doctors 100%. No questions asked.
After all, "they went to med school"... 40 years ago.
It's all so sad to watch.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Back in the day we mowed with push mowers. We used rakes and brooms to do our yard work. Now everyone (not me) uses riding mowers and blowers. And most peeps don't even do their own yard work. They hire someone.
These things factor in, I am sure of it.
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)using a leaf blower for HOURS (yes, hours, I timed the whine of the engine) to move leaves into piles (instead of raking) I have to wonder at how un-used to manual work many are.
Now maybe the guy using the leaf blower for hours had some sort of health problem, so he couldn't rake. But using a leaf blower for HOURS cannot be all that healthy either....
cwydro
(51,308 posts)And what's worse is that peeps just use them to blow the leaves onto someone else's property.
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Try raking leaves off of rocks. And my 140-foot driveway had a two-foot wide enclosed rock "decoration" for 2/3 it's length.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)convenient and nutritionally bereft food.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my impression that prior to the 60s, candy bars and chips and the like were considered an occasional treat for children, not an everyday food item for adults.
Brother Buzz
(38,108 posts)When did cup holders appear in cars?
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)I do use my cupholders, but always for water. It's funny, I can't seem to walk ten feet without carrying water with me ... What did I used to do?
Brother Buzz
(38,108 posts)Discovering an unattended garden hose was a real treat.
MineralMan
(148,181 posts)My 1993 Chevrolet Lumina Minivan had 17. Seventeen cupholders! It blew my mind.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)A family of four could have 4.25 drinks going at one time.
MineralMan
(148,181 posts)But even then, it was way overdone. After I bought it, I actually counted them. There were several seating configurations possible, since five of the seven seats in the back were Individual, and could be installed facing in more than one direction. No matter how you arranged them, though, there was a cup holder available.
I actually loved that van.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)redqueen
(115,173 posts)Was being a 'couch potato' a thing?
cwydro
(51,308 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and you had to get up and go to the teevee to change between those few channels.
Lex
(34,108 posts)When I started paying attention to how often crap food is marketed us all day long (billboards, magazines, and of course tv), I was shocked and wondered how much of a role that has played in weight gain. Messages, subliminal and up-front, of EAT, EAT, EAT.
but we do not have to eat that crap.
I never got a taste for soda pop (coke etc) because my parents never gave it to us. I never liked potato chips and all that crap, and I hate candy. So I was lucky that way.
But I love popcorn. And when depressed, I find myself looking at the doritos, fritos etc. I usually fight it off lol.
You are so right. It is non-stop with the food. I work in a sedentary job...and the company (being nice) brings in tons of Einstein bagels and other goodies on a regular basis. I have to ignore that area when I come in. It's right by the elevators...so there is another reason to take the stairs!
Lex
(34,108 posts)marketing very is effective or there wouldn't be any of it. I know what you mean about turning down office food. I do it all the time--ordering pizzas for lunch ('hey it's for everybody!'), bringing in cinnamon buns, cake, all that stuff that none of us needs in the office. I have diabetes in both sides of my family (well, great-grandmother on one side for certain). I don't eat fast food--can't even remember the last time, but there again, the marketing of food to the masses non-stop has to have an effect overall.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Over the last 8 years, the consumption of soda in the US has declined and is now below the amount consumed in 1980 (and still falling).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/soda-decline_n_4808978.html
closeupready
(29,503 posts)whenever it was (probably mid-2013), it was likely a Mexican Coke (with real sugar) - any and all products made with HFCS do not pass my lips, period.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)evil profit plot by some corporation or some industry organization or some lobbyist or all of the above and those who had an hand in it are rich bastards now laughing at all the fat people walking around sending them money hand over tummy roll.
Dawson Leery
(19,382 posts)This is what you get.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)This "cheap" food is making us sick with diabetes, heart disease, cancer, Parkinson's, etc.
Not so cheap if you look at it that way
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)Especially blogs with five whole cited sources. Thanks, PasadenaTrudy! Keep up the good work!
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)dilby
(2,273 posts)Seems about as legit as all the other claims on here because lets face it smoking has been on a decline since the 60s.
JI7
(91,057 posts)and other ways to spend free time which just involve sitting in one place rather than moving around.
and of course you eat the easily available junk food while sitting around and it just adds up.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,338 posts)And don't give me 'woo'. I have celiac sprue.
A scientist won a Nobel prize for his work to eradicate hunger and starvation by genetically modifying wheat. It went from 4' to 18" and the volume allowed for 10x the number of plants to grown in the same square footage. I can't recall the name off the top of my head - but he saved a LOT of lives.
For 90%+ of the population, this was/is a non issue. For those of us with leaky gut, crohns, celiac and others - it was toxic.
Funny thing happened though - a bunch of people found out that eliminating this new wheat allowed them to lose weight almost effortlessly, which led to the whole low carb, then paleo, now gluten-free diets. Not for health reasons, but because it allowed them to shed pounds they have been fighting for years.
HFCS, "low fat" (flavor replaced with carbs like HFCS), and modified wheat are all to blame IMO. Those beasts are insidious and practically in EVERYTHING we consume.
Oddly, while I will get incredibly ill for a few days after consuming a trace of gluten, about a year ago, I ate a homemade wheat bread made by a friend who had grown it from some heirloom seeds from the 1950s and it didn't bother me at all. Blew my mind. I only wish that these "safe" seeds were readily available.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)and is lower glycemic than yeast bread. I have some old Alaskan sourdough and make bread periodically from organic spelt flour. It's really good.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,338 posts)that have rave reviews. celiac.com has an interesting concept that I am looking to try when I have time.
This one is "sourdough starter" and talks about keeping some of the batch to use in new batches, but doesn't include the bread making portion of the recipe. There are links in the comments to that process though.
If you still have your starter - check this technique out. Would love any comments if this is a concept you are familiar with!
http://www.celiac.com/articles/23146/1/Gluten-free-Sourdough-Starter/Page1.html
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Ruby the Liberal
(26,338 posts)snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)I doubt any one parcels out juice into those old glasses these days. A few years i put on a lot of weight. I then read how fattening juice is. Given I was a juice addict, I stopped drinking it and went forwhole fruit. The pounds fell off.
pink-o
(4,056 posts)I've been a vegetarian for a million years (well, 37!) and I have no nutritional deficiencies. I know you can go 2 ways on the meatless diet: either very healthy or processed carbs and crap food. I favor fruit, veggies, yoghurt, artisan cheeses, beans and nuts. I drink roasted, ground beans and fermented grapes as well as lots of H2O.
While I don't believe humans were meant to be veggie, the meat being sold to us in the 21st century is nothing like what we ate in the stone age. You can say wheat is Frankenfood, but with the growth hormones and antibiotics in animal products, I'm happy to consume a plant-based diet. Food production and how it gets to our table is so many ways of wrong! Navigating the minefield is stressful and confusing--and the nutrional snake oil salesmen are just dying to sell you one miracle after the other.
I hate the whole industry. We're fat cuz those n power are making shitloads of $$$$$ and ultimately controlling us by imprisoning us in our own bodies. Until it's no longer lucrative, don't expect anything to change in the near future.
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)... meant less walking, and fewer after-school activity participation.
Mira
(22,486 posts)it may explain a thing or two.
I'd like to also say that there are studies that claim people who use street cars are less corpulent than folks who drive. There is a walk involved to get to it that's more than a walk to your car and it matters.
I'm visiting family in Germany at the moment. Studying the look of the people and how it relates to their methods of getting around and using their bodies has been illuminating on the subject.
Marr
(20,317 posts)People simply eat too much now-- and it's very easy to do when a simple fast food meal can contain 3/4 or even all of the calories you need for a whole day.
The food industry also pioneered some very clever ways of making more money with larger portions.
There's a very interesting BBC documentary on the topic called The Men Who Made Us Fat.
Sure, we're more sedentary, and being more active has lots of health benefits. But unless you're training intensely for two hours a day (I mean running, swimming hard, etc.), then exercise is going to have very little direct effect on your weight. You can consume all the calories you need for an hour of walking in a couple of onion rings.
stone space
(6,498 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It was approved by the FDA in 1981, and it has been shown to cause weight gain unrelated to caloric intake:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666312004138
It has been suggested that the use of nonnutritive sweeteners (NNSs) can lead to weight gain, but evidence regarding their real effect in body weight and satiety is still inconclusive. Using a rat model, the present study compares the effect of saccharin and aspartame to sucrose in body weight gain and in caloric intake. Twenty-nine male Wistar rats received plain yogurt sweetened with 20% sucrose, 0.3% sodium saccharin or 0.4% aspartame, in addition to chow and water ad libitum, while physical activity was restrained. Measurements of cumulative body weight gain, total caloric intake, caloric intake of chow and caloric intake of sweetened yogurt were performed weekly for 12 weeks. Results showed that addition of either saccharin or aspartame to yogurt resulted in increased weight gain compared to addition of sucrose, however total caloric intake was similar among groups. In conclusion, greater weight gain was promoted by the use of saccharin or aspartame, compared with sucrose, and this weight gain was unrelated to caloric intake. We speculate that a decrease in energy expenditure or increase in fluid retention might be involved.
However, it's probably not a single-factor change. A set of factors seem to have converged around 1980 that contributed to this change in the slopes of the curves that you describe. Likely candidates include the introduction of aspartame, the beginning of the FDA/AMA/NHLBI "War on Fat" (resulting in excessive refined carbs and gluten/gliadin in processed food, that in accelerated the spread of metabolic syndrome), and advertising-driven changes in dietary habits ("May we supersize you?"
IMO it's unlikely to have been changes in exercise habits among children, as the increase in obesity is seen across all age groups. While the overall reduction in physical activity probably plays a role in the overall increase in obesity, I can't imagine how a gradual trend like that would contribute to an abrupt kink in the curves in 1980.