4 ms·

I'm a little confused about their numbers - they say we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, but in 1976 the average was 2,590 kilocalories

I'm a little confused about their numbers - they say we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, but in 1976 the average was 2,590 kilocalories. Unless people were doing an absurd amount of additional exercise in 1976 (like running multiple miles every day), how is it mathematically possible that people are more obese now but eat less on average? The article seems to imply that it's because we eat differently than people in 1976 (more sugar and what not), but as far as I know calories in -> calories out is the only factor in weight gain/loss aside from uncommon hormonal issues.

mayoff 8y ago
His current number (2130) comes from the UK's “Family food datasets”. The first thing you see when you open up the UK nutrient intake spreadsheet is this message: > It is a widely recognised characteristic of self reported diary surveys such as Family Food that survey respondents tend to under report their purchases (and any derived nutrient intakes based on purchased quantities are also likely to be underestimates). Empirical comparisons of sales and duty data for alcohol in particular suggest that reported alcohol consumption could be 40-60 per cent lower than the reality. For other food and drink, reporting is likely to be closer to actual purchases, but underreporting is likely to feature and some food types may be underreported to a greater extent than others. Here's a paper that critiques the survey results in detail: http://38r8om2xjhhl25mw24492dir-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf http://38r8om2xjhhl25mw24492dir-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-c...
- weiSev5h 8y ago
  Hahaha so that research is one big collective "I don't even eat that much" self-delusion. I did want this article to be correct and to have a quick fix for obesity, but I guess I have to go back to my diet :(
fulafel 8y ago
> calories in -> calories out is the only factor in weight gain/loss aside from uncommon hormonal issues. This is not the case. A helthy person could eat a diet of same energy content and, and end up more or less fat, dependent of what the food was. Also, it's worth noting, that insulin resistance is in fact a hormonal issue, though a common one. Insulin regulates fat metabolism. But the main flaw in the "calories in, calories out" meme isn't correctness - the main flaw is that it focuses on the wrong thing. Our food consumption is driven by our feeling of satiety and other hunger regulating hormones. It's possible to eat less than your body wants to by exerting willpower, but it's not sustainable for the vast majority of people.
- wilsonnb3 8y ago
  > A helthy person could eat a diet of same energy content and, and end up more or less fat, dependent of what the food was. Could you point me in the direction of more information about this? It is contrary to everything that I've read on the topic so far (which, to be fair, hasn't been that much).
  - fulafel 8y ago
    There are many things that fall under that. Let me rattle of a few off the top of my head: (1) diet composition affects how eagerly your body stores energy in fat (related to sugars & insulin) - see eg https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/ajpendo.00283.2010 https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/ajpendo.00283.201..., (2) different foods take varying amounts of energy to digest in the body (eg proteins and high fiber foods vs fast carbs), (3) the body's metabolic rate partly depends on how you eat and starts to conserve energy if you have long periods between meals, (4) your diet and rythm of meals also affects your general feeling of activity which can make you a couch potato or a evening walk person, (5) check out the research on intermittent fasting and ketogenic diets. But this is not the main problem with the calories-in-calories-out meme; the main problem is that the feeling of hunger and appetite counts, not calories eaten. Satiety feelings are what regulates food intake in most people. Counting calories is not a solution to the obesity epidemic because continuously exerting willpower against your natural feeling of appetite is not sustainable for the vast majority of people.

mayoff 8y ago

His current number (2130) comes from the UK's “Family food datasets”. The first thing you see when you open up the UK nutrient intake spreadsheet is this message: > It is a widely recognised characteristic of self reported diary surveys such as Family Food that survey respondents tend to under report their purchases (and any derived nutrient intakes based on purchased quantities are also likely to be underestimates). Empirical comparisons of sales and duty data for alcohol in particular suggest that reported alcohol consumption could be 40-60 per cent lower than the reality. For other food and drink, reporting is likely to be closer to actual purchases, but underreporting is likely to feature and some food types may be underreported to a greater extent than others. Here's a paper that critiques the survey results in detail: http://38r8om2xjhhl25mw24492dir-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf http://38r8om2xjhhl25mw24492dir-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-c...

weiSev5h 8y ago
Hahaha so that research is one big collective "I don't even eat that much" self-delusion. I did want this article to be correct and to have a quick fix for obesity, but I guess I have to go back to my diet :(

fulafel 8y ago

> calories in -> calories out is the only factor in weight gain/loss aside from uncommon hormonal issues. This is not the case. A helthy person could eat a diet of same energy content and, and end up more or less fat, dependent of what the food was. Also, it's worth noting, that insulin resistance is in fact a hormonal issue, though a common one. Insulin regulates fat metabolism. But the main flaw in the "calories in, calories out" meme isn't correctness - the main flaw is that it focuses on the wrong thing. Our food consumption is driven by our feeling of satiety and other hunger regulating hormones. It's possible to eat less than your body wants to by exerting willpower, but it's not sustainable for the vast majority of people.

wilsonnb3 8y ago
> A helthy person could eat a diet of same energy content and, and end up more or less fat, dependent of what the food was. Could you point me in the direction of more information about this? It is contrary to everything that I've read on the topic so far (which, to be fair, hasn't been that much).
- fulafel 8y ago
  There are many things that fall under that. Let me rattle of a few off the top of my head: (1) diet composition affects how eagerly your body stores energy in fat (related to sugars & insulin) - see eg https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/ajpendo.00283.2010 https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/ajpendo.00283.201..., (2) different foods take varying amounts of energy to digest in the body (eg proteins and high fiber foods vs fast carbs), (3) the body's metabolic rate partly depends on how you eat and starts to conserve energy if you have long periods between meals, (4) your diet and rythm of meals also affects your general feeling of activity which can make you a couch potato or a evening walk person, (5) check out the research on intermittent fasting and ketogenic diets. But this is not the main problem with the calories-in-calories-out meme; the main problem is that the feeling of hunger and appetite counts, not calories eaten. Satiety feelings are what regulates food intake in most people. Counting calories is not a solution to the obesity epidemic because continuously exerting willpower against your natural feeling of appetite is not sustainable for the vast majority of people.