6 ms·

So have any research on why the waistlines today are not remotely comparable to 1970?

by djmips 3y ago

fulafel 3y ago
Sugar's effect to 1970s waistlines would be determined by preceding decades. Insulin tolerance and other MBS things develop slowly over a person's life.
462436347 3y ago
It's probably multifactoral. For example, here's a recent provocative paper from a highly respected researcher (John Speakman) arguing metabolic rates have actually slowed since then: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10445668/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10445668/ But two decades of "fat doesn't make you fat" probably didn't help, and neither did the continued trend of increasing empty calories from cheap vegetable oils, especially soybean oil: https://thedietwars.com/why-are-americans-getting-fatter-a-food-love-story-in-six-graphs/ https://thedietwars.com/why-are-americans-getting-fatter-a-f... https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/59529/indicators_goal_diet_fig01.gif?v=378 https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/59529/indicators_goa... >Added fats and oils provide more calories per day for the average American than any other food group EDIT: I think most Americans would be shocked to discover that their "favorite" food group is added fat/oil.
- kmoser 3y ago
  A massive increase in environmental plastics may also have something to do with it. "The scientists theorize relationships among the global increase of plastics production, human exposure to microplastics, and the global increase of overweight and obesity in populations." https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/geh/geh_newsletter/2022/6/spotlight/microplastics_may_increase_risk_for_obesity.cfm https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/geh/geh_newslett...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bsder 3y ago
In spite of sugar, a lot of people went hungry. You can note that average male height in the US continued increasing up until the late 1980s. That points to a general caloric deficit up until roughly 1990--which is roughly where we claim the "obesity epidemic" kicks off. Also, a graph of sugar doesn't include caloric fillers like "soy protein" which now seems to be in everything.
- 462436347 3y ago
  > You can note that average male height in the US continued increasing up until the late 1980s. Fat is estrogenic, and estrogen accelerates growth plate fusion.
  - 462436347 3y ago
    > Fat is estrogenic I meant bodyfat specifically
oijkuij 3y ago
One possibility: we have been collecting learning to use our feet less throughout life. "In 1969, 48 percent of children 5 to 14 years of age usually walked or bicycled to school (The National Center for Safe Routes to School, 2011). In 2009, 13 percent of children 5 to 14 years of age usually walked or bicycled to school (National Center, 2011). In 1969, 41 percent of children in grades K–8 lived within one mile of school; 89 percent of these children usually walked or bicycled to school (U.S. Department of Transportation [USDOT], 1972). In 2009, 31 percent of children in grades K–8 lived within one mile of school; 35 percent of these children usually walked or bicycled to school (National Center, 2011)." [Source](http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/the_decline_of_walking_and_bicycling.cfm http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/the_decline_of_...)
- raws 3y ago
  Yeah I'd believe a stronger sedentary lifestyle is the biggest factor in the waste line stagnation if the diet is not the same. They did not have omnipresent smartphones in 1970.
  - arketyp 3y ago
    Heck, back in my days, we kids at least had to walk to each other's house to play video games together.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  I wonder how jobs have changed too. I started gaining weight when I switched from a delivery job to a lab job.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Yeah, I always get a bit amused when people point to one sole food or environmental issue ("microplastics!" says one comment) to blame for the obesity epidemic, when there are two glaringly obvious pieces of data: 1. As another commenter posted, total calories consumed per capita has gone up considerably since 1970. 2. As you posted, we move a lot less than we used to. There are tons of studies that confirm this across a number of different metrics (e.g. average grip strength has gone down considerably since the 80s, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/13/481590997/millennials-may-be-losing-their-grip https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/13/4815909... ). We eat a lot more, of more foods that have higher calorie-to-nutrient ratios than we used to, and we move a heck of a lot less.
Jensson 3y ago
I think a major factor is that today people eat a lot of food designed by engineers to maximize sales. Designs that makes people overeat probably increases sales so they optimize for that. So we should expect people to continue to get fatter as we get better at engineering food. Note that I don't think that engineered food is inherently bad, just that today most food are engineered to be unhealthy because that is better for sales.
- chefandy 3y ago
  There are lots of "common wisdom" answers to this but almost every one spins out pretty quickly. Look at the snack foods readily available in Japan.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    What about them? Are they designed to make you overeat? Or do they fill you up? I don't know which is why I ask. It is possible that they regulated things differently or their food companies had different values so they engineered snacks and fast food to not make you overeat. As I said, engineering food isn't bad in itself, it depends on what goals you have when you engineer it. Just because Japanese people eat a lot of engineered food doesn't mean it is bad for them if that food wasn't engineered to make them fat. Many say they slim down as they visit Japan, so I wouldn't rule it out. What I'd want to see is if two countries that has the same snacks available had vastly different outcomes. But as far as I know most countries has domestic snacks so it varies wildly around the world. For example, why is Czechia much fatter than Slovakia? They were the same country 30 years ago.
  - Mawr 3y ago
    I'm looking... https://youtu.be/lr4MmmWQtZM?t=34 https://youtu.be/lr4MmmWQtZM?t=34
    - chefandy 3y ago
      Ok, so this time look in good faith? Japan is famous for their huge variety of junk food. Is it equivalent? No. Is the ratio of availability the same as the ratio of obesity between the two countries? No. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpgXdQ0QXRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpgXdQ0QXRA
fsh 3y ago
That part is pretty clear. People are eating more calories than they did in 1970. The more difficult question is: why are they doing that?
- somenameforme 3y ago
  One simple explanation is protein. Modern diets have terribly low protein levels, and much of that protein comes from sources with extremely poor digestibility [1], meaning the effective protein consumption levels are even worse than they seem. Protein is a major appetite suppressant. I'd read this but never really realized how true it is until starting on a protein heavy diet. I now eat near 500g of chicken breast a day, and by the end of the day I'm basically having to force feed myself. Yet 500g of chicken breast is less than 800 calories! And the other stuff is just to balance out my diet. And I love eating as much as anybody else. But you simply cannot eat that much when you're on a protein heavy diet. Finding data on protein consumption rates over time is difficult, but I'd hypothesize we were probably much higher on effective protein consumption in the past. I know absolutely nobody that regularly had something like 'steak and eggs' for breakfast, yet it seems that was indeed a thing at some point. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestible_Indispensable_Amino_Acid_Score https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestible_Indispensable_Amino...
  - fulafel 3y ago
    Meat consumption per capita has almost doubled since 1960: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-meat-consumption-by-type-kilograms-per-year https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-meat-consumpti... Meat consumption is associated with higher BMI: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32443920/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32443920/ (summarized in: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200615/Vegetarians-have-lower-BMI-and-are-less-extroverted-than-meat-eating-people.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200615/Vegetarians-have-...)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - 3y ago
jdietrich 3y ago
The obvious answer is more calories. The obvious answer for why more calories is pretty obvious to non-Americans - your portion sizes are crazy, albeit everyone else in the world is catching up. Even if you buy a "healthy" meal in a quick service restaurant or as a pre-packaged retail product, the smallest portion size is still likely to be grossly excessive. The obvious answer for why portion sizes are increasing is that food keeps getting cheaper, in particular relative to other costs in the food service industry. The traditional formula for restaurant pricing is 1/3 ingredients, 1/3 labour and 1/3 overheads; if your food costs have decreased over time but your rent and labour costs continue to increase, it's natural to increase portion sizes to maintain the appearance of value-for-money. The same would apply (to a moderately lesser extent) to convenience foods sold at retail. This has a quite drastic anchoring effect - when you normalise excessively large portions, reasonable portions seem meagre.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

So have any research on why the waistlines today are not remotely comparable to 1970?

by djmips 3y ago

So have any research on why the waistlines today are not remotely comparable to 1970?

Sugar's effect to 1970s waistlines would be determined by preceding decades. Insulin tolerance and other MBS things develop slowly over a person's life.

462436347 3y ago

It's probably multifactoral. For example, here's a recent provocative paper from a highly respected researcher (John Speakman) arguing metabolic rates have actually slowed since then: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10445668/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10445668/ But two decades of "fat doesn't make you fat" probably didn't help, and neither did the continued trend of increasing empty calories from cheap vegetable oils, especially soybean oil: https://thedietwars.com/why-are-americans-getting-fatter-a-food-love-story-in-six-graphs/ https://thedietwars.com/why-are-americans-getting-fatter-a-f... https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/59529/indicators_goal_diet_fig01.gif?v=378 https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/59529/indicators_goa... >Added fats and oils provide more calories per day for the average American than any other food group EDIT: I think most Americans would be shocked to discover that their "favorite" food group is added fat/oil.

kmoser 3y ago
A massive increase in environmental plastics may also have something to do with it. "The scientists theorize relationships among the global increase of plastics production, human exposure to microplastics, and the global increase of overweight and obesity in populations." https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/geh/geh_newsletter/2022/6/spotlight/microplastics_may_increase_risk_for_obesity.cfm https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/geh/geh_newslett...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bsder 3y ago

In spite of sugar, a lot of people went hungry. You can note that average male height in the US continued increasing up until the late 1980s. That points to a general caloric deficit up until roughly 1990--which is roughly where we claim the "obesity epidemic" kicks off. Also, a graph of sugar doesn't include caloric fillers like "soy protein" which now seems to be in everything.

462436347 3y ago
> You can note that average male height in the US continued increasing up until the late 1980s. Fat is estrogenic, and estrogen accelerates growth plate fusion.
- 462436347 3y ago
  > Fat is estrogenic I meant bodyfat specifically

oijkuij 3y ago

One possibility: we have been collecting learning to use our feet less throughout life. "In 1969, 48 percent of children 5 to 14 years of age usually walked or bicycled to school (The National Center for Safe Routes to School, 2011). In 2009, 13 percent of children 5 to 14 years of age usually walked or bicycled to school (National Center, 2011). In 1969, 41 percent of children in grades K–8 lived within one mile of school; 89 percent of these children usually walked or bicycled to school (U.S. Department of Transportation [USDOT], 1972). In 2009, 31 percent of children in grades K–8 lived within one mile of school; 35 percent of these children usually walked or bicycled to school (National Center, 2011)." [Source](http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/the_decline_of_walking_and_bicycling.cfm http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/the_decline_of_...)

raws 3y ago
Yeah I'd believe a stronger sedentary lifestyle is the biggest factor in the waste line stagnation if the diet is not the same. They did not have omnipresent smartphones in 1970.
- arketyp 3y ago
  Heck, back in my days, we kids at least had to walk to each other's house to play video games together.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
I wonder how jobs have changed too. I started gaining weight when I switched from a delivery job to a lab job.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Yeah, I always get a bit amused when people point to one sole food or environmental issue ("microplastics!" says one comment) to blame for the obesity epidemic, when there are two glaringly obvious pieces of data: 1. As another commenter posted, total calories consumed per capita has gone up considerably since 1970. 2. As you posted, we move a lot less than we used to. There are tons of studies that confirm this across a number of different metrics (e.g. average grip strength has gone down considerably since the 80s, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/13/481590997/millennials-may-be-losing-their-grip https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/13/4815909... ). We eat a lot more, of more foods that have higher calorie-to-nutrient ratios than we used to, and we move a heck of a lot less.

Jensson 3y ago

I think a major factor is that today people eat a lot of food designed by engineers to maximize sales. Designs that makes people overeat probably increases sales so they optimize for that. So we should expect people to continue to get fatter as we get better at engineering food. Note that I don't think that engineered food is inherently bad, just that today most food are engineered to be unhealthy because that is better for sales.

chefandy 3y ago
There are lots of "common wisdom" answers to this but almost every one spins out pretty quickly. Look at the snack foods readily available in Japan.
- Jensson 3y ago
  What about them? Are they designed to make you overeat? Or do they fill you up? I don't know which is why I ask. It is possible that they regulated things differently or their food companies had different values so they engineered snacks and fast food to not make you overeat. As I said, engineering food isn't bad in itself, it depends on what goals you have when you engineer it. Just because Japanese people eat a lot of engineered food doesn't mean it is bad for them if that food wasn't engineered to make them fat. Many say they slim down as they visit Japan, so I wouldn't rule it out. What I'd want to see is if two countries that has the same snacks available had vastly different outcomes. But as far as I know most countries has domestic snacks so it varies wildly around the world. For example, why is Czechia much fatter than Slovakia? They were the same country 30 years ago.
- Mawr 3y ago
  I'm looking... https://youtu.be/lr4MmmWQtZM?t=34 https://youtu.be/lr4MmmWQtZM?t=34
  - chefandy 3y ago
    Ok, so this time look in good faith? Japan is famous for their huge variety of junk food. Is it equivalent? No. Is the ratio of availability the same as the ratio of obesity between the two countries? No. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpgXdQ0QXRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpgXdQ0QXRA

fsh 3y ago

That part is pretty clear. People are eating more calories than they did in 1970. The more difficult question is: why are they doing that?

somenameforme 3y ago
One simple explanation is protein. Modern diets have terribly low protein levels, and much of that protein comes from sources with extremely poor digestibility [1], meaning the effective protein consumption levels are even worse than they seem. Protein is a major appetite suppressant. I'd read this but never really realized how true it is until starting on a protein heavy diet. I now eat near 500g of chicken breast a day, and by the end of the day I'm basically having to force feed myself. Yet 500g of chicken breast is less than 800 calories! And the other stuff is just to balance out my diet. And I love eating as much as anybody else. But you simply cannot eat that much when you're on a protein heavy diet. Finding data on protein consumption rates over time is difficult, but I'd hypothesize we were probably much higher on effective protein consumption in the past. I know absolutely nobody that regularly had something like 'steak and eggs' for breakfast, yet it seems that was indeed a thing at some point. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestible_Indispensable_Amino_Acid_Score https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestible_Indispensable_Amino...
- fulafel 3y ago
  Meat consumption per capita has almost doubled since 1960: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-meat-consumption-by-type-kilograms-per-year https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-meat-consumpti... Meat consumption is associated with higher BMI: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32443920/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32443920/ (summarized in: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200615/Vegetarians-have-lower-BMI-and-are-less-extroverted-than-meat-eating-people.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200615/Vegetarians-have-...)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - 3y ago

jdietrich 3y ago

The obvious answer is more calories. The obvious answer for why more calories is pretty obvious to non-Americans - your portion sizes are crazy, albeit everyone else in the world is catching up. Even if you buy a "healthy" meal in a quick service restaurant or as a pre-packaged retail product, the smallest portion size is still likely to be grossly excessive. The obvious answer for why portion sizes are increasing is that food keeps getting cheaper, in particular relative to other costs in the food service industry. The traditional formula for restaurant pricing is 1/3 ingredients, 1/3 labour and 1/3 overheads; if your food costs have decreased over time but your rent and labour costs continue to increase, it's natural to increase portion sizes to maintain the appearance of value-for-money. The same would apply (to a moderately lesser extent) to convenience foods sold at retail. This has a quite drastic anchoring effect - when you normalise excessively large portions, reasonable portions seem meagre.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]