4 ms·

What happened around 2000 that the fats & oils calories jumped so fast?

by crdb 11y ago

twoodfin 11y ago
I don't know, but I wouldn't take anything from "CPSI" (actually, CSPI: the Center for Science in the Public Interest) at face value. They're the exemplar of the Nanny State Scold. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_in_the_Public_Interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_in_the_Publi...
- zzalpha 11y ago
  So find flaws in the data. Attacking the messenger does nothing to further the discourse. It's mudslinging at best and only creates more confusion and uncertainty.
  - twoodfin 11y ago
    The "data" they link is this "Special Feature Report Card", presumably prepared for one of CSPI's newsletters or PR blasts: http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/changing_american_diet_13.pdf http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/changing_american_diet_13.pdf It has one "citation": "Source for all graphs: U.S. Department of Agriculture." Well, OK then, but I don't think this chart is well-sourced enough to criticize except by blasting the lobbying group that pawns it off as resembling research. (I hope nobody thought CSPI actually did science!)
    - zzalpha 11y ago
      Here's an idea. Go to the USDA website. Note they do food surveys and post all of their raw data tables online (gotta love the internet!): http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=80-40-05-30 http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=80-40-05... Now check the data if you don't believe it.
    - crdb 11y ago
      Found the data [1] from [2] There is indeed a 17% increase in grams of fat between 1998 and 2000. That's 25g per day - around 5 times the olive oil you'd put in a portion of salad. Amazing increase for an entire population, no? [1] http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/179795/carbs_intake_d.html http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/179795/carbs_intake_d.html [2] http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system/summary-findings.aspx http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per...
      - twoodfin 11y ago
        I'm looking at http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=18349 http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=18349 (2001-2012) and http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=14392 http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=14392 (1935-1998) I'm really suspicious that such a large jump happens to coincide with "new" vs. "old" surveys, and indeed the pre-2000 page says: CHANGES IN METHODS AND OPERATIONS ACROSS SURVEYS… It is important to consider that survey methods and operations including questionnaire wording, data processing methods, and the survey nutrient database used to calculate the dietary intake were changed from survey to survey based on new data and methods available at the time. Comparing data across surveys must take into account these types of changes. Does anyone think CSPI really spent the time digging into this anomaly that they would have if it had been purported "good news"? Did they spend any time digging in at all? Who knows... which is why, as I said, I don't take their chart very seriously.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        zzalpha 11y ago
        That's actually a very good observation! There does seem to be a major discontinuity between those two study periods. Very strange that it seems to only affect fats, and that the effect was so dramatic... They do mention "There has been some research that addressed the impact of changes in methods and/or databases between selected surveys"... it'd be worth digging that up to see what the effects were determined to be. Edit: Found it? http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/catalog/7349 http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/catalog/7349 Nothing in the abstract explains a major discontinuity in reported fat intake, though. They only report small but statistically significant effects on various other nutrients. Edit 2: They also have a FAQ on this topic. From http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=13793 http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=13793: "Is it possible to combine WWEIA data from different release cycles?" It goes on to point out that sample weights, number of days, and the nutrient database do change over time, and so you have to take into account these effects. The above study covers effects as a result of changes in the nutrient database. I have trouble believing that sampling method or the data cycle length would result in such a major discontinuity in the data.
maxerickson 11y ago
I doubt it explains it all, but I remember the Atkins diet got a lot of popular attention around that time.
- crdb 11y ago
  I thought about that, but both the second Atkins book (the first was in the 70s) and Cordain's Paleo book came out in 2002, whilst the trend really picks up starting 1997-8 or so.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    The second book could have been in response to the popularity. I have specific recall of someone I knew following Atkins prior to a high quality anchor event that occurred in April 2002 (I guess they were following it in 2000).
- kenrikm 11y ago
  The Atkins Diet regained popularity around 1998.
learnstats2 11y ago
My guess: the price of sugar spiked and the price of oil fell? The popularity and promotion of the 'Mediterranean diet' around that time allowed manufacturers of processed foods to make the switch from sugars to fats? Looks like the numbers match: http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=sugar&months=240 http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=sugar&month... http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=rapeseed-oil&months=240 http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=rapeseed-oi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_diet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_diet
- crdb 11y ago
  Interesting theory but the "caloric sweeteners", whilst dropping from that period, do not do so anywhere near as much or violently as fats rose, and continue dropping after fats stabilize (2002 onwards). In fact, corn-based sweeteners took over from the mid-1980s (mostly thanks to HFCS) [1]. Why would sugar and vegetable oil be substitutes in manufactured foods, other than for HFCS type sweeteners? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup#/media/File:US_Sweetener_consumption,_1966_to_2013.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup#/medi...
- maxerickson 11y ago
  A pound of sugar has ~1,800 calories in it. So at the peak price of ~$0.30, the calories per dollar is about 6,000. The peak price of canola oil there is $1.70 per kilogram, at 9,000 calories per kilogram, the calories per dollar is about 5,300. Both provide so many calories per dollar that I would not expect strong substitution between them.
- abandonliberty 11y ago
  Except the majority of sweetening is done with HFCS, not sugar.
  - learnstats2 11y ago
    Except the stat that shows a drop in sugar consumption includes corn-based sugars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Sweetener_consumption,_1966_to_2013.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Sweetener_consumption,...
Shivetya 11y ago
Reporting changed. Per the CDSI (In 2000, the number of companies reporting data to the USDA jumped, so the rise was probably less steep than it appears.)
larrydag 11y ago
Perhaps the Atkins diet craze?

What happened around 2000 that the fats & oils calories jumped so fast?

by crdb 11y ago

What happened around 2000 that the fats & oils calories jumped so fast?

I don't know, but I wouldn't take anything from "CPSI" (actually, CSPI: the Center for Science in the Public Interest) at face value. They're the exemplar of the Nanny State Scold. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_in_the_Public_Interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_in_the_Publi...

zzalpha 11y ago
So find flaws in the data. Attacking the messenger does nothing to further the discourse. It's mudslinging at best and only creates more confusion and uncertainty.
- twoodfin 11y ago
  The "data" they link is this "Special Feature Report Card", presumably prepared for one of CSPI's newsletters or PR blasts: http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/changing_american_diet_13.pdf http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/changing_american_diet_13.pdf It has one "citation": "Source for all graphs: U.S. Department of Agriculture." Well, OK then, but I don't think this chart is well-sourced enough to criticize except by blasting the lobbying group that pawns it off as resembling research. (I hope nobody thought CSPI actually did science!)
  - zzalpha 11y ago
    Here's an idea. Go to the USDA website. Note they do food surveys and post all of their raw data tables online (gotta love the internet!): http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=80-40-05-30 http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=80-40-05... Now check the data if you don't believe it.
  - crdb 11y ago
    Found the data [1] from [2] There is indeed a 17% increase in grams of fat between 1998 and 2000. That's 25g per day - around 5 times the olive oil you'd put in a portion of salad. Amazing increase for an entire population, no? [1] http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/179795/carbs_intake_d.html http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/179795/carbs_intake_d.html [2] http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system/summary-findings.aspx http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per...
    - twoodfin 11y ago
      I'm looking at http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=18349 http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=18349 (2001-2012) and http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=14392 http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=14392 (1935-1998) I'm really suspicious that such a large jump happens to coincide with "new" vs. "old" surveys, and indeed the pre-2000 page says: CHANGES IN METHODS AND OPERATIONS ACROSS SURVEYS… It is important to consider that survey methods and operations including questionnaire wording, data processing methods, and the survey nutrient database used to calculate the dietary intake were changed from survey to survey based on new data and methods available at the time. Comparing data across surveys must take into account these types of changes. Does anyone think CSPI really spent the time digging into this anomaly that they would have if it had been purported "good news"? Did they spend any time digging in at all? Who knows... which is why, as I said, I don't take their chart very seriously.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - zzalpha 11y ago
        That's actually a very good observation! There does seem to be a major discontinuity between those two study periods. Very strange that it seems to only affect fats, and that the effect was so dramatic... They do mention "There has been some research that addressed the impact of changes in methods and/or databases between selected surveys"... it'd be worth digging that up to see what the effects were determined to be. Edit: Found it? http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/catalog/7349 http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/catalog/7349 Nothing in the abstract explains a major discontinuity in reported fat intake, though. They only report small but statistically significant effects on various other nutrients. Edit 2: They also have a FAQ on this topic. From http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=13793 http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=13793: "Is it possible to combine WWEIA data from different release cycles?" It goes on to point out that sample weights, number of days, and the nutrient database do change over time, and so you have to take into account these effects. The above study covers effects as a result of changes in the nutrient database. I have trouble believing that sampling method or the data cycle length would result in such a major discontinuity in the data.

maxerickson 11y ago

I doubt it explains it all, but I remember the Atkins diet got a lot of popular attention around that time.

crdb 11y ago
I thought about that, but both the second Atkins book (the first was in the 70s) and Cordain's Paleo book came out in 2002, whilst the trend really picks up starting 1997-8 or so.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  The second book could have been in response to the popularity. I have specific recall of someone I knew following Atkins prior to a high quality anchor event that occurred in April 2002 (I guess they were following it in 2000).
kenrikm 11y ago
The Atkins Diet regained popularity around 1998.

learnstats2 11y ago

My guess: the price of sugar spiked and the price of oil fell? The popularity and promotion of the 'Mediterranean diet' around that time allowed manufacturers of processed foods to make the switch from sugars to fats? Looks like the numbers match: http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=sugar&months=240 http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=sugar&month... http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=rapeseed-oil&months=240 http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=rapeseed-oi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_diet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_diet

crdb 11y ago
Interesting theory but the "caloric sweeteners", whilst dropping from that period, do not do so anywhere near as much or violently as fats rose, and continue dropping after fats stabilize (2002 onwards). In fact, corn-based sweeteners took over from the mid-1980s (mostly thanks to HFCS) [1]. Why would sugar and vegetable oil be substitutes in manufactured foods, other than for HFCS type sweeteners? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup#/media/File:US_Sweetener_consumption,_1966_to_2013.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup#/medi...
maxerickson 11y ago
A pound of sugar has ~1,800 calories in it. So at the peak price of ~$0.30, the calories per dollar is about 6,000. The peak price of canola oil there is $1.70 per kilogram, at 9,000 calories per kilogram, the calories per dollar is about 5,300. Both provide so many calories per dollar that I would not expect strong substitution between them.
abandonliberty 11y ago
Except the majority of sweetening is done with HFCS, not sugar.
- learnstats2 11y ago
  Except the stat that shows a drop in sugar consumption includes corn-based sugars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Sweetener_consumption,_1966_to_2013.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Sweetener_consumption,...

Shivetya 11y ago

Reporting changed. Per the CDSI (In 2000, the number of companies reporting data to the USDA jumped, so the rise was probably less steep than it appears.)

larrydag 11y ago

Perhaps the Atkins diet craze?