Food intake alone explains obesity epidemic

[Dreamliner]

This is why I'm moving away from "eat less, move more" to just "eat less":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0508045321.htm

So, only one rule now. Easier to remember.

[el_lagarto]

lots of benefits to moving more, given our sedentary society, even if you do not believe it equates to weight loss.

[Dreamliner]

Yes, of course activity has its benefits. And of course it burns calories, however few. But I don't see much evidence that we're actually less active these days than we were, say, a generation ago. Indeed, a goodly number of weight-loss aspirants I meet are people who engage in some sort of formal exercise and are, nonetheless, not seeing much in the way of results.

[el_lagarto]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Yes, of course activity has its benefits. And of course it burns calories, however few. But I don't see much evidence that we're actually less active these days than we were, say, a generation ago. Indeed, a goodly number of weight-loss aspirants I meet are people who engage in some sort of formal exercise and are, nonetheless, not seeing much in the way of results.

man, i guess i dont have any official study ready to regurgitate, but if the move from farming to manufacturing to a knowledge/service based economy ruled by MBAs that look at productivity 1st 2nd 3rd and last has not led to a decline in the activity level of americans then my common sense meter is broken in pieces.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by el_lagarto

man, i guess i dont have any official study ready to regurgitate, but if the move from farming to manufacturing to a knowledge/service based economy ruled by MBAs that look at productivity 1st 2nd 3rd and last has not led to a decline in the activity level of americans then my common sense meter is broken in pieces.

Well, the short answer is, yes, your common sense meter is broken in several places. But then we knew this as far back as when you were recommending stretching a tractor tire to cure ITB.

Also, I noticed that you didn't regurgitate a study.

[el_lagarto]

heres one. but just for the record, you are arguing that americans are just as active now than they were a generation or 2 ago? this is your argument correct? there has been no decline in activity levels of americans as we have transitioned to the economy/society we have now?

just making sure this is your brilliant take on things.


heres my peer reviewed study i found in 30 seconds.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0019657

Conclusion

Over the last 50 years in the U.S. we estimate that daily occupation-related energy expenditure has decreased by more than 100 calories, and this reduction in energy expenditure accounts for a significant portion of the increase in mean U.S. body weights for women and men.

[Dreamliner]

More than 100 calories a day since 1960 ? Damn! That's a helluva lot of calories! More than a rice cake!

I can tell you that I gave up hunting a gathering in 1980. It was back-breaking work!

[el_lagarto]

keep moving them goalposts punchy.

but just for the record, you are arguing that americans are just as active now than they were a generation or 2 ago? this is your argument correct? there has been no decline in activity levels of americans as we have transitioned to the economy/society we have now?

just making sure this is your brilliant take on things.

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas...#ixzz1nWFeYbCD

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by el_lagarto

keep moving them goalposts punchy.

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas...#ixzz1nWFeYbCD

Thanks for the yeoman work, Abner. I'm doing my level best to get the word out that increased food intake alone is sufficient to explain the recent obesity epidemic. So, naturally I'm grateful that you'd post a link to a study that shows that calorie intake has swelled over a scant, roughly thirty-year period.

Seriously, you can't buy this sort of help!

[el_lagarto]

I'm doing my level best to get the word out that increased food intake alone is

thats what makes you ignorant. among other things.

[el_lagarto]

But I don't see much evidence that we're actually less active these days than we were, say, a generation ago

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas...#ixzz1nWZjKroH

from the peer reviewed article. you do know what peer reviewed means right? based on the articles and case studies and opinions you often cite, i have my doubts.


In 1960, one out of two jobs required moderate physical activity; today only one in five do.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/05/2...#ixzz1nWZOoVDG

so, you're up. post a study that says americans are more active today than yesteryear. or STFU.

But I don't see much evidence that we're actually less active these days than we were, say, a generation ago

heres another one, genius.



http://www.activelivingresearch.org/...eTransport.pdf

[mgloving]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

More than 100 calories a day since 1960 ? Damn! That's a helluva lot of calories! More than a rice cake!

You're right, until you start adding it up. 36500 calories a year is a pretty big number and how many people gain all of their weight over the course of one year? I'd say most people don't get obese in the course of one year, but if someone is under active to the tune of that many calories (compared to previous generations) over several years and sure enough they're hitting obesity levels without taking into account the increased calorie intake. When you add in the amount of calories we're taking in compared to what we used to with fast food, processed foods etc...and it's not a big shock to see the rapid rise in obesity.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by el_lagarto

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas...#ixzz1nWZjKroH

from the peer reviewed article. you do know what peer reviewed means right? based on the articles and case studies and opinions you often cite, i have my doubts.


In 1960, one out of two jobs required moderate physical activity; today only one in five do.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/05/2...#ixzz1nWZOoVDG

so, you're up. post a study that says americans are more active today than yesteryear. or STFU.





heres another one, genius.



http://www.activelivingresearch.org/...eTransport.pdf

Well, let's go back to the first study you posted. Well, it wasn't really a study. It was an abstract. And let's be honest, you really didn't read that much, did you ? You probably took your hypocritical (bloviating about how to read a study) lazy ass (and here I'd like to make an admission: I grant that you're lazy) straight to the conclusion, that *occupation-related* caloric expenditure is down a whopping ... wait for it: 100 calories since 1950.

For starters, I'd like to see this slight drop-off in occupation-related caloric expenditure weighed against the fact that, around 1970 or so, Americans who were presumably burning very slightly fewer calories on the job took up a pursuit called 'exercise.'

Tell you what, Nancy. If it's your cellulite that's got a graston tool stuck up your ass, take up Pilates. Meantime, I'll encourage my already exercising clients to dial back the eating a bit.

[el_lagarto]

your original drivel.....

This is why I'm moving away from "eat less, move more" to just "eat less":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0508045321.htm

So, only one rule now. Easier to remember.

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas...#ixzz1nWjImw2n

from your own cited study, and the reason you have only ONE RULE now that you will vomit to the unsuspecting numbskulls that are dumb enough to seek your council......

To return to the average weights of the 1970s, we would need to reverse the increased food intake of about 350 calories a day for children (about one can of fizzy drink and a small portion of French fries) and 500 calories a day for adults (about one large hamburger)," Swinburn said. "Alternatively, we could achieve similar results by increasing physical activity by about 150 minutes a day of extra walking for children and 110 minutes for adults, but realistically, although a combination of both is needed, the focus would have to be on reducing calorie intake."

He emphasized that physical activity should not be ignored as a contributor to reducing obesity and should continue to be promoted because of its many other benefits, but that expectations regarding what can be achieved with exercise need to be lowered and public health policy shifted more toward encouraging people to eat less.

so one rule huh? thats what you took out of the study you cited? brilliant.

whats funny is i agree with you that calorie intake is critical, maybe most critical, but then you get all absolute and make a fool out of yourself. as usual.

shades of grey, alice, shades of grey.

[mauijab]

i loss over 130 pounds without increasing my exercise . i lost it all with portion control . it is a balance between input and output . it is easier to control the input than the output . output is constantly interfered with by life's obligations like birthday parties , holidays , football games , out of town visitors and many more distractions that will prevent most people being successful with a consistent output routine . i am an active person but not capable of going to the gym . my mind completely shuts down in the gym .

i have been 170 pounds for 7 years now . i never went back to the way i used to eat . i never took any diet supplement or one diet drink or pill and i ate whatever i wanted to eat , just less .

i am proof of this study .

[el_lagarto]

Originally Posted by mauijab

i loss over 130 pounds without increasing my exercise . i lost it all with portion control . it is a balance between input and output . it is easier to control the input than the output . output is constantly interfered with by life's obligations like birthday parties , holidays , football games , out of town visitors and many more distractions that will prevent most people being successful with a consistent output routine . i am an active person but not capable of going to the gym . my mind completely shuts down in the gym .

i have been 170 pounds for 7 years now . i never went back to the way i used to eat . i never took any diet supplement or one diet drink or pill and i ate whatever i wanted to eat , just less .

i am proof of this study .

there is hardly a single more devout proponent of portion control than I, when it comes to fatassedness. but to say activity is inconsequential is absurd.(i do not believe you said this , I know the OP did) your results would have been quicker had you bumped up your output(activity) from your baseline. + you would have gotten all the other proven benefits of exercise and increased activity level.

and while i believe your case study for the most part, as you moved down 130 pounds over whatever time frame, i find it hard to believe you didnt do more activity. losing that much weight is like having a new toy or GF, you're gonna see what you can do with it, and having less blubber and mass makes it easier to move, so peeps generally do so. but some may not, i guess. if you say so.

[mauijab]

cool screen name el lagarto.

i did not say i was inactive though , i just did not increase my activities . i do hike , fish (marlins are a decent workout when we're lucky) , ride quads , jet skis ( surprising work out for just holding on and bracing for the landings ), snorkle/scuba , walk a lot . i do load, deliver , and unload a lot of boxes several times a week for my surf shops too . i'm also our maintenance guy too .

i loss half the weight then 4 years later i loss the rest . the only thing i changed in my daily routine during the weight loss was cut my meals in half .

you are dead on about being a new man . i love it and i am never going back . i am always interested in inspiring others that want to take that step .

[el_lagarto]

you went from 300 lbs down to 240 ish, then down to 170, where you stay.

as your weight dropped, you did NOT notice that you could hike further..or hike a similar distance quicker.......or load more boxes with fewer rest breaks? you lost about 1/2 your body weight, on the way down you had to notice something other than your pant size shrinking and being able to see your toes.

just trying to wrap my head around that.

congrats, tho. impressive.

[malscott]

most people that are fat/overweight/robust/obese simply don't stop when they been fed. Like robots they continue eating until the food is gone. I've done it myself. You do NOT need a lot of food to live a healthy life. Just decent food. Unless, you ARE busting your ass working out a gazillion times a day. Then you do burn it off and need to replenish. Too many people "live to eat." When they should be "eating to live"...only.

[ATL_Gator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

This is why I'm moving away from "eat less, move more" to just "eat less":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0508045321.htm

So, only one rule now. Easier to remember.

I disagree. I think that "exercise" is being de-valued far too much anyway, and doing "none" is going too far.

Exercise can be any form of activity. Playing a sport, doing something active, or set aside dedicated "gym" time doing even something as boring and mundane as a treadmill.