
Study: people who eat and exercise the same as people 20 years ago are fatter - fisherjeff
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/why-it-was-easier-to-be-skinny-in-the-1980s/407974/?single_page=true
======
xiaoma
> _A given person, in 2006, eating the same amount of calories, taking in the
> same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat, and exercising the
> same amount as a person of the same age did in 1988 would have a BMI that
> was about 2.3 points higher._

I think the recent obsession with macronutrients is a big part of the problem.
I'm not sure if the macronutrient ratio I eat has changed much from when I was
growing up with my grandmother's cooking, with the exception of three failed
experiments with low carb diets and a couple of other small experiments.

The thing is that in the 80s, as a kid, I was more likely to be eating
traditional American staples, like corn flakes or oatmeal and a banana for
breakfast, and a typical meal would include meat, potatoes and a green
vegetable. I drank some soda, but also about a quart of milk a day.

Now I tend to eat out 9 times a week instead of 2 and I eat a lot more
processed food unless I make a concerted effort not to. I avoid soda for the
most part, but on the whole there's a lot more stuff in my diet that my great-
grandparents wouldn't have recognized as food. I don't remember the last time
I drank milk.

Surely eating home baked bread or a piece of fruit isn't the same as eating a
snack bar, eating meat isn't the same as drinking muscle milk, and fatty fish
doesn't equate to pork rinds, etc. Macronutrient ratios just don't tell the
whole story or even most of it.

~~~
com2kid
I agree, the macros look sort of the same, but the source of those calories is
much different.

Just the types of cooking oil we use has changed a lot.

Look at what goes into cookies now. It used to be butter, now I've seen
recipes with canola oil. (if anyone tells you to use canola oil in your baked
goods, ignore them and use butter!)

There is evidence that gut bacteria is passed down from generation to
generation, we could very well be seeing a delayed effect from public policy
and health decisions made around the time the previous generation was growing
up. oops.

I am sort of on the fence about processed foods. A lot of canned food was
eaten previously, fresh vegetables were not available year round, but a lot of
the canning was done at home in glass jars. I am not one to be paranoid, but
now all our canned food comes in coated aluminum cans.

We have a few decades of aluminum cans being coated on the inside with BPA. It
is know known that BPA can have harmful effects that take a long time to
manifest.

The point is, there are a lot of potential culprits, and it is going to take a
long time to figure out what state unbridled capitalism has left public health
in.

~~~
tracker1
I think this is spot on, and came to comment likewise... I think the types of
product we are using for our macros is way off base from even a few decades
ago. I only had a little glimpse of how much so because I know someone very
allergic to soy, and it's in almost everything these days.

I don't think that most things in particular are necessarily bad for you, but
it might be worth taking a few steps back and switch to less processed
foods... I don't think organic makes much of a difference for most foods
(aside from berries)... But using oils that have to be heavily refined,
perfumed and dyed to make them palatable doesn't make so much sense.

There's also recent studies on the affects of artificial sweeteners on
digestion, trans fats and a bunch of other stuff. I think the push towards
vegetarianism, low-fat, low-carb, etc as fads combined with industrialization
of food has done a lot of harm to the public.

If you're young and relatively healthy, avoid processed/refined foods as much
as possible, eat a variety of things and don't consume too many calories on a
weekly average, and you should be okay. I'm 40, diabetic, insulin resistant,
and wish I'd received that advice when I was younger.

I just think it sucks how much it really costs to actually cook for
yourself... over the weekend I made 3 different pots of soup to have this
week. I had some chuck roast that I braised in beef broth (store bought), used
the roast in a menudo inspired soup (I don't like tripe), the braising liquid
was combined with mushrooms and onions for another soup... I used the left
over carcase from a roasted chicken to make another broth that I then used to
make vichyssoise (sub some potato with cauliflower and parsnips). All told it
cost about $160 for everything with about a gallon each of three soups...
breakdown to 2-cup servings comes out to just under $7 a serving for a low-gl
diet with a variety of veggies... That doesn't count adding other protein in
my diet too.

Now make it a family of 4-5 and that budget is too high for families making
under 40-60K/year. It's no wonder that boxed mac & cheese, hamburger helper
and the like rule the roost at home along with the dollar menu at fast food
places. With all the heavily refined, packaged, canned, frozen and just plain
overly processed food that we all consume too much of, is it any wonder why we
as a society are experiencing the problems we are?

I don't know how well supported it would be, but would really love to see
food/nutrition/cooking as a core material in elementary schools... Actually
bringing cooking into school lunches with a required prep rotation for all
students would go a long way. It would cost more than those programs do today,
but is using subsidy trades to turn chickens into chicken nuggets for school
lunches really a good thing?

~~~
yabatopia
> I think the push towards vegetarianism, low-fat, low-carb, etc as fads
> combined with industrialization of food has done a lot of harm to the
> public.

What's wrong with vegetarianism? I would think it has lots of benefits. It's
better for the environment, you don't risk eating very processed meat filled
with hormones and additives, from animals often kept in horrible conditions.
The meat industry is a textbook example of industrialization, which you
consider very harmful. So what's the beef with vegetarianism?

~~~
Litost
I've just watched this and assuming it's unbiased which it seems to be, it
makes a number of very compelling arguments to go vegetarian/vegan. Not least
the huge water, grain and land requirements and the resultant methane
emissions of eating meat which are globally unsustainable:
[http://cowspiracy.vhx.tv/](http://cowspiracy.vhx.tv/)

~~~
jazzyk
Why does it have to be vegetarian all the way? There are some nutrients
(vitamin B12, probably others) available only in animal-source protein.

It used to be that meat was luxury and eaten infrequently (once a week). Going
back to a similar schedule would save water/energy without depriving people of
necessary nutrients.

Everything in moderation.

~~~
xiaoma
Some people don't want to kill animals that don't want to be killed. You may
have different ethics but that doesn't imply anything bad about vegetarians.

------
abrons
The article mentions prescription drugs but doesn't mention a widely used over
the counter one: nicotine.

US smoking rates are down about 50% over the last 20 years. (That's overall, I
couldn't find any details by cohort.)

~~~
jl6
Is the suggestion that people are channelling addictive behaviors from smoking
to eating?

~~~
damian2000
Smoking reduces your appetite, leading to less eating and less weight.

[http://www.npr.org/2011/06/09/137085989/the-skinny-on-
smokin...](http://www.npr.org/2011/06/09/137085989/the-skinny-on-smoking-why-
nicotine-curbs-appetite)

~~~
jacobolus
Nicotine (without smoking) also has that effect, even in low doses.

Actually there are two parts: it reduces appetite, and also raises the resting
metabolic rate, cf. e.g.
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2773833](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2773833)

------
netcan
I have no particular expertise in this area, but I've been making the "we
don't know why people are fat" argument to whoever will listen for a while.
Doctors (socially, not at an appointment FWIW), academics… I'm actually quite
surprised how often they've been thinking along the same lines and/or they are
convinced by the general idea.

basically:

People have been getting fatter, to pathological levels for quite a while. The
phenomenon is global. The conventional explanation is too much for and not
enough exercise, caloric surplus.

This is not nonsensical. We know that caloric restriction leads to weigh loss.
We can also see that various other approaches can result in weight loss.
Carbohydrate restriction, for example. But, this doesn't give us a complete
(or possibly even relevant) answer.

This requires another 'why' and a 'why now.' All it takes is a small sustained
caloric surplus over long periods to reach obesity. People have had access to
these calories, in large populations or in pockets for a long time. There have
been periods of regional caloric wealth and certainly periods of caloric
wealth within subcultures/classes. If caloric surplus is the key idea, why do
we have these caloric surpluses today.

There were sedentary workers even in ancient times, certainly in the 20th
century. Today's sedentary worker is fatter than yesteryear's. Today's
carpenter is fatter than a carpenter in 1972. Why? A carpenter in 1972 had
plenty of access to calories, similar physical lifestyle.

IMO, this is an epidemic and we need an explanation that works at epidemic
levels. We need to explain the change in populations weight, not differences
in individual's weight. The answer to the first is probably different to the
second.

"Gut biome" may be an answer. Antibiotics. Parasites are another interesting
possibility.

In any case, I don't think it's coincidence that fad diet books and other pop
science is so successful. We do not have an answer from science. I don't eves
think the right question is usually asked.

Why did we all get so fat?

~~~
visakanv
I've tried to do some reading about all of this... the main argument that
makes sense to me is that it has to do with increased consumption of sugar. To
oversimplify, sugar triggers an increase in insulin, and something about
insulin (I can't remember the precise details) changes the way the body
processes food– it stores more of it as fat.

The bulk of these ideas come from Gary Taubes' Why We Get Fat. Here's a
summary of the process: [http://www.columnfivemedia.com/work-
items/infographic-carbs-...](http://www.columnfivemedia.com/work-
items/infographic-carbs-are-killing-you-eating-fat-doesnt-make-you-fat)

The scary part is that you start secreting insulin just by THINKING about
carbs, sugar and so on. I haven't heard people discuss this... but if it's
true that insulin is secreted, ADVERTISING could be contributing to obesity.
Which is disturbing. I hope I'm wrong.

I'm not super well-informed on this subject, but I would like to be and
welcome any thoughts and suggestions and corrections and so on.

~~~
maxerickson
Advertising could be contributing more directly, food companies are large
enough that they serve the entire market, so one of the few ways they can grow
is to get people to eat more.

You are describing prediabetes and insulin resistance. Excess sugar is
probably a contributor, but also probably not the only one.

------
erdewit
This study relies on the NHANES data which is self-reported: Respondents have
to recall what they ate. So an alternative and more likely explanation is that
people are far better at deluding themselves than they used to be.

~~~
white-flame
I would also assume that there's less structured eating schedules in homes now
than there used to be, which would make it more difficult to catalog exactly
what was ingested.

------
NVI
The original article is behind a paywall:
[http://www.obesityresearchclinicalpractice.com/article/S1871...](http://www.obesityresearchclinicalpractice.com/article/S1871-403X\(15\)00121-0/abstract).
Summary:

 _Background_

To determine whether the relationship between caloric intake, macronutrient
intake, and physical activity with obesity has changed over time.

 _Methods_

Dietary data from 36,377 U.S. adults from the National Health and Nutrition
Survey (NHANES) between 1971 and 2008 was used. Physical activity frequency
data was only available in 14,419 adults between 1988 and 2006. Generalised
linear models were used to examine if the association between total caloric
intake, percent dietary macronutrient intake and physical activity with body
mass index (BMI) was different over time.

 _Results_

Between 1971 and 2008, BMI, total caloric intake and carbohydrate intake
increased 10–14%, and fat and protein intake decreased 5–9%. Between 1988 and
2006, frequency of leisure time physical activity increased 47–120%. However,
for a given amount of caloric intake, macronutrient intake or leisure time
physical activity, the predicted BMI was up to 2.3 kg/m2 higher in 2006 that
in 1988 in the mutually adjusted model (P < 0.05).

 _Conclusions_

Factors other than diet and physical activity may be contributing to the
increase in BMI over time. Further research is necessary to identify these
factors and to determine the mechanisms through which they affect body weight.

------
im3w1l
I do not have access to the fulltext but from the abstract, it seems they may
only have included structured leisure time physical activity like playing
football one hour every Monday (what could "Physical activity frequency data
... in 14,419 adults between 1988 and 2006" plausably include?)

I would think there is less _unstructured_ physical activity nowadays. Both at
home and at work.

------
cwp
I've noticed the same thing geographically. Twice now, I've taken a
"sabbatical" and moved to Quito, Ecuador for a year to be near family. Both
times, I lost weight when I arrived, stabilized at a leaner equilibrium, then
gained the weight back when I returned to North America.

Could be nutritional, could be bacterial, could social. Whatever it is, the
effect is dramatic.

~~~
hajrice
Noticed the same exact thing when I go to Europe, vs. America

I think the article mostly applies to America. American food is just fattening

~~~
danlindley
The study factored in the nutritional value of the food, so your comment seems
counter to their findings.

"...eating the same amount of calories, taking in the same quantities of
macronutrients like protein and fat, and exercising the same amount as a
person of the same age did in 1988 would have a BMI that was about 2.3 points
higher."

~~~
emp_zealoth
Except the calories are obsolete (meaningless) A lot of the food now is higly
processed, ground to microns, resulting in way higher "usable engergy" that
can be extracted. Especially the "cheap" food - full of awful sugars,
stabilised fats or other junk, gelatine, mechanically abused.

~~~
pflanze
Your answer may look unscientific (hand-wavy, with the word "meaningless"
being too strong, that's how I explain the downvotes), but I guess if eating
is (partially) feeding gut bacteria, then the micro structure of the food
could well matter a lot with regards of which kinds of bacteria it promotes
and which it weakens, and hence change the composition of the biome.

------
klunger
It was bizarre that the article did not mention trends in other behaviours
that effect weight, like sleep and stress level. Millenials are arguably more
stressed out than people the same age a generation ago, due to increased
student loan debt, unstable job market and poor job security. This constant
stress of course contributes to how well your body can maintain a healthy
weight. There should be a rigorous study comparing relative stress levels over
generations, but it is not hard to imagine that this is broadly true.

~~~
timetravel3r
This is very true. And commute distances. I've found my time allocated to
exercise goes down with increased commute time. I've also found my commute
distances go up with home prices, as i need to go further out to afford the
same amount of space.

------
vph
You can't eat the same foods people ate 20 years ago. The cows aren't the
same. The chickens aren't same. Cows and chickens today are more obese and eat
more antibiotics than they used to be.

~~~
elktea
It's due to what we feed them, as well. We even feed corn to farmed Salmon,
which makes their Omega 3&6 ratios the opposite of what they naturally are.

------
DanBC
There's a bunch of stuff that might be going on here.

People mostly don't know what they're eating. They don't know the calorie
content; they don't know the macro / micro nutrient content. They don't know
how much they're eating, nor how much they should be eating. Food (and I have
nothing to base this on) feels more engineered and feels like it's deceptively
marketed (gummy bears being sold as "FAT FREE FOOD!" is a scumbag tactic).
We're seeing similar levels of broscience ("Avoid all sugar!") as we saw in
the 80s ("Avoid all fat!") and it's probably not helpful.

I'm also interested in what they corrected for. Did they correct for increased
prescribing of psychiatric meds? The US has a lot of "off label" prescribing
of such meds; prescribing of these meds has increased dramatically since the
1990s; many of them list increased appetite and weight gain as side effects.
(And the weight gain is not just a function of increased appetite).

------
mutagen
Humans aren't the only ones gaining weight, animals are too:

Fluffy article: [http://news.discovery.com/animals/fat-pets-obesity-
weight.ht...](http://news.discovery.com/animals/fat-pets-obesity-weight.htm)

Nature article:
[http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101124/full/news.2010.628.ht...](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101124/full/news.2010.628.html)

Paper focusing on both lab animals (where diet is strictly controlled), pets,
and feral rats living among humans:
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081766/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081766/)

------
DiabloD3
I don't have access to the study, but I suspect it doesn't say what The
Atlantic is saying it's saying.

I lost weight: I went from 340 pounds to 214 pounds in exactly a year, and
then bottomed out at 184 eventually (I've been purposely trying to gain muscle
lately, which has been causing my weight to meander in the 190s since then).

My caloric intake hasn't changed in a way that can explain such a weight loss.
I went from eating 1500-2000 calories a day to 1500-2000 calories a day (as
in, no useful change, nothing that can explain 126 pounds in a year,
disproportionately more of it towards the start than the end).

Now, what I _did_ change was drop all grains (grains, cereals, pastas, soy,
rice), drop refined sugars (I still use coconut and true raw cane sugars
(Muscovado, Barbados, or Turbinado) or straight up raw honey; all _very_
sparingly, and corn syrup is banned in my house), dropped seed oils (no more
"vegetable", soy, corn, or canola oils; replaced with coconut and olive oil,
or leftover bacon fat when I have it), and legumes (I'm allergic to peanuts,
and don't care for beans, so the only thing I lost there is peas; soy is a
legume, but I include it in with grains due to how it is typically treated
culinarily, and thus already banned in my house).

So, given my experience, people are fatter because of reasons that cannot be
explained by calories, such as chemicals in the things I quit eating causing
unusual weight gain and halting the natural process of us burning endogenous
fat. And it isn't like I'm the only person who did this, it is estimated over
a million people have tried Paleo or some variant thereof and have
significantly lost weight if they were overweight as long as they stuck with
the lifestyle.

Side note: I went from 340 to 214 with chronically under-exercising. I still
chronically under-exercise to a point, even though I now lift weights and try
to go on daily walks. I still don't get the high other people seem to get from
exercising. So, you can't use "increased caloric burn" as why I lost so much
weight, it just wasn't there.

~~~
johnthedebs
How carefully were you tracking calorie intake? It's notoriously difficult and
I simply don't believe you ate 1500-2000 calories at 340lbs and didn't lose
weight (not that you need to convince me).

In any case, congrats on the achievement!

~~~
DiabloD3
It is very difficult to track calories if you don't eat exact portion sizes
listed on boxes. I calculated what I used to eat, and what I eat now, based on
things I regularly ate. I figured I'd have to be off somewhere around 1000+
calories in my calculations to have lost as much weight as I did during the
start of that year.

I have had this conversation with people before, and the only thing that would
have probably helped here is measuring calories being flushed down the toiled,
something that is difficult, expensive, and not really worth it outside of
actual scientific studies.

Also, I went from being habitually tired, not sleeping well, and also
diagnosed with pre-diabetus, to being full of energy, having a much better
mood, sleeping well, and having a sharper mind. Weight loss alone doesn't
explain this, my change in diet alone doesn't explain this, but both together
increasing and stabilizing my energy levels seems to explain this.

~~~
david-given
Don't underestimate the psychologic effects. A few years back I lost about
20kg in six to nine months --- by eating less and better, mostly --- and
plotting my weight on the graph and watching the slow but steady downward
trend was always a big mood-lifter.

And feeling better leads to a positive reinforcement loop; feeling good about
yourself leads you (well, it works on me, at least) to do more things that
make you feel better about yourself.

------
ejcx
Health studies, especially when reported by some article in som publication
without an original source are a mess.

I personally am extremely skeptical of what the Atlantis says the findings of
the paper are. I lost 50 lbs while eating a box of pop tarts per day while
counting macros. It's anecdotal but that's the basis for my beliefs, and a lot
of science supports it.

One issue with health studies is how data is collected. Numerous studies have
shown that a huge number of people are incapable of accurately tracking the
number of calories they consume per day, and consistently under report their
numbers. I believe it, it's hard in today's eat out culture. So...how sure are
we that people were consuming the same number of calories?

This is just one issue. There are tons more. If you happen to be in this
thread and you are looking for health advice, my recommendation is to head to
/r/fitness and read the FAQ.

------
ocharles
Does this study factor in the huge life style changes over 20 years? Far more
access to cars, and far more spending entire days sitting down (computer jobs,
Netflix binge watching, etc). A lot of how we live has changed in 20 years,
I'm inclined to think the problem lies there, not in environmental factors.

~~~
weego
We had cars and tv/video games/films 20 years ago. I know, I was there.

~~~
ocharles
I'm aware of that. You didn't however have such a reliance on cars, nor the
convenience afforded to having a car (e.g., the popularity of drive-thrus now,
which were only getting started in 1980). There is such easy access to things
like Netflix and Steam - it is very easy these days to waste entire days away
without even noticing.

~~~
winthrowe
1980 was thirty-five years ago, not twenty.

------
acd
Compare sugar intake now and 20 years ago, sugar metabolizes to fat in the
body. So that food is fat free, but high in sugar leads to the same thing in
the body anyway.

Also look at the sizes of portions, soda and food packages they have all
increased too.

Fast food consumption which is high in sugar and fat has also increased.

Lab rats has shown to be as addicted as cocaine on sugar
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-
shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/)

~~~
bad_user
I've just read "In defence of food". It's a little sensationalist, but the
author makes a good point that we've been blaming this or that nutrient and in
the process we've become more and more unhealthy.

Amongst others we blamed cholesterol, we blamed fats, then saturated fats, now
we're starting to blame carbohydrates. The problem starts from the
reductionist science being applied, coupled with the constant lobbying of the
food industry of course. What happens is that nutrition is an incredibly
complex subject and nutritionists can only blame what they can currently
measure. The result is a whole industry of processed foods that have lost
their nutritional value. And for the food industry, that's OK because
processed foods are more profitable.

The problem is not naturally occurring sugar. The problem is high fructose
corn syrup and (to a lesser extent) sucrose and the current practice of
injecting these substances in processed foods, because these sugars are
fooling our senses and create addiction. But we are talking about refined
carbohydrates. The sugar in fruits is totally fine and in fact there are signs
that we don't eat enough fruits. But why stop at sugars? Margarine was
certainly a bad idea, as was every other idea that the nutritionists'
community ever had.

So really, if you want an enemy, that's certainly processed foods and the
weakest cult-like science that human kind ever practised. To this day doctors
are still advising patients to avoid saturated fats, even though there's zero
evidence of saturated fats provoking cancer or heart disease or obesity. To
this day you can see low-fat products, like low-fat milk that's artificially
coloured and enriched with powdered milk, being sold because of health claims.
Expect to see Omega-3 in bananas.

------
codexjourneys
I suspect the answer has to do with the microbiome and its cumulative response
over decades to antibiotics and tiny changes introduced in food (shifts in
cooking oils, dairy product additives, even animal feed that then indirectly
impacts our own microbiome when we eat meat or eggs or dairy, etc.). The
problem is that studies on the microbiome tend to be limited and recent. Long-
term studies are especially lacking. What we do have indicates the microbiome
may be vital to not just digestion but also our immune system function,
emotional well-being and weight.

Probiotics might be helpful here, but in no way are we close to an exact
science on the microbiome.

------
jensen123
I seem to gain weight when I eat wheat. When I eliminate wheat, my weight is
stable.

I found a study about how wheat interferes with leptin (the hormone that makes
us feel full):
[http://www.biochemj.org/content/410/3/595](http://www.biochemj.org/content/410/3/595)

I think I've read several places that the wheat we eat today is significantly
different from the wheat people ate in the old days. If I remember correctly,
our wheat contains much more gluten, since high-gluten wheat makes bread
fluffier etc.

~~~
Litost
I was curious about this, as a relation has gluten intolerance. This reckons
that the gluten content of wheat hasn't really changed: [http://nogluten-
noproblem.com/2014/03/has-the-gluten-content...](http://nogluten-
noproblem.com/2014/03/has-the-gluten-content-of-wheat-increased-over-
time.html)

And entertainingly this reckons increasingly industrialy generated wheat is
now so devoid of any nutrients, even pigs won't eat it?
[http://www.grainstorm.com/pages/modern-
wheat](http://www.grainstorm.com/pages/modern-wheat)

Is it just me or is it becoming increasingly more difficult to get the truth
on any matter, because you're wading through so many layers of human generated
FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt)?

~~~
mithras
I have the same issue. So much FUD articles around on nutrition. Sticking to
scientific studies works but it's a lot more effort.

------
pazimzadeh
I hope that they controlled for factors like smoking cigarettes.

~~~
desdiv
They have [0][1].

[0] [http://i.imgur.com/mQZ1ST9.png](http://i.imgur.com/mQZ1ST9.png)

[1] [http://i.imgur.com/Hi1x4Ab.png](http://i.imgur.com/Hi1x4Ab.png)

------
marincounty
I'm kind of tired of these studies. They don't know why we are fatter.
Personally, I think it's a lot of factors, and maybe even a virus?

That aside, moderate exercise has so many positive benefits, why not do a
little. I have no idea if it helps lose weight, but working up a slight sweat
daily, has helped me greatly over the years. Not so much with weight, but
psychologically. Yes--it's been my major drug since 8th grade. (It seems like
8th grade is when society injects those needles of stress, on so many levels?)
I do other drugs, but exercise has been my major addiction for years. I don't
tell people. I'm actually embarrassed by it.

I've been fat and skinny. When I was fat, I didn't need to exercise as much in
order to get the psychological benefits from exercise--in my case, it's always
been some kind of cardio.

My point is if you don't feel well, and you don't have any physical reason not
to exercise; give it a shot. You don't need to do marathons; just walk(fast,
or slow, or run small distances--then walk). Exercise until you work up a good
sweat.(I need at least 45 minutes now, but when I was heavier I just needed 20
minutes/daily. That was a hidden benefit from being overweight?) I guarantee
after a little while, you will feel better. You might lose weight. You might
improve your blood numbers. I can guarantee you will feal better, and will get
to like the slight muscle pain the next day. In my case I need to exercise
daily. Some people get the psychological boost from just exercising
occasionally. I think your occupation plays a role? My father worked
construction and was always sweaty. I would never tell him to exercise. You
will come to like the slight muscle pain the next day. I've been around people
who don't have any pain the next day, but not me. I ache when I arise. Yes,
your legs/body will hurt when you wake up the next day. I've never had anyone
tell me to be be prepared to hurt the next day, but the hurt becomes a good
hurt with time.

I've always hated getting up in the mornings, and don't know if my exercise
régime is to blame, but once I get going; I'm glad I worked up a sweat the
previous day. (I sugesseted sweating because, in my experience, if I don't
sweat profusely; I don't get the same psychological bump. Maybe it's
psychosomatic--I am a bit of a Nut?

~~~
saiya-jin
nonono. no. you don't get it. we need to find something, someone else evil to
blame. it's not us, cannot be us, we're perfect, and we won't change just
because it makes sense.

It's like junk food is a complete mystery for last 20 years, and we don't have
a free will and we are not actually choosing what we buy or eat. the fact that
sweet stuff is not healthy was known to me as a kid 25 years ago, without all
the science. Everybody knew it.

I'll say something many won't like - people got weak, not only physically, but
mentally. We cannot handle pain that was common before, we frown upon hard
physical work, because its well... hard. We seek professional challenges, but
other, more important ones, are often sidelined.

Also, completely agree with you. Doing sports, anything that makes your heart
pumping and your body sweating like pig is by far the best thing one can do
for his/her health. Regularly/often is the key, the only true key. Unless one
is paraplegic, there is no excuse good enough to be valid. But guess what -
it's hard :)

------
cdnsteve
Does this study take into account the exponential growth of portion size? Food
portions in the USA are out of control, four times larger than the 1950's.
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/portion-sizes-
infog...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/portion-sizes-
infographic_n_1539804.html)

~~~
mattlutze
_" They found a very surprising correlation: A given person, in 2006, eating
the same amount of calories, taking in the same quantities of macronutrients
like protein and fat, and exercising the same amount as a person of the same
age did in 1988 would have a BMI that was about 2.3 points higher. In other
words, people today are about 10 percent heavier than people were in the
1980s, even if they follow the exact same diet and exercise plans."_

^ The 3rd paragraph of the article.

~~~
maxerickson
It can still be explained by people eating more.

Take a 1980 individual that had been eating a bmi23 diet and start feeding
them a bmi26 level of calories and they will probably gain weight.

Take a 2015 individual's diet from bmi26 to bmi23 and they will probably lose
weight.

~~~
cellshade
It says the same number of Calories in the post directly above.

~~~
maxerickson
Sure, but it isn't the same person. If my bmi23 diet is 2000 calories and I
eat 2000 calories, I will probably have a bmi of 23. If my bmi23 diet is 1800
calories and I eat 2000 calories, I will probably have a higher bmi.

I guess a clearer way to say what I am getting at is that bmi is descriptive,
not predictive, so a shift in the bmi maintained by a given calorie intake
could be explained by a shift in the habits of the population, so that the
modern group achieves a given bmi at higher calorie intakes.

~~~
mattlutze
_" The authors examined the dietary data of 36,400 Americans between 1971 and
2008 and the physical activity data of 14,419 people between 1988 and 2006.
They grouped the data sets together by the amount of food and activity, age,
and BMI."_

^ The previous paragraph to the one I quoted above.

 _Methods_

 _Dietary data from 36,377 U.S. adults from the National Health and Nutrition
Survey (NHANES) between 1971 and 2008 was used. Physical activity frequency
data was only available in 14,419 adults between 1988 and 2006. Generalised
linear models were used to examine if the association between total caloric
intake, percent dietary macronutrient intake and physical activity with body
mass index (BMI) was different over time._

 _Results_

 _Between 1971 and 2008, BMI, total caloric intake and carbohydrate intake
increased 10–14%, and fat and protein intake decreased 5–9%. Between 1988 and
2006, frequency of leisure time physical activity increased 47–120%. However,
for a given amount of caloric intake, macronutrient intake or leisure time
physical activity, the predicted BMI was up to 2.3 kg /m2 higher in 2006 that
in 1988 in the mutually adjusted model (P < 0.05)._

 _Conclusions_

 _Factors other than diet and physical activity may be contributing to the
increase in BMI over time. Further research is necessary to identify these
factors and to determine the mechanisms through which they affect body
weight._

^ Copypasta from the referenced medical study:
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871403X15...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871403X15001210)

What I think I'm seeing is a confusion with the conclusions. What they found
was:

    
    
      1988: Daily calories = x, leisure play = y, observed BMI = z
      2006: Daily calories = x, leisure play = (1.47 to 2.2)*y, observed BMI = 2.3 + z
    

The same amount of calories today results in greater BMI.

Either the average person's body composition today has a greater percentage of
muscle and that's throwing things off, or something else is up with how we
live that's making us heavier.

But, we see other studies out in the wild that suggest average fitness is
lower, which leads me to think the former solution might not be the case.

------
learnstats2
One potential explanation is that nutritional information is being manipulated
more effectively by food manufacturers.

------
agravier
It's due to sugar in the vast majority of cases. Some starting point:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM)

~~~
agravier
I'd like some explanations for the downvotes. What I wrote is documented and I
provide a link to a good source of explanations.

~~~
citeguised
The explanation is that facts don't matter for some people.

------
greatthanks
The actual conclusion is hidden in the middle of the text:

 _eat less meat_

First of all b/c its contribution to health is doubtable in general and at
current times in particular.

~~~
Erwin
That's not what I got out out if; they mentioned: avoid chemicals in food or
packaging (i.e. eat organic - no antibiotic/hormone laden meat) - avoid
artificial sweeteners - avoid antidepressant and unnecessary medication.

Meat is fine, as long as you don't eat something too industrial.

~~~
greatthanks
no - (red) meat is not fine:

[http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22red+meat%22+site%3Anature.com](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22red+meat%22+site%3Anature.com)

------
AuLaVache
It's simple: Eat more fat.

The bacteria that processes fat (bacterocides) obviously needs fat to survive.
By not eating fat you effectively kill your ability to process fat.

The rise in low fat products, coincides with the rise in obesity. One is not
the cure for the other -it's the cause of the other.

------
hoodoof
The air is fatter in the 21st century.

------
hughw
Well sure, but we're twenty years older, too.

~~~
hughw
No joking on HN!

------
personjerry
Weight gain is simple: calorie intake - calorie expenditure.

The amount of calories in our food tends to go up over 20 years. Doing the
same activities consumes the same amount of calories after 20 years.

Thus we would have more caloric surplus, and likely gain more weight than
people 20 years ago with less caloric food.

Pretty simple imo.

~~~
zacwest
From the article you're writing a comment to:

> A given person, in 2006, eating the same amount of calories, taking in the
> same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat, and exercising the
> same amount as a person of the same age did in 1988 would have a BMI that
> was about 2.3 points higher.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Its strange really. I'm on a ketogenic diet, and hear people preach the
caloric balance constantly, that it doesn't matter what my macros are as long
as I consume less calories than I burn daily. Yet, I consume close to my
previous garbage diet calories and I lose about 2-3lbs/week due to my high
fat/moderate protein/very low carb (<15g/day of carbs) diet.

Go figure, it appears that caloric energy balance isn't the only factor.

~~~
com2kid
From someone who's been doing keto for several years now.

A: Pre-Keto, odds are you we underestimating how many calories you were
eating. Unless you were tracking every single thing you ate, there is a high
probability you just didn't realize how many calories you were consuming.

B: It is super hard to over eat on Keto. It is possible, take lots of liquid
calories in (heavy cream can do this easily!), and there are some other real
screw ups, but eating 3000 calories of steak is pretty damn hard.

C: What you are reporting is common for people who have a lot of weight to
lose. At some point it becomes a lot harder, at first you just have to sort of
watch things, then you eventually do have to count calories. (Especially if
you want a six pack, holy crap do you have to count calories!)

~~~
toomuchtodo
Thanks for that info! Did you ever experience symptoms similar to eye fatigue?
I think I might be not consuming enough sodium and/or potassium; I'm going to
up my doses of both to test my theory.

~~~
MichaelGG
Everyone seems to warn about sodium and potassium while on keto - magnesium
too. Apparently the suggested intakes are quite high and supplementing is the
only way to get there. It might have just been placebo or drinking a hot cup
of broth (with potassium salt in) but it made me feel better some days.

I'd also second that it's really hard to eat a massive amount of calories on
keto. Water loss and perhaps some changes might make you leaner but most
likely, over time, you're simply getting a lot less than, I dunno 3000 that
isn't hard to do on a sugary diet.

~~~
com2kid
Magnesium is good. Potassium, I eat leafy greens or Ostrim
([http://www.protos-inc.com/](http://www.protos-inc.com/)), which is low fat
but has no carbs and lots of potassium. They also taste good, they are one of
my after gym gotos.

Gaining muscle on keto /is/ hard. You can do it (/r/ketogains can help!) but
wow you have to stuff yourself, which is sort of odd for Keto!

~~~
MichaelGG
A quick search says the recommendation amount of potassium a day is 4.7G for
adults. While spinach and those Ostrim things are high (Ostrim says 330mg of
potassium), you still have to eat a LOT to get close to the recommendation. I
found it easier to throw that potassium salt into chicken bouillon (getting
sodium + potassium).

Also it's funny how the supplments folks are allowed to sell potassium.
There's regulatory issues of having more than 99mg per pill (could damage
stomachs or something). So these companies market compounds with potassium
that aren't in bio-available forms.[1] "550mg!" people see, making them think
they're all set (and hah, pulled one over on terrible government regulators).
Nope. Same happens with magnesium. Seems rather misleading, even though they
are printing the truth.

1: [http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Made-Potassium-Gluconate-
Tablet...](http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Made-Potassium-Gluconate-
Tablets/dp/B0029O0BWW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1443700821&sr=8-2&keywords=potassium)

------
citeguised
Oh, so the laws of physics changed? Wow!

No but seriously, this is a terrible article.

As soon as you read »…a professor of _kinesiology_ and health science…« you
know the statements are coming from people who believe in esoteric
pseudoscience.

If your burn more energy than you take in, you lose weight.

Everything else doesn't make sense.

You can get fat by eating 5000 calories worth of paprika every day.

Statements like these only help people who have weight-problems to have an
excuse not to do anything about it.

~~~
dasil003
I don't especially want to defend the article but this whole first-law-of-
thermodynamics approach to explaining weight gain is definitely the most
useless idea that somehow always rears its head around here. It's not only
useless on its face since how much we eat is moderated by satiety mechanisms
rather than weights and measures, but it also ignores the complexity of
nutrition and metabolism and the fact that weight has only a loose correlation
to overall health.

As much as you're not going to fix your health by reading superficial linkbait
articles, you also will not do it by taking a smug reductionist view that
allows you to dismiss the subtleties of nutrition which still remain
frustratingly beyond the reach of conclusive hard science.

~~~
citeguised
> how much we eat is moderated by satiety mechanisms

No, it's moderated by our fork. It also means being hungry a lot and keeping
exact track of your calories, just like poor people need to track their
expenses.

(Been there done that with both money and weight)

The »subtleties of nutrition« don't matter if you are huge (BMI > 30) and want
to get down to a healthy level. Once you are there you still can optimize and
find out what works best for you.

~~~
dasil003
I see, so fat people just need to knuckle down and starve themselves until
they are reasonable weight and only _then_ start to pay attention to the
overall function of the human organism and their particular incarnation of it?
That seems utterly backwards if not willfully ignorant.

~~~
citeguised
Keeping a calorie deficit doesn't mean starving yourself. You need 3000
calories a day? Eat 2000, you'll lose about 1 kg in a week. At least it works
for me and lots of other people I know. Sure it's hard to keep 2000 when you
usually eat 3000-5000, but health is worth it.

If your overweight is life-threatening you'll want to lose body-fat asap,
which you will not achieve if you first try to understand every detail of
digestion and nutrition. See it as kind of first-aid.

I know that losing weight is very hard and that the behavioral change is the
key, not the unknown details of nutrition. I just wish people (especially my
doctors and family) pushed me much earlier to the right behavior.

~~~
dasil003
You don't need to know ever detail, but the metabolic effects are super
important. If you eat the same amount of calories of Snackwells (or some other
supposedly "healthy" processed snack food option) compared a steak, you are
going to need an insane amount of willpower to avoid overeating when you come
down from the glycemic rollercoaster.

