I guess it isn't just about calories in and calories out

The Coffee Shop
1

Interesting read. We talk about the ever increasing weight of people and the causes. Turns out it isn’t just a factor of the current population eating more and exercising/moving less.

*A study published recently in the journal Obesity Research & Clinical Practice found that it’s harder for adults today to maintain the same weight as those 20 to 30 years ago did, even at the same levels of food intake and exercise. *

  •                         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.                     *

  •                         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. *

So, what are the other factors?

*First, people are exposed to more chemicals that might be weight-gain inducing. Pesticides, flame retardants, and the substances in food packaging might all be altering our hormonal processes and tweaking the way our bodies put on and maintain weight. *

  •                         Second, the use of prescription drugs has risen dramatically since the ‘70s and ‘80s. Prozac, the first blockbuster SSRI, came out in 1988. Antidepressants are now one of the most commonly  prescribed drugs in the U.S., and many of them have been linked to weight gain.                     *

  •                         Finally, Kuk and the other study authors think that the microbiomes of Americans might have somehow changed between the  1980s and now. It’s well known that some types of gut bacteria make a person more prone to weight gain and obesity. Americans are eating more meat  than they were a few decades ago, and many animal products are treated with hormones and antibiotics in order to promote growth. All that meat might be changing gut bacteria in ways that are subtle, at first, but add up over time. Kuk believes the proliferation of artificial sweeteners could also be playing a role.                     *

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-it-was-easier-to-be-skinny-in-the-1980s?utm_source=pocket-newtab

2

It actually is still just about calories in and calories out, they’re just saying the calories out part has changed.

3

It actually is still just about calories in and calories out, they’re just saying the calories out part has changed.

It must be nice living in such and black and white world with no shades of grey.

4

I’m always pretty adamant that it is calories in vs. calories out, and it still is at it’s core. But there is no doubt that things have changed pretty drastically over the last 30 - 40 years. And I find it harder and harder to believe that it is just lack of willpower.

One other thing I think has changed is that most jobs have become much less energetic. Office work has definitely increased. And the environment in offices is pretty much all candy all the time. When at least 2/3 of people are overweight we need to keep looking.

"All that meat might be changing gut bacteria in ways that are subtle, at first, but add up over time."
I’ve combated that by picking up a couple different kinds of worms.

5

It actually is still just about calories in and calories out, they’re just saying the calories out part has changed.

It was just about calories in and calories out, then this statement would not be true:

*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. *

But, according to the study, it is. According to the study, today, you need to burn more calories now than you did in 1988, despite taking in the same number of calories as you did in 1988. So, it isn’t a simple matter of calories in, calories out.

It is also the type of calories taken in: *Americans are eating more meat than they were a few decades ago, and many animal products are treated with hormones and antibiotics in order to promote growth. All that meat might be changing gut bacteria in ways that are subtle, at first, but add up over time. **Kuk believes the proliferation of artificial sweeteners could also be playing a role. *

The **medications **you are on: *Second, the use of prescription drugs has risen dramatically since the ‘70s and ‘80s. Prozac, the first blockbuster SSRI, came out in 1988. Antidepressants are now one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the U.S., and many of them have been linked to weight gain. *

The manner in which your calories were treated: First, people are exposed to more chemicals that might be weight-gain inducing. Pesticides, flame retardants, and the substances in food packaging might all be altering our hormonal processes and tweaking the way our bodies put on and maintain weight.

That makes one look at a lot more than calories in and calories out because two people taking in the same number of calories and burning the same number of calories today could experience dramatic differences in weight gain/loss.

**

6

My wife firmly believes the hormones in the meat, pesticides, preservatives, artificial additives, etc., are also impacting people’s moods leading to increases in things like depression, anger, road rage, etc. I have a hard time believing all that stuff isn’t messing with us mentally as well as physically.

7

What they are saying is that the equation has changed and that there are factors that are affecting the “calories out” side of the equation. In simple terms, they are saying that we’re not burning as many calories for the same amount of exercise as we did in the 80s.

8

That second paragraph just looks like speculation without any evidence. I would guess the difference is mostly in measurement error.

9

That’s a good question. I said something on here a while back, it feels like there is a river of the pink slime from Ghostbusters II running under the country and everyone is just pissed off.

We eat a lot of stuff that was never a piece of “food”. It started as a pile of goo or powder and then got squished together with a bunch of other goos and powders and formed into a shape with some coloring.

I know I eat more sugar and shit than anyone should. Which is why I have a hard time blaming anything other than calories for being 20 pounds overweight. I eat a lot of real food and fruits and vegetables, but I’m also curious how many other things the crap I eat is impacting.

10

It actually is still just about calories in and calories out, they’re just saying the calories out part has changed.

It was just about calories in and calories out, then this statement would not be true:

*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. *

But, according to the study, it is. According to the study, today, you need to burn more calories now than you did in 1988, despite taking in the same number of calories as you did in 1988. So, it isn’t a simple matter of calories in, calories out.

It is also the type of calories taken in: *Americans are eating more meat than they were a few decades ago, and many animal products are treated with hormones and antibiotics in order to promote growth. All that meat might be changing gut bacteria in ways that are subtle, at first, but add up over time. **Kuk believes the proliferation of artificial sweeteners could also be playing a role. *

The **medications **you are on: *Second, the use of prescription drugs has risen dramatically since the ‘70s and ‘80s. Prozac, the first blockbuster SSRI, came out in 1988. Antidepressants are now one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the U.S., and many of them have been linked to weight gain. *

The manner in which your calories were treated: First, people are exposed to more chemicals that might be weight-gain inducing. Pesticides, flame retardants, and the substances in food packaging might all be altering our hormonal processes and tweaking the way our bodies put on and maintain weight.

That makes one look at a lot more than calories in and calories out because two people taking in the same number of calories and burning the same number of calories today could experience dramatic differences in weight gain/loss.

**

Actually it is still about in/out. While in is very easy to identify, out is a different story. Sure you can look at excercise, and even activity levels to a certain degree, but there is a third part and that is basal metabolic rate. And that is based upon many things including body make-up. Your basically talking about how many calories your body needs to burn while at rest. The more muscle you have the more calories are needed just to maintain that. While 2 people may be 5’10 and 180 lbs, one may be fat and one may be muscular and lean. The number of calories that the lean person requires is far different than the fat person. And the quality of calories is important as well. 1000 calories of fat will look a lot different than 1000 calories of protien or 1000 calories of carbs. Even the calories needed to digest the three examples above would be wildly different.

11

What they are saying is that the equation has changed and that there are factors that are affecting the “calories out” side of the equation. In simple terms, they are saying that we’re not burning as many calories for the same amount of exercise as we did in the 80s.

Sometimes, is what they are saying. Some Rx meds are known to be associated with weight gain. That doesn’t mean the body is burning fewer calories. That means that, despite burning the same number of calories, an individual may not lose weight if he/she is taking certain medication (according to this study).

12

That second paragraph just looks like speculation without any evidence. I would guess the difference is mostly in measurement error.

Could be. I didn’t write the report and I’m not here to defend their conclusions. But, I do find it an interesting read.

13

I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying. If you take in 2000 calories and burn 2000 calories, your weight will stay the same. They are saying that there are things (like medications) that affect the “burn” side of that equation, and that it is likely that we’re not actually burning as many calories as we did in the 80s. Obviously that is a very simple way to look at it, but it ultimately really is calories in/calories out, it’s just that the calories out part is so damn hard to figure out.

14

I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying. If you take in 2000 calories and burn 2000 calories, your weight will stay the same. They are saying that there are things (like medications) that affect the “burn” side of that equation, and that it is likely that we’re not actually burning as many calories as we think we did in the 80s. Obviously that is a very simple way to look at it, but it ultimately really is calories in/calories out, it’s just that the calories out part is so damn hard to figure out.

That doesn’t appear to always be the case. Some medications slow down your metabolism, which would, as you speculate, slow the calories burned. However, others affect the way the body absorbs and stores glucose into fatty deposits. Others cause you to retain water, which will increase weight but not body fat percentage.

15

Valid point on the water retention part, but I think the part about how your body absorbs and stores glucose is consistent with what I’ve been saying. Instead of burning the glucose as we did in the past, there are factors that are changing the way our bodies process it, and store it instead of burning it.

16

So is this a good reason to eat exclusively “organic”? (Whatever “organic” means these days…)

17

A possible explanation beyond those listed is the data just isn’t reliable. I don’t know how the data was collected but often in these studies it’s not measured (easier nowadays with exercise thanks to accelerometers) but taken from self-reported recall over some period of time. It’s possible that over time people became more aware that they shouldn’t be eating so much and so under-reported their intake and that they should be exercising more and thus over reported their physical activity.

Also possible that over time labor saving devices/sedentary entertainment/work has resulted in us burning fewer calories throughout the day even if we are exercising just as much. Hard to tell if that was assessed based on what was posted.

18

Interesting. Now I have an excuse for the 5 lbs I need to lose.

I just thought it was because I’m getting older and stopped doing as much of those calorie burning activities that aren’t talked about here.

Who am I kidding? Those are the reasons.

19

Well, that settles it. I’m signing up for a fecal transplant from a tribal hunter-gatherer.

https://www.popsci.com/article/science/scientist-gives-himself-fecal-transplant-try-hunter-gatherers-microbiome/

20

https://i.chzbgr.com/full/5364215040/h90586DB7/
.