Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31   ^
Old Sat, Mar-30-19, 07:08
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,606
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s93uv3h
I recently watched the documentary Apollo 11 (2019) at the theater. I was amazed at at all of the think people. They showed the crowd (hundreds, thousands) who drove and camped / parked to watch the 1969 lift off. They were all thin. I had to look hard, and saw one guy with a beer belly (with a can of beer in hand). That was it. Kids were not over weight either. Amazing.


THAT’s what I’m talking about!

I once looked up circus fat men and women, and at the turn of the 20th century, they were people we now see on the street, in stores, working with us at our jobs.

Last century’s outliers are this century’s “normal” and what would be the first thing any true scientist would think?

It’s got to be the food supply.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Sat, Mar-30-19, 07:12
barb712's Avatar
barb712 barb712 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,435
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 240/188/185 Female 5'11"
BF:
Progress: 95%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC



No wonder people were skinnier. How disgusting! I can't stop laughing.
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Sat, Mar-30-19, 17:11
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,324
 
Plan: vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms Arielle
Merpig-- I too walked to school in the 60's and when we got home played outside until dinner or dark. We were all skinny in the neighborhood. Funny how I had forgotten how many miles a day we traveled each day as kids!!
So did I. And Ethel on I Love Lucy was considered to be extremely fat, but she was actually thinner than the average woman is today.
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Sun, Mar-31-19, 05:28
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,606
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Conversely, i see young women in swimwear though the 40’s-early 60’s, and they are not the stick figures we see today.
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Sun, Mar-31-19, 06:35
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 1,851
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdra
So did I. And Ethel on I Love Lucy was considered to be extremely fat, but she was actually thinner than the average woman is today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
Conversely, i see young women in swimwear though the 40’s-early 60’s, and they are not the stick figures we see today.



Vivian Vance was contractually obligated to always be at least 15 lbs heavier than Lucille Ball, so that her character would be considered fat in comparison. Lucille Ball was a size 10 (which would probably be about a size 6 these days), although right before they started filming the first season of I Love Lucy, she found out she was pregnant, and she was definitely showing a much thicker waistline in some of the first season episodes, before the episode where they finally revealed that she was "expecting". She was already about 6-7 months along at that point in the season though.



At any rate, back on topic, there does seem to be the two weight extremes these days, either bone thin, or overweight, not very many people in between those two extremes, at least after you're well into adulthood and have been eating LF/HC for a decade or three. I know 50-70+ year olds who are bone thin while eating LF/HC, and those in the same age range who are obese while trying to stick religiously to LF/HC. There seem to be very few women these days who look like the average sized woman from back in the 50's-60's.



I can't recall where I read it (may have been something Taubes wrote?), but sticking to the official HC/LF diet seems to affect many people one of two ways - they either are very thin, or gain excessive amounts of weight, both because of an inability to metabolize all that carb content "normally". (then again, who is to say what exactly is the normal way to metabolize a carb heavy diet, if so few are able to maintain a normal weight by eating that way?)
Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Sun, Mar-31-19, 06:56
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,606
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calianna
I can't recall where I read it (may have been something Taubes wrote?), but sticking to the official HC/LF diet seems to affect many people one of two ways - they either are very thin, or gain excessive amounts of weight, both because of an inability to metabolize all that carb content "normally". (then again, who is to say what exactly is the normal way to metabolize a carb heavy diet, if so few are able to maintain a normal weight by eating that way?)


This seems to happen as people age, too: they either get chubby and have increasing trouble with weight, or they start to get very thin. I think low carb will help me stay at a “good” weight, keeping my muscle.
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Sun, Mar-31-19, 07:40
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 1,851
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s93uv3h
I recently watched the documentary Apollo 11 (2019) at the theater. I was amazed at at all of the think people. They showed the crowd (hundreds, thousands) who drove and camped / parked to watch the 1969 lift off. They were all thin. I had to look hard, and saw one guy with a beer belly (with a can of beer in hand). That was it. Kids were not over weight either. Amazing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
THAT’s what I’m talking about!

I once looked up circus fat men and women, and at the turn of the 20th century, they were people we now see on the street, in stores, working with us at our jobs.

Last century’s outliers are this century’s “normal” and what would be the first thing any true scientist would think?

It’s got to be the food supply.



If you look at archival photos from Woodstock, you'll see thin to normal sized people too - almost all of them. Granted, they were mostly those in their late teens and early 20's at the time...


BUT - Woodstock is where the the masses were first introduced to granola, a food that up to that point was really only the province of "weird" (for that day and age) natural food stores.



The food services contracted for the concert weekend were not expecting nearly so many people to show up, so they were ill-prepared to feed such a huge crowd for an entire weekend. The local stores were sold out of pretty much everything, just because of the sheer number of those who stopped to pick up some food on their way to the concert. Once the barriers were down and it became a free concert, sooooo many more showed up (estimated to be nearly 1/2 million total) than anyone had ever imagined would attend.



There was a "hippie" farm nearby that still had some food, but all they had left was granola, something most attendees had never even heard of before. But the guy handed out little paper cups of it to anyone who was hungry, telling them that he didn't have much to offer, but "it's called granola, and it's really good." They served it in little water cooler cups (the old fashioned paper cone shaped cups - they held about 1/4 cup of granola), and obviously many of those who took him up on his offer of this strange looking food agreed with him, because the Woodstock generation (even those of us who did not go to Woodstock) might as well be called the granola generation.



We're in our 60's and 70's now, and even among those of us who have switched over to LC, a great many of us are still wearing the results of decades of eating ever-increasing servings of granola (because 1/4 cup really isn't much, especially for something that's mostly sugar and starch, so you're hungry again in an hour or two), as well as tons of other whole grains. Sadly, my generation also passed the taste for granola on to our own kids, many of them are now adults, still eating their "healthy" granola - which nowadays is usually made much lower fat than it was back then (I made lots of granola over the years - the higher the fat content, the more crunchy the result, so much more appealing when high fat), so despite all that hearthealthywholgrainfiber, it has even less staying power than it did back then.


Despite all the other changes since the 60's and 80's - the increased use of plastics and Styrofoam, household microwaves, increased use of antibiotics (although back when I was a kid, every single time we became sick - which was very frequent - we were automatically prescribed antibiotics, even if only for prophylactic purposes, so that a viral illness would not turn into a bacterial infection), and hormones used in raising livestock, HFCS in almost everything, etc, the single biggest change has been the macro content of our diet. Not that the other changes can't be factors (they probably are), but I don't really think they're the primary cause of the exponential rise in obesity.
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Wed, Aug-28-19, 09:40
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,606
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Bumped this because the article has become popular again: it's from 2017.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Sun, Feb-25-24, 17:24
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 1,851
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC
A new study finds that people today who eat and exercise the same amount as people 20 years ago are still fatter.

To sum it up, they don't know. It isn't carbs. It seems to have something to do with biome, environment, something...

This article showed up again today on Firefox Pocket, and I thought it might be nice to have the full text here since it was behind a paywall back then. And also to see how much things have changed since this article was first published:

Quote:
Why It Was Easier to Be Skinny in the 1980s A study finds that people who eat and exercise the same amount as people 20 years prior are still fatter.

There’s a meme aimed at Millennial catharsis called “Old Economy Steve.” It’s a series of pictures of a late-70s teenager, who presumably is now a middle-aged man, that mocks some of the messages Millennials say they hear from older generations—and shows why they’re deeply janky. Old Economy Steve graduates and gets a job right away. Old Economy Steve “worked his way through college” because tuition was $400. And so forth. We can now add another one to that list: Old Economy Steve ate at McDonald’s almost every day, and he still somehow had a 32-inch waist.

A 2016 study published 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. “Our study results suggest that if you are 25, you’d have to eat even less and exercise more than those older, to prevent gaining weight,” Jennifer Kuk, a professor of kinesiology and health science at Toronto’s York University, said in a statement.

“However, it also indicates there may be other specific changes contributing to the rise in obesity beyond just diet and exercise.” Just what those other changes might be, though, are still a matter of hypothesis.

In an interview, Kuk proffered three different factors that might be making harder for adults today to stay thin. 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.

The fact that the body weights of Americans today are influenced by factors beyond their control is a sign, Kuk says, that society should be kinder to people of all body types. “There's a huge weight bias against people with obesity,” she said. “They're judged as lazy and self-indulgent. That's really not the case. If our research is correct, you need to eat even less and exercise even more” just to be same weight as your parents were at your age.

The exercise part is perhaps one area where Old Economy Steve doesn’t have an edge. A membership at one of the newfangled fitness centers of 1987 would go for about $2,800 per year in today’s dollars, and that’s still what it costs today.



Interesting little chart that shows how much meat per person has been consumed:


Meat and fat consumption have dropped rather steadily in the last 20 or so years - which means it had already been decreasing for about decade when this article was written.

Compare with the rates of obesity increase since meat consumption started dropping:


They clearly show their bias against meat and fat with this line:

Quote:
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 find it telling that they didn't mention carb intake - but there's only 3 macronutrients, and they're already blaming the two that people are eating less of, so no need to mention the other one... Move along, move along, nothing to see here!
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Sun, Feb-25-24, 17:41
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,758
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 116%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

People are eating a lot more ultra-processed foods now than in the past. All those emulsifiers, preservatives, artificial flavorings, and colorings are not nutrients. Unfortunately, most of those have never been tested for safety because the FDA granted them the generally regarded as safe (GRAS) status. They may have been safe when they were not eaten in large amounts but now most food items have them and people are just munching away on them.
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Sun, Feb-25-24, 18:15
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,324
 
Plan: vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

Also, ultraprocessed foods are more digestible and typically lower in fiber, so people are absorbing more and excreted fewer calories & nutrients. And retaining more fluds due to UPFs causing more inflammation.
Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Sun, Feb-25-24, 23:15
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 1,851
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

I meant to include the information that the article was published in 2015, so even the 2.3 points higher BMI is outdated by more than 8 years already.

If I'm understanding correctly how they analyzed the data, it sounds like they compared the diet and exercise habits of those at a specific age at the beginning of their concurrent data collection (for instance 25 year old males who exercises 1 hour daily and eat a 3000 cal diet) and compared that with the weight of those at the end of the concurrent data collection who were 25 with the same diet and exercise habits. (data for diet and exercise was concurrent between 1988 and 2006, even though they had collected diet information during years before and after those dates)

I'd say the increase in ultra processed foods has a lot to do with the increased weight since it sounds like they were really only basing dietary habits on caloric intake, and not fully separating macronutrients. Theoretically 500 calories of steak should not be different from 500 calories of meat from a fast food place - but as we've seen with other dietary analyses, it's very likely the bun, fries and sugary drink in that fast food meal were counted as if they were part of the protein and fat calories, so that a meal of 50% or more carbs had all it's calories attributed protein and fat.
Reply With Quote
  #43   ^
Old Tue, Feb-27-24, 05:49
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,606
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

I look back at high school, when some club would have bakeoffs to raise money, and at least that was homemade.

Now, teens navigate a maze of fast food, vending machines, and corporatized school food. I see people I know who eat moderately and yet can't seem to stop the pounds creeping up. I was the same way.

It all looks normal, so that even people who have the occasional soda and avoid cake and pie will still not be doing as well as they think they are. And they are baffled until their doctor pulls the "getting old" line, and figure there is nothing they can do.

That's not so. Because it's not just the increasing years. It's the decreasing maintenance!

Every junk meal took a toll. If we are going to heal any of our bodies from our previous mistakes, we need to stoke the furnace with plenty of fuel for that purpose.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:23.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.