Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reason the people in the past weren't fat wasn't because there was a social stigma against being fat. If anything they tended to want to be heavier. The reason they were thin was because they lived very physically active lives, not out of choice, but out of necessity.
When you're out toiling in the fields you don't need a gym membership or to count your calories. They asked Michael Phelps what he ate every day. It came out to be about 8,000 to 10,000 calories.
Some of the fattest people I know work the most hours. But there is a big difference between spending eight hours doing manual labor, and spending eight hours sitting in a chair in an office, or driving around in a vehicle.
In fact, if we woke up tomorrow and cars didn't exist, the obesity rate would instantly plummet to near-zero.
I didn't realize this discussion was going back to when over 90% of the population lived on farms.
I think it makes sense to look at the increase in obesity in regard to people born after WWII. Someone had pointed out earlier in this thread the height and weight of military recruits during WWII. There were shorter and much lighter than an average male of that age today.
There seem to be minor differences in food consumption and physical activity levels in the generations beginning with the Baby Boomers starting in 1946. We know people are eating more processed foods, but people today also have much more access to fresh fruits and vegetables. We also had the rise of fast food restaurants and the trend to "biggie size" everything starting probably around 1970. McDonalds goes back earlier, but we have seen a never ending trend to more and more fast food restaurants over this period of time and the introduction of breakfast, 24-hour drive-thru, and expanded menus.
Kids played outside more in earlier decades and were more likely to walk back and forth to school. I even walked home for lunch in elementary school. We also know that girls were not likely to be involved in any organized sports until the mid-1970s. Walking, running, and health clubs stated becoming popular in the late 1970s. Video games have also played a much larger role in many people's lives starting around 1980.
Does any of this really explain the increase in obesity? Is it differences in the kinds of fats and how grains are grown? Is it chemicals in foods? As I stated earlier in this thread, it was rare to see a really overweight person in the 1960s. A trip to Walmart today provides a glimpse of many more obese people than I saw in the decade of the 1960s. I don't think there is a simple answer the way many people have attempted to explain this.
How can carbs be the cause of obesity when you can lose 100 lbs eating nothing but potatoes?
Beautiful Sunshine. One self admittedly wacko jacko recounts of some dream he had are meaningless. Less see your repeatable SCIENTIFIC STUDY. Otherwise its just a Popeye cartoon.
No, sugar does not cause obesity. Eating in a caloric surplus is what causes obesity.
Sugar is addictive and packs lot calories with little to no nutrition. Eat a donut do you want another? Eat a shot glass of olive oil or a stick of butter, want another?
Sugar and carbs in general dont fill you up. Fat does. Fat+sugar is pure evil though with addictiveness of sugar and LOT of calories.
As others keep pointing out. Economics (limited amount food available) plus constant physical activity kept your traditional peasant thin though they tended to grain based diet cause it was most bang for the buck. The king owned all the land and hunting there reserved for him and the aristocracy. Being fat at one time was seen as sign of wealth and power.
Anymore people have to pay a gym for physical activity.
As others keep pointing out. Economics (limited amount food available) plus constant physical activity kept your traditional peasant thin though they tended to grain based diet cause it was most bang for the buck. The king owned all the land and hunting there reserved for him and the aristocracy. Being fat at one time was seen as sign of wealth and power.
Anymore people have to pay a gym for physical activity.
Why do they have to pay for a gym? They could walk or run anywhere.
I didn't realize this discussion was going back to when over 90% of the population lived on farms.
I think it makes sense to look at the increase in obesity in regard to people born after WWII. Someone had pointed out earlier in this thread the height and weight of military recruits during WWII. There were shorter and much lighter than an average male of that age today.
There seem to be minor differences in food consumption and physical activity levels in the generations beginning with the Baby Boomers starting in 1946. We know people are eating more processed foods, but people today also have much more access to fresh fruits and vegetables. We also had the rise of fast food restaurants and the trend to "biggie size" everything starting probably around 1970. McDonalds goes back earlier, but we have seen a never ending trend to more and more fast food restaurants over this period of time and the introduction of breakfast, 24-hour drive-thru, and expanded menus.
Kids played outside more in earlier decades and were more likely to walk back and forth to school. I even walked home for lunch in elementary school. We also know that girls were not likely to be involved in any organized sports until the mid-1970s. Walking, running, and health clubs stated becoming popular in the late 1970s. Video games have also played a much larger role in many people's lives starting around 1980.
Does any of this really explain the increase in obesity? Is it differences in the kinds of fats and how grains are grown? Is it chemicals in foods? As I stated earlier in this thread, it was rare to see a really overweight person in the 1960s. A trip to Walmart today provides a glimpse of many more obese people than I saw in the decade of the 1960s. I don't think there is a simple answer the way many people have attempted to explain this.
I pointed out some of the big differences earlier, when we're talking about Boomers (of which I am one).
One difference that not so big is the exercise factor. We Boomers got a bit more exercise, but not that much more, particularly as adults. We were definitely an "indoor" generation compared to our elders. If the American diet in the 60s had been identical to today, the slight difference in exercise would not have made a difference...we'd still have been fat back then.
But there are some other huge differences that young people today not realize the full extent of difference.
You've touched on some of them. Yes, McDonald's existed, but I was a senior in high school the first time I stepped into one. Fast food at the Woolworth grill was a Friday or Saturday night thing. Moreover, even fast food was usually locally sourced, barely processed "real" food. There were convenience meals--"TV Dinners"--but those were also "real" food cooked normally and merely frozen. Essentially they were not different from Mom's leftovers.
Other treats were available but again, were fairly rarely eaten "treats." I distinctly remember when the food industry invented the "after school snack." Prior to the latter 60s, it was not the usual thing for kids to come home and have bags of store-bought pastries and chips to eat. Mothers had to be convinced by advertisement bombardment that kids needed a snack before dinner. If your mother liked to bake, maybe she had cookies or a pie...but that was for after dinner or on the weekends, not before dinner every day. In the 60s, Mom was probably not baking pastries every day, and she wasn't buying Ho-Hos for every day either.
Theoretically, Kool-Aid contained a lot of sugar according to the instructions, but as a kid I never ever had Kool-Aid that any woman I ever knew added all that sugar. Now, I've heard a story that was a racial difference...white mothers, I'm told, put in the instructed amount of sugar while black mothers cut it back. But I don't know that for sure. I just know that all the Kool-Aid I ever had as a kid, made by black women, was tart, not sweet.
Our eating habits were very different. Young or old, white collar or blue collar, we generally consumed calories only at distinct breakfast, lunch, and dinner times. We didn't have vending machines and breakfast bars right there at work or school. No sodas or sugared coffees at our desks. Young or old, white collar or blue collar, we had water between meals.
Yesterday my daughter pointed out some old publicity pictures she'd noted of Lucy and Desi Arnez "at home." Not only had she noted how dinky was that celebrity couple's kitchen
, but their plates, bowls, and glasses were also tiny.
And yes, the chemical composition of foods is vastly different from the 60s. The infiltration of corn products, in particular, in the forms of high-fructose corn syrup and corn oi into darned near every highly processed food product, both of which are significantly more inflammatory to the body than alternatives...but the corn lobby is strong in the US.
Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 06-01-2021 at 12:56 PM..
I'm sure there are many factors. But I've noticed that people have generally become less physically active than they were in the past.
My question to you is, why were people more physically-active in the past?
It takes about 100 minutes of moderately strenuous activity to burn 1,000 calories. We were were not getting 100 minutes of more strenuous activity every day in the 60s than we are today. But people are consuming 1,000 more calories every day today than we did in the 60s.
It takes about 100 minutes of moderately strenuous activity to burn 1,000 calories. We were were not getting 100 minutes of more strenuous activity every day in the 60s than we are today. But people are consuming 1,000 more calories every day today than we did in the 60s.
Walking burns about 100 calories per mile. Exercise raises metabolic rates even when not exercising. And each pound of muscle burns about 6 calories per day even at rest.
I don't know how many miles people used to walk per day, but supposedly the current average is 1.5-2 miles. So it had to be much more than that. But it isn't that people in the past walked great distances at a time, but that they just tended to be sitting less.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
