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.
getpocket.com
Other urls found in this thread:
vocaroo.com
sciencedirect.com
twitter.com
COOME IN HER TUMMY
Higher stress levels, cortisol levels is my first guess.
Two reasons I guess, one people use more efficient training methods nowadays, and while eating the same macros I wouldn't be compared if food today is higher quality and with less preservatives, on a whole.
>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.
Nutrition density (micros)
It's a known fact soils are being depleted
>eating the same amount of calories, taking in the same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat
This doesn't mean they're esting the same thing you moron, 1000 kcal of eggs are not the same as 1000 kcal of mcdonalds
Why do I keep needing to explain basic shit to brainlets? Is this hell?
It's Cell tower radiation and gravity increasing as we spiral towards the apocalypse.
Holy shit what a terrible article.
There is no possibly way to claim they are the "exact same" between decades.
And people back then did not stare at screens for the entirety of their entertainment.
Those memes are retarded and cringe af
Different BMR due to anything from food quality to severe transgenerational epigenetic changes to poor research methodology resulting in bad data (not suggesting this is the case, didn't read the link, just positing this as a thing to investigate).
People in 1988 were more active than people in 2006. Simple as.
Mutational load. Natural selection weak to nonexistent
(((They))) put something in the water to make you forget
it's almost as if IIFYM is a bullshit diet plan.
keep e*ting pl*nts you br*inlet.
wat
This image is going to be deleted by the jannies.
COOOOOOÒOOOOOOOOOOOOM
Foods lesser quality. Much more processed.
Second guess is stress.
or theyre training better and are just heavier because they have more muscle
The information age has begun.
People are sitting in front of screens all day at work before staring at screens until they fall asleep after work.
Information is processed to feed the machine.
>mfw every day we are a step closer to pic related
>mfw Ted K was right
i've got an even better one for you, OP.
take a bunch of people and put them on the exact same diet and exercise plan. their bodies will not all change in the exact same way! shocking, i know.
MOMMMY
YES
DaDDY LIKE
PPPFFTHOPGTFAAAA
This. 1000 calories composed of 50% fat and carbs will make you fatter than 1000 calories that's 80% protein.
how does that make people gain weight when working out and eating the same ammount
Weight is compounded over time. Did the studies factor in how long their sample populations were on their diet and training regimens?
>getpocket.com
post an actual research paper and I might consider clicking the link
>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.
what in the fuck..
who the fuck pays $233 a month for their gym membership
sciencedirect.com
here's the actual paper
>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).
funny, maybe fat people should eat less
well that is as true as it ever was, but it does suggest that there are other factors at play
I've often thought that both caloric consumption and physical activity have gone down over time, just that the one didn't go down as fast as the other. If people did activity that they didn't count as physical activity that would def contribute to my hypothesis.
For instance something as simple as walking to the mailbox vs driving can contribute towards burning calories. These forgotten activities can add up in the same way forgotten snacks do
This + xenoestrogen-seeping microplastics in our lungs.
The US was substantially whiter in the 1980s than currently. Comparing apples to niggers.
in our LUNGS??
FUCK bro wtf are you talking about?
More likely explanation: as people get fatter, they report their exercise and calorie intake less accurately.
Which part of
>taking in the same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat
you niggers didn't understand?
anyway, the article is most likely bogus
Fun fact: scientific articles like this (old, paywalled) are a great reason to use LibGen.
Not gonna read the article, but I assume it's using self reported data:
>people in 1988 said they ate X calories and did Y amount of exercise
>people today say they eat X calories and do Y amount of exercise BUT THEY HAVE HIGHER BMI, WHY?!
Well even if this is true there could be many reasons why:
>people today are shorter but the same weight (higher BMI)
>more muscle
>more water retention
>higher bone density
I basically agree with /fast/'s lord and savior, Fung. The culture around food was just different: back in the day, you ate 3 square meals and pretty much nothing else. Especially since the 00s, there's been an explosion in "snack" culture (also fueled by the children of the 60s-70s who would be the adults/parents of their households who used to be denied snacks; now as fairly well-to-do "boomers", they can use their food money as they want).
Even if a lot of macros and caloric intakes are relatively similar, the biggest difference is that people eat all the time nowadays (for the most part). Even if you make those snacks "healthy", for 90+% of people, it's not just not going to matter -- the fact that they're eating instead of waiting for a meal is enough.
minute plastic pieces are carried on the wind, effectively everywhere
You can breathe in microplastics. These particles are smaller than ash
>Self-reported data
Pretty sure there was a lot more movement and interaction in day-to-day life.
No computers/internet (not widespread).
No smart phones.
No cell phones at all.
TV was about it.
People went places constantly to hang out, requiring mobility.
Everyone moved more, interacted more with their environment, etc
This study definitely didn't take that into account (which is fine, it's a possible explanation point to the data they are seeing)
There is a huge amount to be said about what you do outside of your gym hours.
Imagine just COOOOMMMINNGGG!!!!!!! in an 80's mommy tummy.
Why did the internet ruin everything bros?
Microplastics are not smaller than ash. There's plenty of problems with microplastics but you don't need to lie about them. Microplastics are defined as anything between plastic micro-beads to 4-5mm chunks, and most microplastics that one would get into ones system are going to be eaten via exposure through the food chain, not inhaled.
Stop it. The atmosphere is filled with nanoscale estrogen secernating killer plastics.
less smoking
more facebook
Far more active in non- exercise time
Less screen zombie time
Better sleep
Consumed less xenoestrogen and plastic
Smoking
Better, more nutritious food
It's the shit people are eating, rather than the simple calories it has.
I eat nuts, meat veggies and fruits.
don't like eating fast food.
In conjunction with lifting, I'm loosing body fat faster than ever before in my life.
Even despite the amount of oils and fat in the nuts I eat.
Peoples diets are fucked and Fatties will always make excuses.
We ingest a credit card worth of plastic a week now. That's gotta fuck us up
thats not how thermodynamics work
Also less medication
>thermodynamics
>medication
Don't even have to read the article, and I can safely assume that all that information is self reported
one word :SUGAR
more sugar in the diet, even without more calories has been shown to increase weight.
>one word :SUGAR
i hate it when people start posts like that
I read that article too
Think of it this way look at all the boomers with massive fucking guts