• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

A century of weight gain.

xyzzy

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,950
Type of diabetes
Other
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Undeserving authority figures of all kinds and idiots.
[edited]To make it clearer![/edited]

Thought this was interesting because it appears to show that just over 100 years ago in 1903 the worlds largest man on the left is not much bigger than many people are today.



There looks to be a link between T2D and obesity, I thought it would be interesting to have a discussion about why more people are overweight today and because that leads to a whole range of health issues what people thought would be appropriate actions to take if they could make changes.
 

Attachments

  • 295165_10150627501927831_547772830_9440848_2019050352_n.jpg
    32.5 KB · Views: 1,479
I am not sure of your point?

There have always been a few, very rare people who have gained a lot of weight. Rare enough to be considered 'freaks' and make money from their disorder.

How does that equate to what is happening today?
 
My point is the 1903 picture shows "the worlds largest man" who then was only slightly bigger than the policeman of today and no way as big as "the worlds largest man" of 2012 who lives in my part of the world and recently cost the NHS millions but that's another story...

What I want to know is why the population is so overweight as its not as simple as it first sounds. For example its easy to blame our carbfesting culture but in reality the UK carb to fat ratio has stayed pretty constant in the last few decades whereas in the States the ratio has gone towards fat but in Australia its gone towards carbs yet all three countries show an a rise in T2D.

Given the problem must be something just thought it might be interesting to have a discussion about what that something was and how people on the forum would go about solving it.
 
xyzzy said:
Given the problem must be something just thought it might be interesting to have a discussion about what that something was and how people on the forum would go about solving it.
Click to expand...


I'm sure they'll be some interesting answers, what would you do?
 
Another thought

The carb to fat ratio may have stayed the same but the overall consumption of food has sky-rocketed and we all eat far more of everything?

We are far, far more sedentary so even eating what they ate then, in the amounts they would have eaten, is not burned off?
 
We eat much LESS than our Victorian ancestors[those who could afford to eat that is] We particularly eat less fat. We do eat sugary snacks, which were rare until probably the 1950s. Certainly i can't remember snacks, other than on getting home from school. When I was a child.
Most snacks are high carb products. We also eat much more carb in our normal meals. This is largely because carbs are pretty cheap and US and UK governments have encouraged this pattern of eating.
I'm only 65, but I'm sure older members of this forum remember that carby snacks were not an everydqay thing during their childhoods. Neither were sweets. sugar was rationed in the Uk till quite a long time after WW11, so we simply weren't used to getting them and fast food outlets selling high carb[yes it's often high fat too!] "junk" food did not stand on every corner.
I must have been in my eens before I ate a "Wimpy". Fish and chips was a rare treat, shared by the whole family on aan outing. To this day, my 94 year-old mother hasn't ever had a pizza.
And exercise does have an effect. Who nowadays, other then a few of us eccentrics, walks further then a few hundred meters or so?
I've done about 6 miles today and been ridiculed by a friend for having nothing better to do with my time. Said friend is several sizes larger than me [but NOT diabetic] We met up with others for lunch at our local catering college. I walked to the restaurant. [4.5miles] friend came in her open Merc, others used cars or the bus.
I'm not the heaviest in this group, but I am one of them, being taller than most too.
Hana
 
Maybe they had undiagnosed Prada Willie syndrome.

As you dont agree with any of my thought, I have nothing left to suggest. :roll:
 

What would I do? Ok Noblehead here's the xyzzy viewpoint on this and related topics.

Well I believe the problem is nothing to do with carbs / fat / protein but just plain overall calories or energy density. Phoenix posted some links that then related energy density through to activity and social class which I found very interesting and quite compelling. Couldn't quite see why a higher class person is necessarily more active than a lower class person nowadays but if you were to examine the "quality" of what the two groups eat I suspect that's where the major differences lie.

I honestly believe the problem is getting out of hand and is comparable to the health problems caused by smoking so in the same way as tobacco advertising is banned I'd ban McDonalds and similar kinds of junk food advertising that promote that kind of lifestyle choice. Certainly I'd ban advertising junk food to children and have a government campaign that made junk food as socially unacceptable as drink driving. If that failed I'd just ban junk food or at the least tax it very highly so that it subsidised the costs to the NHS it causes. Yes I realise there would be grey "foods" but the principle should be junk is bad. Tax sweets and chocolate so that the relative cost is as it was say in the 60's and 70's again to stop people over indulging from a young age.

I'd also ban alcohol advertising , bring in a minimum cost for alcohol like the Scots and have a law that restricted the number of night clubs per square mile in towns or cities and be far harsher in the courts against drunks. When "I was a lad" we went out on the town had a good time but didn't end up puking, fighting and p***ing everywhere. However WE WOULD HAVE DONE if we had the cash and disposable income many people have today so I'm not saying that the younger generation is any worse than my own in many ways its better. Put the relative cost of drinking back to what it was and the problem will begin to resolve itself imho.

I'd legalise all drugs as that would cut crime by an enormous amount. Never believed the standard propaganda on drugs and deep down I suspect a majority of the post 60's generation doesn't either. Another case of everyone knowing what should be done yet the politicians are too gutless to do stuff. When cannabis was downgraded to class "C" temporarily a few years ago did civilisation come to an end? What is the point of potentially criminalising vast swathes of the younger generation?

I would also set up some kind of completely independent commission to re-examine what is a good daily diet. Certainly the one I and my family have followed the "5 a day, carbs are good" diet hasn't worked. I would examine especially the concept of GI and its index and database as scientifically there seems to be evidence that GI isn't particularly effective. I have a feeling the only reason GI is popular is because the food industry wants it to be.

Finally what would I have done with the worlds currently largest man. ALLEGEDLY when in my local hospital having his weight loss treatments done his family was bringing pizza in for him to eat. He needed special transport to get him out of his house as he could no longer get out of bed and apparently cost over 2 million to be treated. I'd have just stopped who ever was feeding him **** each day, far cheaper...
 
lucylocket61 said:
Maybe they had undiagnosed Prada Willie syndrome.

As you dont agree with any of my thought, I have nothing left to suggest. :roll:
Click to expand...

Always a possibility Lucy but of course that wouldn't make them freaks. I'm going to be a bit of a pedant and point out it's spelt Prader-Willi Syndrome.
 
Thanks to Pianoman's thread 'Tom Naughton - Crisis in Nutrition' I discovered a movie called Fat Head.
This was made to counter the claims of Morgan Spurlock's Supersize Me.
The entire movie is to be found on YouTube.
Tom Naughton decides to live on MacDonalds food for a month (minus the buns.)
He loses weight, and his cholesterol figures improve, all to the astonishment of his doctor (from 1h 33m)
He also counters the demonisation of MacDonalds.
And the 'facts' about an obesity 'epidemic.'

Worth watching whatever you end up thinking.

Tendency to gain weight can simply be down to genetics, like those overweight people who never become diabetic : (

My junk food I'd ban is wheat. Far too problematic for far too many people.

Have to agree with you about the enablers who enable dysfunctional behaviour.

Geoff
 

Lucy the picture was just supposed to show how things and perceptions have changed in a 100 years not say overweight people are freaks! Forget the picture if it helps.

The reality is there is a link between T2D and obesity, all I wanted to do was start was a discussion on why more people are overweight today and because that leads to a whole range of health issues what people thought would be appropriate actions to take if they could make changes.
 
Two quick points
Naughton's fast food diet was relatively low calorie: http://fathead-movie.com/content/MyFoodLog.htm

Wheat was a staple in the UK and much of Europe for most of 'modern times'.It's no coincidence that 'civil unrest' has often been linked to the price of bread. It's very much still a staple here in France where I live with a meal without bread not being considered to be a meal.
When I looked at figures for wheat consumption and obesity I could see no association at all. The French and the Americans eat a similar amount of calories from wheat. The Americans eat more calories on average than the French. The Americans have a many more people who are obese.
(see Type 1.5 diabetes Wheat and Obesity for graphs)
 
Two quick points
Naughton's fast food diet was relatively low calorie: http://fathead-movie.com/content/MyFoodLog.htm


When I looked at figures for wheat consumption and obesity I could see no association at all.
Click to expand...

I was responding to additional points made in xyzzy's post, not the original question.
Xyzzy would ban MacDonalds advertising. I wouldn't.
I believe wheat poses long-term health problems (some of which are weight-related) so I would ban it.
Obviously the author of Wheat Belly would disagree with your observations. Some do okay with wheat. Some don't.
Wheat today is not the same as wheat of 100 years ago. Plus ca change, plus ce n'est pas la meme chose.

Geoff
 
librarising said:
Xyzzy would ban MacDonalds advertising
Click to expand...

No Geoff in reality I woud much rather just ban McDonalds entirely! A horrible company imo, horrendous environmental track record of deforestation and I hate the **** whistle thing, their evil stupid clown and even before getting T2D thought their food tasted foul. Also loathe Kentucky Fried Chicken for their animal welfare record on how they treat the chickens they use.
 
I woud much rather just ban McDonalds entirely! A horrible company imo ... Also loathe Kentucky Fried Chicken for their animal welfare record
Click to expand...

Silly me. Thought you were going down the junk food identification road. Not personally hated companies road.

Increasingly I don't buy the 'fat people are lazy, stupid etc' hypothesis.
And i don't believe these fast food restaurants disappearing tomorrow would solve a lot.

I've got a friend who feels the same about a leading supermarket. He's got a petrol can, if you've got some matches : )

Geoff
 
librarising said:
I've got a friend who feels the same about a leading supermarket. He's got a petrol can, if you've got some matches : )
Click to expand...

:lol:

Come on Geoff I'm allowed to hate something. McDonalds and Kentucky are as good as anything.

Honestly don't you loathe that MacD advert where the cute little kid goes round chopping the heads off flowers with his sword and everyone just goes ah how sweet. Great example of parenting that one :x
 
I wish I could track down the useful info that you folks seem to be able to find so easily :roll:

I find it hard to believe that we eat less than the Victorians did, not calling you a fibber Hana but it just seems so odd! When we talk about "we" who are "we" exactly? The conscientious folks who eat three good meals a day, don't snack at all in between meals and go for lots of regular exercise?

I don't know, maybe my thinking is just too simplistic. I'm not thinking back to Victorian times but to the times more recent (because let's remember that food rationing was around not just during the war but a long time afterwards), there was less food. After that time there was the good old staples of meat and two veg, pies, spuds, gravy, pastry-in other words, stodge.
Now like I said, I don't have the details but was this not a time of fewer heart attacks, less heart disease and diabetes? Obviously I could well be wrong with this, please correct me if I am!

Fewer cars around too so more walking, not seen as exercise but just a means of getting from A to B.

I don't think snacks of any sort were part and parcel of life then, it wasn't expected that they were to be included as part of an everyday diet or maybe I am mistaken?
That's something else I have noticed. (I'm on a roll tonight!). Snacks. Did we actually use that term until relatively recently? A snack implies something to quell hunger, that the main meals of the day are not enough to sustain us, to keep us from feeling hungry.
A treat was (for me in the early 70's) something like an ice-cream at the park, maybe a couple squares of choc watching tv in the evening. It was something nice cos it tasted nice, I didn't have it often because I had eaten my meals! Am I the only one that recalls this..maybe I'm looking back through rose-tinted glasses!!

So..more exercise, "proper" meals, not much, if anything, in between meals and the absence of junk food. Yup, I too believe that fast food has a lot to answer for in the health of young people but only because parents have bought into the myth too.

Food is available everywhere, shops stay open all day and sometimes all night but I remember trying to get to the door of the local shop before the doors closed. If the shop was shut, well, you did without until the next morning.

There are so many factors to be taken into account but I honestly think the availability of food to be partaken of at our whim, the varieties both "good" and "bad" that can be bought whenever we feel like it and the sedentary lifestyle has got to be behind it.

I think.. :think:
 
Times have changed and the reasons why seem to me to be availability, affordability and choice.

The likes of MacD and Kentucky are perfectly acceptable as a treat but some people use them as mainstay meals. It is the same with the wide "variety" of snacks. If you offer today's kids a packet of crisps, a piece of fruit or a chocolate bar, I wonder how many would opt for the fruit. During and after the war, there were no snacks available. Meals were served with carbohydrates in every meal and snacks were not available. You didn't think, "Well I don't like that so will have something from the shop later" it wasn''t available later and eating out was something the rich did and not the working class. Exercise was included in daily activities because people walked or cycled as this was normal, not a form of exercise that it is for most today.

Times have changed and we can blame who we like but if we look at it logically, we have changed too.

Worth reading this article about today's policemen compared with 19th century ones and why some are concerned about today's policemen and their levels of fitness and obesity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... tness-test
 
little exercise . I put 2 recipes into a nutrition calculator.
http://recipes.sparkpeople.com/recipe-calculator.asp
1) fairy cake recipe from my oldest cookbook (Mrs Beeton:1963 reprinted 1972). This made 10-12 cakes. I was generous and said 10 servings.
2) basic cup cake recipe from here http://uktv.co.uk/food/recipe/aid/581753 The recipe made 12 cupcakes.
These were both plain and I didn't include any fillings or icing for either

Calories for each fairy cake recipe: 98.3 (5.2 fat, 11.6 carb)
Calories for each cup cake: 332.5 (19.2 g fat, 36.7 carb)

The 1960-70s cake was less than a third the size of a cake today.

Eating out?
(costa coffee triple chocolate muffin calories: 537; lemon cup cake calories: 417 source http://www.costa.co.uk/media/22162/Food ... -Apr12.pdf )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…