I can get behind the logic of more screen time probably meaning less physical activity. But someone needs to explain to me how eating less would ever lead to weight gain. Especially when your typical breakfast junk is just as unhealthy as snacking could ever be.
I know that if I skip a meal, I can get really hungry later. That or I start snacking on crap. So skipping a meal could potentially lead to weight gain because you end up eating more than if you didn’t skip the meal.
your body adjusts to fasting by increasing hunger hormones and sensitivity to them. This can lead to overconsuming food when its available.
additionally roads and traffic have also reduced effective social and play areas even as vehicles become more dangerous to pedestrians.
Its possible even that the evolutionary adaptation to cars is that low energy kids have less risk of injury/death while more high energy kids get hit by cars, possibly selecting for less active kids generation to generation (notably it may also be selecting for taller heights)
I’m interested in the idea of selection adaptation and motorised vehicles, however I think selective adaptation takes much much much longer than motorised vehicles have been with us so far. We’re talking hundreds of years for selective adaptation to take affairs.
I could be wrong about that though.
The more likely adaptation reason currently is that we like over eating. Food used to be scarce, and when it was available you ate as much as you could or you died. The survivors of that scenario are the ones that made us, and as such we love eating lots when it’s there.
I think our fascination with sweet foods makes sense from this perspective also. Our ancestors exposure to sweet foods were mostly fruit. Fruit would have improved their immune system significantly. Unfortunately we’ve since began mass producing sugar which doesn’t offer the same benefits, but our bodies are still set up to love that sweet taste.
car accidents are one of the largest causes of death of people below the age of 35 in the US if I recall. This means its likely one of the largest selection factors for people at or below reproductive age.
i absolutely hate that this correct answer gets any downvotes.
so much anti-intellectualism on the internet, so much surface level “BuT CaLoRiEs iN CalOriEs OuT” combined with outright denial and doubt of empirical evidence.
humans are a mess. yes, sometimes skipping morning meals can have an effect on the rest of your day and you eat more later. why are we so quick to doubt that?
Yea i can absolutely see that. Though it’s also understandable to doubt it because personally it just doesn’t apply - which I think is largely because I don’t changr my portion sizes, and I’m probably not the only one. I make food and eat all of it, and I usually eat 2 meals a day + sometimes breakfast. I’ve found that delaying food intake for as long as possible leads to me eating less overall and losing weight.
In my case, eating breakfast or not is more of a result of how much I ate the previous day.
Here you encounter the difference between personal anecdote and statistical averages in risk factors :)
Risk factors don’t mean you, personally are doing something wrong, risk factors just help identify patterns that inform action in health care where it is needed
General trends should only be applied by trained professionals, such as physicians or dietitians, who can do so with the necessary care and attention. Unless you are a doctor, you’re right that it’s hard! In fact you shouldn’t do it at all.
It is important for people to understand this concept, because it seems to be commonly overlooked. The average person should not create a diet or fitness plan based solely on data like what is discussed in this article. Rather, it is far more healthy to defer to professionals and their recommendations in the form of interpretation of that data for guidance rather than attempting to interpret this information on your own.
I’m not sure exactly how it works tbh! But this was also one of the findings of the National Weight Control Registry when studying people who successfully lost weight and kept it off.
78% eat breakfast every day.
75% weigh themselves at least once a week.
62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week.
90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day.
Some more tidbits:
98% of Registry participants report that they modified their food intake in some way to lose weight.
94% increased their physical activity, with the most frequently reported form of activity being walking.
If I had to speculate, my guess is that having breakfast results in a better workout. And then a better workout makes you more likely to comply with your meal plan, which then results in better long term weight results
Edit: My apologies, it’s in the subtitle line cut out of context like this. I think this is the egregious fault of the publisher more than the author, probably some SEO BS, because again this was obviously not the intent of that sentence.
My browser’s reader mode cut out that subtitle line, hence my original comment:
Bad reading of the author’s intent and you ignore the immediately preceding sentence which provides context for your cherry picked quote:
The researchers identified great heterogeneity in the prevalence between countries and also diverse risk factors, from dietary to behavioral.
The intent of that paragraph is to highlight the diversity of risk factors, not to give the most prevalent ones.
When you ask a text to do something it didn’t ever even pretend to want to do, of course you are going to come away disappointed. Media literacy. < Publisher accountability.
Bad reading of the author’s intent and you ignore the immediately preceding sentence which provides context for your cherry picked quote
It is the subtitle in its entirety, as the author of the article intended. That sentence didn’t grow legs and and walk all the way up to the top of the article by itself.
hot damn my apologies my reader view cut out the subtitle. somehow i doubt that was the author’s intent though. i would blame the publisher for this because that’s a really poor manipulation of the text.
Totally nothing to do with rising sugar content in all foods globally and lack of proper nutritional foods
Exactly. And somehow the top of the article says
Oh yah, it’s definitely because kids skip breakfast (and the 22g of sugar per teaspoon) and screens.
I can get behind the logic of more screen time probably meaning less physical activity. But someone needs to explain to me how eating less would ever lead to weight gain. Especially when your typical breakfast junk is just as unhealthy as snacking could ever be.
I know that if I skip a meal, I can get really hungry later. That or I start snacking on crap. So skipping a meal could potentially lead to weight gain because you end up eating more than if you didn’t skip the meal.
deleted by creator
your body adjusts to fasting by increasing hunger hormones and sensitivity to them. This can lead to overconsuming food when its available.
additionally roads and traffic have also reduced effective social and play areas even as vehicles become more dangerous to pedestrians.
Its possible even that the evolutionary adaptation to cars is that low energy kids have less risk of injury/death while more high energy kids get hit by cars, possibly selecting for less active kids generation to generation (notably it may also be selecting for taller heights)
I’m interested in the idea of selection adaptation and motorised vehicles, however I think selective adaptation takes much much much longer than motorised vehicles have been with us so far. We’re talking hundreds of years for selective adaptation to take affairs.
I could be wrong about that though.
The more likely adaptation reason currently is that we like over eating. Food used to be scarce, and when it was available you ate as much as you could or you died. The survivors of that scenario are the ones that made us, and as such we love eating lots when it’s there.
I think our fascination with sweet foods makes sense from this perspective also. Our ancestors exposure to sweet foods were mostly fruit. Fruit would have improved their immune system significantly. Unfortunately we’ve since began mass producing sugar which doesn’t offer the same benefits, but our bodies are still set up to love that sweet taste.
I’m rambling a bit, but there you go.
car accidents are one of the largest causes of death of people below the age of 35 in the US if I recall. This means its likely one of the largest selection factors for people at or below reproductive age.
Wild fruits were also not very sweet. They didn’t get that sweet until we started breeding them to be sweeter.
i absolutely hate that this correct answer gets any downvotes.
so much anti-intellectualism on the internet, so much surface level “BuT CaLoRiEs iN CalOriEs OuT” combined with outright denial and doubt of empirical evidence.
humans are a mess. yes, sometimes skipping morning meals can have an effect on the rest of your day and you eat more later. why are we so quick to doubt that?
Yea i can absolutely see that. Though it’s also understandable to doubt it because personally it just doesn’t apply - which I think is largely because I don’t changr my portion sizes, and I’m probably not the only one. I make food and eat all of it, and I usually eat 2 meals a day + sometimes breakfast. I’ve found that delaying food intake for as long as possible leads to me eating less overall and losing weight.
In my case, eating breakfast or not is more of a result of how much I ate the previous day.
Here you encounter the difference between personal anecdote and statistical averages in risk factors :)
Risk factors don’t mean you, personally are doing something wrong, risk factors just help identify patterns that inform action in health care where it is needed
Yeah I know, I just meant to state I can see where the initial doubt comes from. I already saw the study further up and the reasoning makes sense.
Though I think with dieting in particular general trends are very hard to apply to individuals (most obvious offender being BMI).
General trends should only be applied by trained professionals, such as physicians or dietitians, who can do so with the necessary care and attention. Unless you are a doctor, you’re right that it’s hard! In fact you shouldn’t do it at all.
It is important for people to understand this concept, because it seems to be commonly overlooked. The average person should not create a diet or fitness plan based solely on data like what is discussed in this article. Rather, it is far more healthy to defer to professionals and their recommendations in the form of interpretation of that data for guidance rather than attempting to interpret this information on your own.
also see this comment about that out of context quote:
https://lemmy.cafe/comment/6259728
Are you disputing CICO or what—assuming you aren’t overeating
I’m not sure exactly how it works tbh! But this was also one of the findings of the National Weight Control Registry when studying people who successfully lost weight and kept it off.
Some more tidbits:
If I had to speculate, my guess is that having breakfast results in a better workout. And then a better workout makes you more likely to comply with your meal plan, which then results in better long term weight results
Edit: My apologies, it’s in the subtitle line cut out of context like this. I think this is the egregious fault of the publisher more than the author, probably some SEO BS, because again this was obviously not the intent of that sentence.
My browser’s reader mode cut out that subtitle line, hence my original comment:
Bad reading of the author’s intent and you ignore the immediately preceding sentence which provides context for your cherry picked quote:
The intent of that paragraph is to highlight the diversity of risk factors, not to give the most prevalent ones.
When you ask a text to do something it didn’t ever even pretend to want to do, of course you are going to come away disappointed.
Media literacy.< Publisher accountability.It is the subtitle in its entirety, as the author of the article intended. That sentence didn’t grow legs and and walk all the way up to the top of the article by itself.
hot damn my apologies my reader view cut out the subtitle. somehow i doubt that was the author’s intent though. i would blame the publisher for this because that’s a really poor manipulation of the text.
If you’re blaming rising obesity on sugar, it shows you’re more susceptible to marketing than you are knowledgeable about the relevant science.
Whose marketing, exactly?
Mainly the people who are profiting from anti-carb diet fads - Atkins, keto, paleo, carnivore, etc.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKOQOP3G1go
Thanks for the link, I started watching but ill have to finish later.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://m.piped.video/watch?v=BKOQOP3G1go
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.