The Foods That Made America Fat

That is intriguing because it certainly contradicts what has become the dogma repeated in the media and medical profression (eat less red meat, don't use butter, etc.).

But the increase in weight probably has more factors involved than what we eat. Americans engage in less exercise and movement than even twenty years ago, as more people live in suburbs or gated communities without sidewalks, have longer commute and work times and therefore less free time for exercise and sports. Also, people are smoking less and thanks to video games, DVDs, and home entertainment, we spend more time at computers and watching television. I think exercise is key in losing/managing weight.

Well, no one was told to eat more sugar - and yet it makes up 665 calories?? And some oils are healthy - but certainly not as much as we are using. Also, a good portion could be trans fats. With that and the added sugars (HFCS, probably), with plenty of carbs to go with, and it's no wonder we as Americans have gained so much weight.

My feeling is that the traditional dogma is leading us further into disease. If I really disliked someone, I would feed them a heavy grain, low-meat diet with vegetable oil. I would consider that mean.

Part of the problem is that the food industry doesn't do much to help us. So much of the sugar, salt , and fat found in foods wasn't there years ago. It's economic and addiction driven. I've found that foods I like to buy continually disappear from the store's shelves. When I ask about it, I'm usually told the products I like do not sell enough so they are not stocked. One needs to be pretty vigilant when they make their food choices.

Charging more for heath foods really doesn't help the problem. My weekly food bill would be about 40% less if I bought the "regular" products. I have friends who say they try to eat health (both at home and when out) and that often the opt for the less healthy choice because of price.

Portion size certainly plays a part in this, doesn't it? Thomas has come out with a "mini" bagel that looks just like a regular-sized bagel did 10 years ago. We just don't seem to be satisfied with a serving-sized amount. I think our collective drug of choice must be "MORE."

Other than the increase in vegetable oils, the increase in other stuff is small. The first chart, with the macronutrient distribution, shows that is still pretty similar to what it was - it is just *more food*. I think portion sizes are to blame more than anything else here. This is coming from the same person who is always saying "it is not how much you eat, it is what you eat" here on this site, believe it or not. If you eat as much as the average American is eating, then it finally becomes also about how much you eat. I don't believe in 1,200 calorie a day diets for weight loss, but almost 4,000 calories a day for someone that is sedentary is simply way too much food, way too many calories.

Knitter, it is exactly what you said - I didn't read your comment before posting. Portion sizes in the US are insane. Everytime I travel there, I'm shocked to see they grew even more, when I was already horrified people could fit as much as the previous size. I'm not Asian and I don't eat tiny portions, right the opposite - I have a reputation of "eating like a guy", but in the US, I've never managed to eat more than 1/3 of an entree, it is usually 1/4 of it.

I think it's a combination of portion sizes, sedentary lifestyles, and a smaller consumption of natural foods. The food industry can't really be blamed for this one...an Oreo in 1960 is the same as an Oreo in 2000. The difference is, in 1960 you maybe ate 1-2 Oreos as a small snack. In 2000, you can buy "snack packs" containing 6 Oreos. What are you going to do with a half-eaten package of Oreos? So you eat the whole pack and consume 3 servings right there. See the trend? Food companies are actually trying to target the serving size thing by doing the 100 calorie packs and trying to reformulate things to have more whole grains and fiber. Still, being physically active and eating mostly unprocessed foods will do a lot to help keep the pounds off.

Spectra, you mentioned something important too. These foods are also cheaper, comparatively, than they were in 1961, aren't they? "Processed food" in the 60s, as we see on tv and people who lived the times remember, was mostly stuff like cake mix and canned foods, not so much the already-baked cake, since they were more expensive. So an Oreo (or cookies baked from frozen dough) were a treat, and less likely to be eaten than ones baked from scratch/from a boxed mix. If things are expensive treats, people thing twice about eating the entire package in one sitting. If it costs $1.19, there isn't a second thought.

Jan, you have a good point. I wasn't around in 1961, but I used to eat a lot of processed food - it's tempting if you're a college student and don't have much money. Things like canned ravioli, packaged cookies and crackers are extremely cheap and plentiful. However now that I'm eating more natural foods, I have a really hard time keeping the bills down...
If it is much harder (i.e. expensive) for us to buy "healthy" foods, we will just do what's convenient and cheap.

Its more about moderation than what you eat! Eggs, toast, two pieces of bacon and a cup of old fashion coffee probably have less calories than that massive sugary coffee with whipped-cream and giant bagel with cream cheese and 2 toaster strudels. Plus the prior will fill you up with protein and keep you from eating ALL DAY LONG! There wont be the urge to grab the Snickers Bar at 10:30AM. Plus people feel more satiated when they eat "meals" instead of on the run, grab'n'go breakfasts.

I have to agree with DietingPoint. If corporate America (or World, for that matter) really wanted to help people stay healthy and fit, they would stop charging MORE for healthier food items. It's sad that a bag of frozen, breaded, pressed chicken chunks is cheaper than clean, white breast meat. However, that said, one can shop wiser and still not spend an arm and a leg. There are plenty of store brand items that cost significantly less than name brands (like whole oats and rice for instance). One chooses to buy the junk food over the healthier options - no one is forcing them to!

I live in the US for a year and these are my opinions formed during this time:

1)It seems like water doesn't exist. You have to really dig in the supermarket and I have heard several persons asking a store employee where to find the water aisle. But sodas are right on the middle. As long as some companies will pay big money to stay central, there will be hige sugar quantities absorbed with sodas. Don't tell me about light versions, they are even worse from a health point of view.

2) You really have to search for healthy/organic products and they are expensive(if it is not a specialized store, like Whole Foods). It hurts to pay $4 on a pound of tomatoes when you can probably buy a frozen pizza at the same price.

3) There is always food in tv. Weight-loss program, pizza, weight-loss pill, oreos, weight-loss exercises, fast-food chain. Well, who can resist? Maybe they should be banned. everybody knows that fast-food exists so they can make that choise if they want to without having a big cheesburger in front of their eyes.

4) Very, very difficult to get around walking/by bus. Walking is not a part of the normal life, you have to make time for it. Well if it doesn't have a purpose it is not so hard to give it up.

5)Eating out = fat. There is always extra cheese, there is always a dip on the side. Everything is just full with fat. I bought a turkey sanwich once without asking what it contains. It looked pretty normal. I had to throw most of it because it was loaded with fried bacon. So much of mt healthy choise...

6) Shopping carts. Overweight persons have the worst shopping carts. I have seen a trio grandmother, mother, child, all obese and with the cart full of milk and hot-dogs. I don't know how somebody could eat only hot-dogs. There was no trace of fruits or vegetables in their cart. It is clear that these persons don't have balanced meals and they would need a serious wake-up call to do something different. One example is the cereal mith. I am talking about the regular, sugary type.

I would probably have more to say, but that is all I am thinking of right now.

Erica said:
Its more about moderation than what you eat! Eggs, toast, two pieces of bacon and a cup of old fashion coffee probably have less calories than that massive sugary coffee with whipped-cream and giant bagel with cream cheese and 2 toaster strudels. Plus the prior will fill you up with protein and keep you from eating ALL DAY LONG! There wont be the u[...]

That is a good point too. People snack more instead of eating meals - this was discussed on the McDonald's post, recently, as well.

Here's the way I see it: The constant advice to eat less saturated, and (sometimes) eat less meat -- doesn't equate with the statistics.

Based on these stats we need to be eating less sugars, refined grains, and vegetable oils. It is these three foods that constitute the base ingredients for most highly-processed and packaged foods on the shelves. These foods are nutrient-poor and high-energy.

Sure some people eat too much saturated fat -- and they need to learn moderation. But over the population as a whole -- it's the ultra-refined foods that seem to be doing the damage.

Good point, Jim. Few people realize just how nutrient dense most snack foods are. One potato chip has about 10 calories. One serving of about 14 chips has 140 calories. But who eats only 14 chips? I'm thinking most chip eaters probably eat at least 30 or 35 of them at a time. Those calories really add up fast!!

In the 60's people were still eating most of their meals at home, with fresh ingrediants and no short-cuts. Now even the meals we eat at home are "convinience food," reheated from the freezer. Because women are working, they don't have time to prepare anything from scratch.

I learned the cold hard truth about processed foods when I first started doing WW to lose weight in college. Before I went to college, my normal breakfast was a bowl of cereal with skim milk or maybe a small bagel and cream cheese. When I went to college, I started eating 2 pop tarts and a big bottle of SoBe energy drink for breakfast and I was gaining weight like crazy. Well, I found out that my "breakfast" had almost 1000 calories!! And it did NOT fill me up. Once I went on WW, I started to eat oatmeal and fruit for breakfast and it was a lot cheaper and it filled me up a lot more.

I, too, wish that healthy options were a bit cheaper, but I just usually buy a lot of fresh veggies, frozen veggies, produce that's in season, eggs, milk, etc...the basics. Processed foods, even HEALTHY processed foods, are expensive as all get out.

I wonder if the fact that these numbers are averaged out, hides who exactly is getting fat by eating worse. Perhaps some parts of the country are far worse off than others, or some populations are worse off than others, which drives the numbers up and doesn't tell us the full picture. Perhaps people who are poorer, and have less access to information, healthy food, and the time to cook nutritious meals are the ones not getting the message. It's purely speculation, but I think we should address it.

Re: Paul, April 27, 2007 5:19 PM

Great point. Mexicans are driving the U.S. average rate of obesity way up. Need to look at populations as a % of US total from 1961 to 2007.

I am so discusted with my huge weight gain since menapause that I am eating only one time a day before noon and only drinking Soy milk (light) if I get hungry. I know that this is the opposite of what the authorities say due to it possibly slowing down my metabolism but something has to change
because I'm not losing it eating three meals a day or more. Once I start eating in the morning, it doesn't stop until late in the evening only adding to my frustration.

Shannon, the key to weight loss especially after menopause is exercise. There are also hormonal health issues, so you should get a thyroid blood test at the very least. I'm not sure where you stand on natural hormone replacement, but that also benefits people.

Anyway, back to the exercise. Your metabolism is slowing down and the way to combat that is with resistance training. Another concern is the soy milk - if you indeed have at least a mild thyroid condition, which a lot of women after menopause do, and you are essentially living on soy milk, and consuming lots of soy has a negative effect on metabolism, cause soy binds with the thyroid hormone in your blood.

Thanks Jan.
I already have hypothyroid and take synthroid for it. I also take very low dose Femhrt for my hot flashes. (Estrogen replacement). I think you are definately on to something with the exercise because before I ruptured a disc in my back a few years ago, I ran 3 miles 3 days a week and lifted weights on 2 and weighed a lot less and felt a lot better. Right now I am walking but have not done any resistance training. I will look into this.

If you are already on Synthroid, no soy milk. Seriously. Just replace it with a different food. It binds with the artificial hormone we take (I'm on replacement too).

I also recommend you get a full thyroid panel anyway, including free T3 and free T4 levels. Often doctors will just put you on a small dosage of Synthroid and think it solves all your problems. There are tons of good info at http://thyroid.about.com if you want to read more, I don't wanna preach too much here.

As far as the HRT goes, it also may be harming your thyroid, by only replacing estrogen, if your progesterone levels are also lowered. It may cause estrogen dominance, and give you a lot of thyroid-like side effects, by rendering your thyroid hormones useless. So a full panel by a doctor that has a more holistic view of HRT may help here too, to rule out this possibility.

So essentially, even if you are one of the lucky few that needs only Synthroid to feel good (no Cynomel or Armour) and you happen to have a doctor that put you on the correct dosage, the soy milk + HRT may be making it all useless, the same as not taking any thyroid replacement at all. And when that is the case, there is no amount of effort that will make you lose weight.

Jan.
I think Femhrt has both estrogen & progesterone in it. After your input and looking at the Thyroid Information you gave me, I am reconsidering the soy milk. I thought it would be good for me. Perhaps I will just supplement using skim milk when I get real hungry. Your comments re: Thyroid status got my curiousity up so I plan to see my doctor to see if anything is going on. Thank you again for your comments.

You are welcome. I just think it is good to make sure everything is working fine before you work harder and harder to lose weight and blame yourself, if the hormones are impeding weight loss.

I gained 115lb with untreated thyroid disfunction, and I barely ate during this time. Once I got that under control, and then later, PCOS (which in a sense is kinda like menopause), I ate pretty well, around 2,000 calories a day, and lost 110lb. So I know it is not a "just try harder" thing. For 3 months before treatment, I ate 3oz of food a day. 3 of those tiny coffee cups, filled with either tuna or cottage cheese, and water. Nothing else. And I didn't lose a single pound.

Jan said:
I just think it is good to make sure everything is working fine before you work harder and harder to lose weight and blame yourself, if the hormones are impeding weight loss.[...]

When I construct a diet for fat loss, I value keeping the glands/hormones in order more than calorie restriction.

Ryan said:
When I construct a diet for fat loss, I value keeping the glands/hormones in order more than calorie restriction.[...]

And right you are. That is number one. Without that, you can starve all you want and nothing is gonna happen, and if you do lose weight, it will be muscle loss, not a good weight loss.

In response to E I agree with every thing stated in your comments. However people who are fast to critize overweight people shopping carts have no right. There are many factors to consider, most obses people in the USA are poor. most cannot afford to buy a 5 dollar bag of apples when you can buy a whole box of Oodles of noodles for a dollar fifty. I have fought my weight all my life and now one of my daughter has the same problem. I have raised 3 children 2 of my own and 1 step daughter since she was 2. I cooked the same meals and every one ate just about the same thing. My step daughter is now 21 and is lucky to weight 100lbs soaking wet. Fat people don't be so had on yourself. no matter what anyone says Genes has a lot to do with it. My only advice is don't give up the fight we have to keep going for our health.

All:

This analysis is based on food disappearance data for the whole country's agricultural and food systems, which has methodological weaknesses; also, it doesn't address actual food Calories, which are the key issue. More informative results from actual analysis of individual diet of individual people ; a couple of good ones:

Trends in Intake of Energy and Macronutrients --- United States, 1971--2000
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
(CDC analysis, published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, February 6, 2004, 53(4), 80-82)
(You have to look carefully at the MWWR graphs, and compare them to the Table, because the graphs report percentages of Calories instead of absolute Caloric intake. )

and:

Chanmugam P, Guthrie JF, Cecilio S, Morton JF, Basiotis PP, Anand R.
Did fat intake in the United States really decline between 1989-1991 and 1994-1996?
J Am Diet Assoc. 2003 Jul;103(7):867-72.
PMID: 12830026 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
(Text, without figures and tables, here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_8_22/ai_107524005/print

What these data show is that, basically, Americans on average ate the same amount of protein and fats over these time periods -- we just increased our total Calories, almost all of it coming from empty carbs. The problem is indeed related to the low-fat craze and portion sizes, but this is not the result of people actually eating lower-fat diets, but of eating more and more low-fat junk (sugars, refined grains) added into or onto their existing unhealthy diets. More Calories = more overweight.

-Michael

Organic and natural foods are gaining nearly 15% of the market annually and grocers are taking notice. Price relief is coming; for example Giant Eagle has a decent selection under the Natures Basket label. Other ideas for savings are farmers markets and discount stores such as Marcs. As for the issue of extra time to prepare healthy food, I work 50 hours a week and attend college, but I still find the time to prepare healthy food and to strength train on my home gym. We always manage to do the things that are our priorities. Just throwing it out there.

Jan~
Just an update-I saw my doctor and got a TSH. It's 5.5. and the MD wants to double my low dose synthroid so I'm glad we chatted or I probably would not have had that checked. I can't believe you gained all that weight by hardly eating anything and the once corrected, your body lost it. The thyroid seems very powerful. ANyway thaks for your comments.

Shannon said:
Jan~
Just an update-I saw my doctor and got a TSH. It's 5.5. and the MD wants to double my low dose synthroid so I'm glad we chatted or I probably would not have had that checked. I can't believe you gained all that weight by hardly eating anything and the once corrected, your body lost it. The thyroid seems very powerful. ANyway thaks for your [...]

Shannon, that is wonderful that you found that out. Now, when you go for another test, ask your doctor for a T3 and T4 test, both Total and Free values. Sometimes, your TSH can be normal (below 3) and the Total and/or Free T3 and T4, which are the real hormones, still be too low, so it is good to have that checked as well. I'm sure with that under control, the weight will come off.

Jan.
I will ask for the T3 and T4 to make sure they are okay. How long do you think it may be for my body to start to unload some of this excess weight? Any idea?

The Synthroid has a half-life of 6 weeks, so it should take you between 4 and 6 weeks to feel a difference, Shannon.

I personally feel the problem is we eat too much processed foods. If people would just take the time to make homemade meals that combine both healthy food and correct proportions per age group I think Americans would be alot thinner.

Another problem that is contributing to the growing weight problems in American is that people don't seem to know how to cook anymore. You go to a family gathering where twenty or thirty years ago you would have had mostly or all home baked food and now you have biscuits from a can, stuffing from a box, etc. And more and more processed foods are playing large parts in home cooking, such as basing something "homemade" on a packaged food.

And it has been mentioned already, but the time issue is really a red herring. It's not that we don't have time, we just don't use the time we have. No time to cook, but there is time to watch all four of our favorite television shows every night.

The point of the labor-saving devices and mass-produced food was to liberate us from drudgery of spending hours on cooking and cleaning. And that's a double-edged sword: less effort also means less calories burned. But not everyone spends their free time in front of the television--there are those of us who play sports and have hobbies and volunteer work, too. I'd rather spend more time on those activities than in the kitchen. Still, I know it's my responsibility to make smart choices about the food I do consume.

The reason it's hard to see how profoundly unhealthy that most of us are is because we grew up thinking this is normal.

Perhaps these data can help. And one thing to keep in mind is that they are not describing an unhealthy diet, per se. They are describing a lifestyle, and a way of looking at food.

These are what need to be changed in order to lose weight, and become healthier. Adjust your lifestyle, and your way of looking at food, and your body will adjust naturally.