SubscribeAmericans Are Eating More: But Which Foods?
The NY Times has published an interesting graphic showing how food consumption has increased.
In 1970 the average American ate 16.4 pounds of food per week. By 2006 this had increased an additional 1.8 pounds per week.
What changed?
- Fruit consumption went up - but mostly in the form of fruit juice.
- We now eat an extra .8 pounds of refined grains.
- Consumption of added sugars (think corn sweeteners) - another .3 pounds per week.
- Vegetable consumption increased 0.4 pounds per week.
- Whole milk consumption plunged.
- We eat 1 less egg per week.
- We eat less red meat - but more poultry.
See the full graphic.
See also The Foods That Made America Fat.
More like this in Big Business · Aug 6, 2008
Of the 1.8-pounds more per week consumed, 0.8-pound (12.8-ounces) is grains, 0.3-pound is added sweeteners (4.8-ounces) and 0.5-pound fats/oils (with the majority being vegetable oil) (8-ounces)....which pretty much coincides with the published data (from both FAO and ERS) that approximately 65% of all calories we consume are from vegetable oil, added sugar and grains (mostly refined).
Replyi think its odd that we've decrease red meat intake however, i am reminded of the cheerios commercial where everyone is "sacrificing" to lower their cholesterol. who'd have thought that .16 extra would make that much difference in the waistline of america
ReplyFor decades, red meat consumption in the US has been falling - parallel to that, poultry consumption has continued to increase and outpace the decline in red meat consumption. We're eating significantly less eggs and butter too.
ReplyCorrection: 16.4 lbs per a week, not 1.64 lbs
ReplyI was trying to figure out how one survived on 1.64 pounds of food. And how it doubled in 40 years. Thanks. I'm dense sometimes.
ReplySorry guys... the cursed period went in the wrong place. Fixed.
ReplyBeef and butter contain preferential fats, compared to chicken.
Idiocracy at its finest.
ReplyAlso, ruminants graze on grasslands, such as where farming is prohibitive (hilly, rocky, mountainous areas).
Chickens are fed grains, which are grown on prime farmland. That land could be used to grow produce instead.
ReplyI'm surprised by the growth in cheese and cream cheese consumption. I guess the jump in fresh spinach has to do with availability, and a 550% change probably means from "almost none" to "a little". The 161% increase in fresh grapes - where are they coming in?
On the meat side, cheap farm-raised shrimp must be what is behind the +140% gain in fresh and frozen shellfish. And, it would be interesting to know how much the 83% drop in veal is due to negative press as compared to just eating less at home...
I wonder what it would take for official government policy to advocate eating less rather than eating differently?
ReplyI made it to California! However we never left the San Fran area (You can read about the trip on my column if you want), so I never got to your wonderful fitness center!
ReplyHey, Dr.J! I'll check it out... I hope you had a good time out west!
ReplyI'm guessing the increase in cheese/cream consumption may have something to do with the fact that a lot more people are watching food programs where the recipes call for artisan/foreign cheeses (Manchego, mascarpone, feta, fresh Mozzarella, etc.) and REAL whipped cream, which of course is WAY better than Cool Whip b/c it doesn't have trans fat.
ReplyWow...the increase in calories, from grains is pretty astounding!
In 1970, consuming 1.8-pounds of grains, this worked out to about 2920-calories a week, or 417-calories per day from grains.
By increasing consumption by 0.8-pounds of grain, we're now eating, on average, 2.6-pounds of grains each week - and that works out to an additional 1300-calories a week, for a total of 4220-calories a week from grains, or about 603-calories per day.
An increase in calorie intake, from grains, of 186-calories per day.
Added sugars are as bad....in the past, 1.6-pounds a week worked out to 2810-calories a week, or 401-calories per day (of basically empty calories)....now, with the increase of 0.3-pound, that works out to 3336-calories a week from added sugars, or 476-calories per day!
Grains and added sugars combined account of more than 1000-calories per day....and both exert significant influence on insulin!
ReplyDon't forget that we're also eating about 1 more pound of refined/person/year each year.
At the beginning of the 20th century the average consumption of refined sugar was only 5 lbs/person/year.
Just 100 years later, we've passed the 150 lbs/person/year mark!
No wonder we're so fat and diabetic!
ReplyThanks a lot
ReplyWell I guess the NY Times was bored or just had nothing better to say, because there's really no new information here.
We all know that Americans are fatter now than they were in the 1970's ,and I can't count how many times people have reflected on the myriad of differences between the two era's trying to come up with there own fix (or just trying to feel high and mighty compared to the fat masses), but we have to realize the very simple answer if you eat more than you can expend you'll gain weight.
I think this article falls under the fat stupid Americans assumption that the NY Times caters too.
Replybut we have to realize the very simple answer if you eat more than you can expend you'll gain weight.
To some extent that's true....but perhaps rather than just the simple "eat less" we need to address and communicate what it is in our dietary habits that drive us to consume more - it's not simply gluttony! - and until the powers that be begin to acknowledge the role of physiology [homrones & metabolism] over psychology [behavior & willpower] little is going to change because until you change the metabolic environment driving the hunger and eating, no amount of willpower will overcome the physiological forces driving consumption!
ReplyThe other message that needs to be sent is to exercise more. A president like our current one, who makes physical fitness a priority, could have used the bully pulpit to make this point. Sigh.
Reply"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
One and three, possibly. Two, not going to happen :-(
ReplyThe ideal role of plant foods is to be fed to animals so that they will properly absorb the nutrients and pass them on to us. I'm very careful with how much plant food I eat and in what way I prepare them to avoid their anti-nutritious effects.
ReplyIt is interesting to see the trends in American eating habits. Although there is not too much earth shattering information here, I think it can still be helpful in changing the generally poor eating of the country.
ReplyI'd love the see how the food consumption has changed in the rest of the world to compare trends. And of course the change in avarage weight as well. Does anyone know any articles, posts etc. talking about these ?
ReplyLast week the UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation released a report saying that Europeans increased their caloric consumption by 20% during the 40 years up to 2002. The Greeks increased by 30%, apparently one reason they are the fattest Europeans - 75% of adults in Greek are overweight or obese.
It's safe to assume they are burning fewer calories, thanks to technological advances.
-Steve
ReplyThese results are hardly surprising, but I think they needed to be published.
ReplyIts frankly shameful the amount of added sugars in the average diet. They do not need to be their and are making the world sicker!
Getting an entire country to eat better is a near imposable task. I believe it is possible, but that it will get worse before it gets better.
Wow. I work in a deli and I now know how much 16 lbs of food is. There are two people (a couple) who will come to the deli and order two pounds of potatoes (two 16oz containers), three pounds of chicken (two 6x10x8? boxes), and a pound of macoroni salad (another 16 oz. container) every few days and split it between themselves. And that's just one dinner. 3pounds for one meal.
ReplyJust wanted to mention that the fat consumption statistic they cite in the NYT piece is incorrect. Only "added fat" consumption has increased, not total fat. Total fat has remained the same, according to NHANES surveys. Of course they don't mention that in the article. I discussed this a few days ago on my blog.
ReplyI appreciate the ideas presented here, and the facts are rather sobering. But, in my extensive, professional experience, it is not so easy to point the blame on the individuals solely. As a bariatric surgeon and strong patient advocate-- I have a lot of perspective in this world.
The first reality-- "genetics loads the gun and environment pulls the trigger!" Simply put, we do not have an obesity epidemic just because people are eating out of hand. This is especially true in those who suffer from morbid and severe obesity. It is too simple to say that we "pack away too much food and have gotten so overweight." It is not so simple.
Second, the entire medical and business environment has virutualy entirely abandoned all reason and care in trying to address this problem. Most doctors did not learn how to manage weight issues in their training-- and their recommendations and lack of effectiveness show this! And, the business environment-- constantly shoving new fad upon fad down our throats has not had any impact on this problem what-so-ever! In fat the provblem has gotten worse-- maybe they are to blame?
What is needed is reason and perspective. Diets do not work. There is no magic pill. And, all steps taken to address this issue need to be safe, humane, effective, and feasible. This seems simple also-- but it is a lot to ask of any technology or lifestyle/dietary change. I spend a lot of time on this problem and would love to engage you in an active discussion.
Thanks for letting me add my 2 cents here. And, I look forward to a greater dialogue.
We did NOT "screw-up" as mankind and are merely "left in a sad state of obesity." Rather-- we now know where we are coming from and what is needed to move forward. The real question is "How can we teach peole what to do to suceed?" Everyone wants to!
Be well, Michael A. Snyder, MD, FACS, PC
Reply