<p>As to why current survey participants may be more likely to underreport consumption as compared to 1988 respondents:</p>
<p>Perhaps people engage in more mindless eating when they are sedentary than when they are active, and perhaps people are less likely to recall the extent of mindless eating/snacking when responding to surveys. My theory is that people are more likely to recall consumption at meals accurately, and that perhaps there’s been an increase in snacking that corresponds to the increase in sedentary activities. </p>
<p>I also agree with the comments about the increase in portion size. Even dishes (plates, bowls, glasses and cups) tend to be bigger now than they used to be.</p>
<p>I think the portion size is a biggie. Remember when coke was dispensed in 10 oz bottles? I do. On the rare occasions I order ice cream I get the baby size cone and throw half of it away.</p>
<p>All that said, the study holds true for me. I’ve never overeaten by much, my diet is pretty reasonable, but I never lose weight unless I step up my exercise. That was true when I was in my 20s and it’s still true.</p>
<p>Sorry for multitude of typos in my previous post! Arrrgh. </p>
<p>I have not read the paper, but if the study subjects were writing down the number of servings (e.g., a bag or potato chips) and not the exact number of ounces (or pices of M&Ms) they ate, this could explain why calorie estimation became less accurate. I have to dig up the paper to see if the authors adjusted for “supersizing” (which, I think, really took off sometimes after mid-90s). </p>
<p>I find this sort of headline humorous. Rather like “Scientific research shows men and women are actually different.”</p>
<p>I think anyone who thinks about it at all realizes that exercise and diet play a role in obesity. No need for a whole lot of research to state the obvious. Do what works for you and enjoy your life either way.</p>
<p>People should read before posting. This isn’t “a survey”; it’s a study that happen to be labeled a survey. The data comes from “the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a long-term project of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that collects information from surveys and from physical examinations to assess Americans’ health. The researchers considered survey results from 17,430 participants from 1988 through 1994 and from approximately 5,000 participants each year from 1995 through 2010.” There is no better data available that I’m aware of. </p>
<p>And the main finding isn’t some reported calorie intake figure but the huge increase in the percentages of men and women who are essentially inactive. </p>
<p>Yes, Lergnom, it is the result of another beating of the same horse. From the OP:</p>
<p>“Examining national health survey results from 1988 through 2010, the researchers found huge increases in both obesity and inactivity, but not in the overall number of calories consumed.”</p>
<p>So apparently there were some numbers assigned to the calories consumed. We are not disputing the finding that physical activity decreased and obesity increased, we are questioning the methodology that led to the conclusion that the caloric intake did not change.</p>
<p>Questioning the methodology? Sorry, but no. You could copy and paste “National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey” into Google and find the first hit leads you to the CDC site for the work. Then you could, for example, check the “data and documents” page. It’s a big link in the middle of the page. There you might find things like this: </p>
<p>“The NNYFS consisted of a home interview and a physical fitness examination in a Mobile Examination Center (MEC). For most of the questionnaires, an adult family member, aged 18 years or older, was interviewed as a proxy for the survey participant. The only exception during the home interview was for the Physical Activity and Physical Fitness (PAQ) questionnaire in which respondents’ ages 12-15 years answered the questions themselves. At the MEC, participants’ ages 12-15 years answered for themselves questions on drug use, alcohol use and smoking and tobacco use. For the dietary interview, children ages 3-5 years were interviewed by proxy, children ages 6-11 years were proxy-assisted and youth ages 12+ responded for themselves. Please see Survey Contents page for a list of questionnaires and examinations conducted during the NNYFS.” </p>
<p>That took less than a minute. There’s a wealth of information on the site about how the work is done, how it has been done in the past and what has been reported. Talking in vague generalities about “surveys” and how people mis-estimate their calorie intake is not questioning methodology. It’s more like talking at the water cooler. </p>
<p>I admit I’m different: I research stuff. I track down sources and sometimes I’m obsessive about it. </p>
<p>Here’s another example: I looked at the list and the 3rd hit is the wikipedia entry. Hadn’t occurred to me there would be a wiki entry but there is. It isn’t long but it shows how important this work is considered in the public health field: “Findings from the survey are used to determine the prevalence of major diseases and risk factors for diseases. Information is used to assess nutritional status and its association with health promotion and disease prevention. NHANES findings are also the basis for national standards for such measurements as height, weight, and blood pressure. Data from this survey are used in epidemiological studies and health sciences research, which help develop sound public health policy, direct and design health programs and services, and expand health knowledge. For example, one of the more high-profile studies to use NHANES data was one published in PLoS One in 2014 regarding the association between slow reaction time and risk of premature death. The study concluded that there was a positive association between the two.” I wouldn’t rely on wikipedia for much but this entry makes the point that this isn’t just a “survey”.</p>
<p>IMO, unless you objectively measure what people eat and calculate the calories, this report has significant issues with its methodology. Even the conclusions have to be speculative. I see this as an interesting report. I would use it to add activities that take me out of the house (away from food). But would maintain my current diet as my primary method of controlling my weight.</p>
<p>For me, the most pertinent fact about the survey methodology is that participants were NOT asked to keep contemporaneous food diaries. Rather, they were asked to RECALL what they ate in the last 24-hours in face to face oral interviews. My theory is that this MIGHT lead to underreporting of “mindlessly” consumed calories during sedentary activities.</p>
<p>I had an experience many years ago which drove home the potential psychological distortion of mindless eating. I was at a 3-star michelin restaurant in the Italian countryside, and the couple at the next table happened to be American. We all ordered the tasting menu and began chatting. Through course after course, the woman at the next table regaled us with all the 3 star restaurants she had been to and how she considered each a pilgrimage etc. and how fabulous this restaurant was etc etc etc. My (then) husband then commented that he didnt think the woodcock we had all just eaten was that great. (Think bird halfway between a squab and a cornish game hen). The women then said that she hadnt been served the woodcock!!! We had just watched her polish off an entire course right before our eyes but she hadn’t even noticed it!!! She was too busy bragging about all the other restaurants she had been to to even notice what she was eating! She continued to swear up and down that she hadnt been served that course no matter how much we all insisted that we had WATCHED her eat the bird!!! She was distracted enough by her own chatter that she literally had not noticed it!</p>
<p>I hypothesize this may be part of what is happening with the survey. People might be eating while engaging in sedentary activities and then COMPLETELY FORGETTING that they have done so. When meals are at a table and people are focused on what they are eating, I think that folks are less likely to forget what they ate.</p>
<p>Lergnom, not sure what your point is but I for one looked up the survey methodology before making my initial comment. You are not the only one with Google!</p>
<p>NHANES has actually been studied to see if the reported caloric intake is even plausible given the actual measured BMI of the surveyed participants. The caloric intake was not physiologically plausible – by a lot:</p>
<p>For obese men and women the reported caloric intake was not physiologically plausible by a whopping 700 to 800 calories a day. With errors of those magnitudes in food consumption self-reporting, it’s not even worth try to analyze the results of a study based on the data. It’s like trying to come up with a hypothesis on how the moon was created out of green cheese. It wasn’t created out of green cheese and the people reported in NHANES didn’t eat what they said they ate.</p>
<p>The data is flawed, Everyone knows it. They continue to beat the dead horse because it’s all they’ve got. Nutrition research based on any population self-reporting is highly suspect. Almost all the nutritional studies you see in the media are based on flawed population studies.</p>
<p>Here’s a YouTube lecture that outlines just how difficult it is to accurately measure caloric intake and energy expediture from exercise – by having the person live in a sealed air-right metabolic chamber. This is only done in extremely small scale, very expensive studies.</p>
<p>I agree with the mindless eating while sitting in front of a screen. IDK that portion sizes have gone up so much since 1988. Maybe. When did HFCS get cheaper? Then or before? When did we get free refills of soda? The cheapness of fattening food is tempting. Why order the dollar ICEE when you can get a super sized for pennies more.</p>
<p>I worked with a guy who could polish of a plate of pastries in the morning and not even notice. It was amazing. </p>
<p>People do study after study after study. They all say the same thing - eat less, exercise more. Easy to say, hard to do. </p>
<p>IMO, there are so many contributing factors to the obesity crisis. I think the biggest challenge and best solution is to prevent childhood obesity. If a child gets to age 18 with a healthy weight, they are less likely to be obese in later life. People need to monitor their kids’ diets and encourage them to go outside and run around. I also realize that childhood obesity is a socio-economic problem. It is much cheaper to feed kids junk and, in some neighborhoods it’s not safe to play outside and few organized sports opportunities. Such a big problem, no simple cure. </p>
<p>What is kind of interesting is that so many Americans are getting bigger at the same time that food packaging is getting smaller. Ice cream isn’t packaged in half gallon anymore but in smaller containers, a lb. of hot dogs is 14 oz., lb. bags of candy are now 12 oz., candy bars are smaller, etc. The new lb. in the food packaging industry seems to be about 14 ounces today, yet so many Americans are still overweight.</p>
<p>"Consider, for example, if you had today’s portions of the following meals:</p>
<p>Breakfast: a bagel (6 inches in diameter) and a 16-ounce coffee with sugar and milk.
Lunch: two pieces of pepperoni pizza and a 20-ounce soda.
Dinner: a chicken Caesar salad and a 20-ounce soda.</p>
<p>In one day, you would consume 1,595 more calories than if you had the same foods at typical portions served 20 years ago. Over the course of one year, if consumed daily, the larger portions could amount to more than 500,000 extra calories."</p>
<p>Or drink only water. No adult who eats a variety of foods ever <em>needs</em> to drink anything but water. Orange juice, sweat tea, lemonade, soda (ugh), milk can all be dispensed with very easily, along with about a 1,000 extra calories per day.</p>