Comment by 462436347
1 year ago
Alternate title: the graph that broke HN's brain. You'll notice that 1) sugar consumption peaked around Y2K and declined after 2) the decline was driven by a decline in consumption of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (the most vilified sugar) specifically, and 3) the average American now consumes about as much added sugar as the average American did in 1970--yet their waistlines are not remotely comparable.
Technically the graph is of per capita added sugar availability and isn't adjusted for loss (due to spoilage, plate waste, etc.), but it meshes with NHANES survey data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9434277/
>In conclusion, over the 18 year time span, from 2001 to 2018, added sugars intake declined significantly among younger adults (19–50 years) in the U.S., regardless of race and ethnicity (i.e., similar for Black and White individuals), income level, physical activity level or body weight status, and declines were mainly due to reductions in added sugars intake from sweetened beverages (primarily soft drinks and fruit drinks). These trends coincide with the evolving emphasis in the DGA on reducing added sugars intake and the increasing focus on population-level interventions aimed at reducing intakes.
> Alternate title: the graph that broke HN's brain.
It breaks my brain, but on the "Holy hell, that's a TON of extra calories for the entire population to be consuming."
That graph shows almost 30 pounds of sugar consumption differential between 1970 and 2000. That's roughly 15 pounds of bodyweight per year every year in calories. That's a HUGE amount of body fat packed on that has to be explicitly removed.
In addition, even in 2020, there's a difference of somewhere between 5 to 10 pounds of sugar consumption relative to 1970 which is roughly 2.5-5 lbs of extra body fat every year. That's 4-8% more calories consumed by the population every year. That's a LOT.
If there is no corresponding decrease in caloric consumption in some other category (remember: there was a big anti-fat push which switched everything to turbo amounts of sugar) then it's no wonder there is an obesity problem in the US.
Side note: my favorite anecdata on this is iced tea in Austin, TX. In the early 1990s, the default iced tea serving was a 32oz glass of unsweetend iced tea. When I came back in the late 2010s, the default is now a 16oz glass of sweet tea which is actually a hyper dose of sugar. Think of the gigantic amount of extra calories that people eating out are now consuming.
> That's roughly 15 pounds of bodyweight per year
It's an extra 4,300 calories per month. Or 145 calories per day. Or about 35 minutes worth of light walking.
It's calories. It's always been calories https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-caloric-...
Every time there is some discussion about weight here, somebody will come with the whole "there is no good or bad food, calories in/out is the only thing that matters" argument. And while technically correct it's also overly symplistic. The whole point about "bad" (processed) foods is that they make it very easy to take in a lot of calories without feeling sated.
Take an apple or orange juice for example. To eat the equivalent amount of fructose (or calories) that is contained in an orange juice, you will need to eat a lot of fruit, and like feel full before finishing, while the equivalent juice doesn't even register.
Anyone who says only calories matter should try tracking their calories, then eating processed food one day, unprocessed the next. If you stick to the same total calories, you’ll be very hungry the first day.
10 replies →
It's more like cars. Different engines have different efficiencies. So filling up a few gallons at the pump will get you less pollution per mile on car A than in car B.
But regardless of the efficiency, if you overfill the tank and the fuel starts to spill on the pavement, that is not going into the milage but straight into the pollution bracket.
The idea that intake is irrelevant is just as ridiculous as the idea that everyone's metabolism is an exact clone.
I stopped drinking fruit juice when, randomly, one day I stopped and thought about how many oranges it takes to make an 8oz. glass of orange juice (and no one drinks 8oz. at a time, it's usually more like 12 or more). And though, "There's no WAY I would ever eat that many oranges in one sitting."
It's not how many calories you put in your mouth and swallow though. It's how many calories get taken in through your digestion system. Gut microbiome likely has an effect on that as well as a few other things.
If I overeat for one meal, then I won't have much appetite for the next. How satiated I feel immediately after eating doesn't matter much, it averages out over time.
2 replies →
Fascinating. Japan's caloric intake per capita has declined since the peak in the early 90s. No wonder everybody here is so lean. I'm always shocked when I step off the plane in Germany or the US at how fat everybody is.
Fat taxes. [1] The Western world is/was adopting a fat acceptance mindset, at the same time Japan decided to start fining businesses and governmental regions for having overweight workers/residents.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax#Japan
12 replies →
> Japan's caloric intake per capita has declined since the peak in the early 90s.
Couldn't possibly have anything to do with its aging population (median age closing in on age 50). Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37878558
2 replies →
That data is calorie supply, not consumption. It could be true that Japanese consume just as much as ever, but waste slightly less food than they used to.
1 reply →
The point is the added calories aren't coming from sugar, contrary to what everyone here thinks. And even if sugar did somehow magically make you fat regardless of calories, sugar consumption has actually gone down, yet the obesity and diabetes epidemics have only gotten worse.
But, body weight increase is going to correspond to the "area under the graph" (the integral) and NOT the current level (the instantaneous value).
Yes, it's nice that we're getting sugar consumption back down to 1970 levels so we don't keep adding more obese people to the cohort, but that doesn't help everybody who gained weight prior to 2020.
From 1995 to 2005, people ate roughly an extra 10 pounds relative to 1970 of bodyweight in sugar every single year. That's an extra 100 pounds in bodyweight over 10 years if you don't adjust something else. That's huge. Literally.
5 replies →
Per the data, caloric supply dropped after/during the great recession (2007-2008) to the levels of about 10-20 years prior. Did obesity drop during this period, too?
Edit: It doesn’t appear to have had much effect per the data on the same website [1]. I suppose there are a number of reasons why it might not have had an effect on the top level numbers, though.
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults-defined-a...
1. It dropped to like ‘97 level which was already too high
2. Pretty sure calorie intake is not uniformly distributed so if avg dropped bc some folks went from 5000kcal to 4000kcal a day it’s not going to reduce overall obesity rate
Calories absorbed vs calories expended is physics, but it doesn't explain why people are storing more calories over time.
The idea that all calories are the same is not even held by people who say "everything is just about calories". Ask them what you need to build muscle and they will say protein. Suddenly not all calories are the same.
Fructose is does not stop hunger as much and is more easily stored as fat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8G8tLsl_A4
> and is more easily stored as fat
Dietary fat is even more easily stored as fat, since it doesn't require the added step of de novo lipogenesis (DNL) like carbohydrate does, or the added steps of gluconeogenesis + DNL as protein does. And go look up recent photos of Lustig: he's fat (bordering on obese) himself.
3 replies →
Calories are equivalent to joules. Diesel fuel has lots of calories, but you probably won't get fat drinking it. (The human body can't process diesel fuel.)
Alcohol is also very caloric, and the human body can process small amounts of it. But replacing cola with alcohol won't have the expected effect either.
What is the expected effect here? Are you saying you can’t gain extra weight by consuming alcohol? Well that is simply not true - you just haven’t applied yourself enough
1 reply →
It’s also smoking
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-total-daily-smo...
Note that some artificial sweeteners produce an insulin response like sugar - which leads to calories converted to fat.
Also, I wonder about fiber and other carbohydrates. Fiber moderates carbohydrates of all types and prevents glucose spikes (and crashes). and other processed carbs/starches can be very similar to simple sugars - breads, pasta, rice, potatoes, cereals, etc.
Did a ctrl+f on this page to see if anyone had mentioned fiber. Absence of fiber is probably the key characteristic of "ultra" processed food. Foods with fiber are lower in calories, take longer to eat, increase satiety, and moderate glucose response. People are looking all over for scapegoats ("plastics!"), but fiber barely gets any attention.
Which artificial sweeteners?
I believe sucralose
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8880058/
lots to sort through though:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014832/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7547772/
It's one of those truisms that has shotty science behind it.
3 replies →
Is this trend vastly affected by the rise of artificial sweeteners like aspartame?
If it is, then I believe new sugar alternatives are in order since FDA released a warning against aspartame.
> the average American now consumes about as much added sugar as the average American did in 1970--yet their waistlines are not remotely comparable.
But people don't become obese overnight. People ate much more sugar in 2000-2010, and those people, if not dead now, are still contributing to the obese rate today.
Also this graph shows people are still eating more sugar in 2021 than in 1970. Just not as much as in 2000.
No one says sugar is the only reason causing obesity. But this graph doesn't debunk the correlation between sugar and obsesity either.
Plus in the 70s I can imagine life was far more physical than today.
I sometimes ponder how quickly we are descending into Wall-E. I spend so much of my life in front of a screen, I have to force myself to get a baseline amount of daily physical activity.
Now it is entirely possible to spend the entire workday having barely taken any steps or physical exertion.
So have any research on why the waistlines today are not remotely comparable to 1970?
One possibility: we have been collecting learning to use our feet less throughout life.
"In 1969, 48 percent of children 5 to 14 years of age usually walked or bicycled to school (The National Center for Safe Routes to School, 2011). In 2009, 13 percent of children 5 to 14 years of age usually walked or bicycled to school (National Center, 2011). In 1969, 41 percent of children in grades K–8 lived within one mile of school; 89 percent of these children usually walked or bicycled to school (U.S. Department of Transportation [USDOT], 1972). In 2009, 31 percent of children in grades K–8 lived within one mile of school; 35 percent of these children usually walked or bicycled to school (National Center, 2011)."
[Source](http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/the_decline_of_...)
The amount of calories burnt through exercise is completely negligible. For instance running a mile at a good pace will generally burn around 100 calories, the same as you get from eating about one banana, or about drinking about half a bottle of Coke.
Exercise does have many positive metabolic and other benefits, but not anywhere enough to be a causal explanation on its own. If people started walking 5 miles a day, every day, not only would there still almost certainly be a widespread and growing obesity epidemic, but there's even an argument that it could be worse. Increases in activity tend to drive increases in hunger which will typically surpass caloric deficits if somebody is not actively controlling their diet, in which case they would not be fat in the first place.
This is made even worse by misleading advertising which will do things like showing fit athletes drinking Gatorade, Coke, etc during their training or competition. And somebody goes and does a couple of miles on a training bike and does the same thing - which is going to send their net caloric input skyrocketing.
6 replies →
Yeah, I always get a bit amused when people point to one sole food or environmental issue ("microplastics!" says one comment) to blame for the obesity epidemic, when there are two glaringly obvious pieces of data:
1. As another commenter posted, total calories consumed per capita has gone up considerably since 1970.
2. As you posted, we move a lot less than we used to. There are tons of studies that confirm this across a number of different metrics (e.g. average grip strength has gone down considerably since the 80s, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/13/4815909... ).
We eat a lot more, of more foods that have higher calorie-to-nutrient ratios than we used to, and we move a heck of a lot less.
Yeah I'd believe a stronger sedentary lifestyle is the biggest factor in the waste line stagnation if the diet is not the same. They did not have omnipresent smartphones in 1970.
1 reply →
I wonder how jobs have changed too. I started gaining weight when I switched from a delivery job to a lab job.
It's probably multifactoral. For example, here's a recent provocative paper from a highly respected researcher (John Speakman) arguing metabolic rates have actually slowed since then: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10445668/
But two decades of "fat doesn't make you fat" probably didn't help, and neither did the continued trend of increasing empty calories from cheap vegetable oils, especially soybean oil: https://thedietwars.com/why-are-americans-getting-fatter-a-f...
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/59529/indicators_goa...
>Added fats and oils provide more calories per day for the average American than any other food group
EDIT: I think most Americans would be shocked to discover that their "favorite" food group is added fat/oil.
A massive increase in environmental plastics may also have something to do with it.
"The scientists theorize relationships among the global increase of plastics production, human exposure to microplastics, and the global increase of overweight and obesity in populations." https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/geh/geh_newslett...
The obvious answer is more calories. The obvious answer for why more calories is pretty obvious to non-Americans - your portion sizes are crazy, albeit everyone else in the world is catching up. Even if you buy a "healthy" meal in a quick service restaurant or as a pre-packaged retail product, the smallest portion size is still likely to be grossly excessive.
The obvious answer for why portion sizes are increasing is that food keeps getting cheaper, in particular relative to other costs in the food service industry. The traditional formula for restaurant pricing is 1/3 ingredients, 1/3 labour and 1/3 overheads; if your food costs have decreased over time but your rent and labour costs continue to increase, it's natural to increase portion sizes to maintain the appearance of value-for-money. The same would apply (to a moderately lesser extent) to convenience foods sold at retail. This has a quite drastic anchoring effect - when you normalise excessively large portions, reasonable portions seem meagre.
I think a major factor is that today people eat a lot of food designed by engineers to maximize sales. Designs that makes people overeat probably increases sales so they optimize for that.
So we should expect people to continue to get fatter as we get better at engineering food.
Note that I don't think that engineered food is inherently bad, just that today most food are engineered to be unhealthy because that is better for sales.
There are lots of "common wisdom" answers to this but almost every one spins out pretty quickly. Look at the snack foods readily available in Japan.
4 replies →
Sugar's effect to 1970s waistlines would be determined by preceding decades. Insulin tolerance and other MBS things develop slowly over a person's life.
In spite of sugar, a lot of people went hungry.
You can note that average male height in the US continued increasing up until the late 1980s.
That points to a general caloric deficit up until roughly 1990--which is roughly where we claim the "obesity epidemic" kicks off.
Also, a graph of sugar doesn't include caloric fillers like "soy protein" which now seems to be in everything.
> You can note that average male height in the US continued increasing up until the late 1980s.
Fat is estrogenic, and estrogen accelerates growth plate fusion.
1 reply →
That part is pretty clear. People are eating more calories than they did in 1970. The more difficult question is: why are they doing that?
One simple explanation is protein. Modern diets have terribly low protein levels, and much of that protein comes from sources with extremely poor digestibility [1], meaning the effective protein consumption levels are even worse than they seem.
Protein is a major appetite suppressant. I'd read this but never really realized how true it is until starting on a protein heavy diet. I now eat near 500g of chicken breast a day, and by the end of the day I'm basically having to force feed myself. Yet 500g of chicken breast is less than 800 calories! And the other stuff is just to balance out my diet.
And I love eating as much as anybody else. But you simply cannot eat that much when you're on a protein heavy diet. Finding data on protein consumption rates over time is difficult, but I'd hypothesize we were probably much higher on effective protein consumption in the past. I know absolutely nobody that regularly had something like 'steak and eggs' for breakfast, yet it seems that was indeed a thing at some point.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestible_Indispensable_Amino...
3 replies →
They don't smoke nearly as much as in the 70s though.
Pure sugar may have peaked, but total calorie intake is still much higher than it was in 1970. Pew[1] has it 23% higher, which corresponds reasonably well to the rate at which weights have been increasing[2] over the past few decades (i.e., at about 3-4%/decade). The data is reasonably consistent with weight increasing ~linearly with calorie intake.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/12/13/whats-on-...
[2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/328241/americans-average-weight...
[flagged]