To wonder why we were a thinner nation before we all knew so much about food.

[Bumblebumble123]

Isn't it funny that in years gone by, people didn't have the knowledge about food they have now. Peoples diets weren't dictated by calories or grams of fat or carbs, they were dictated by hunger. Yet now we have an obesity epidemic.

Is educating people on food counter productive? Would we all be better to scrap the info and start listening to our bodies?

I don't know the answer. I just find it odd that we know more than ever about food yet the nations waistline is getting bigger.

More and more current research is showing that low fat is not the way to go. I am really starting to think that a lot of what we "know" about food is actually wrong. When you listen to the near crazy lengths that people go to to try to stay in shape it's hard not to think that the nutritional advice we have gotten over the past 30 or so years has only made our health issues worse.

I also wonder about the advertising campaigns.
The breakfast being most important meal of the day was supposedly put out by cearel makers.

Milk pushed as a healthy drink / food - really it's a high calorie meal it might have lots of nutrients but it's easy to rake up calories with it. But parents see it as healthy so dont limit it.

I think it's a huge element of we moved more. Even in the 70's everything was effort.

It's tempting to think that - but reliable research shows it's not true - it shows we are as active as our past counterparts, certainly as young children. Surprisingly, young children can be very active, every much as active as 50's children, even if they're not as outdoors as much as in the olden days.

What happens, is when children start to increase weight, from a densely caloried diet, and then shirk exercise. Which is very bad, obviously.

But I also wonder about the artificial stuff in processed food. The never ending quest for cheap low cost food. I'm also sure companies are deliberately mixing fats and sugar to make things more-ish.

Certainly true - processed food and sugars being added to processed foods and sold as 'low fat' is a thing - low fat mean it;s got sugars in it to make the flavour. If that sugar is the old corn sugar - bad news.

"the men that made us fat" and the "men that made us thin" - both bbc progs, used to be available on YT, hopefully still are, are very informative on this.

But you know - even the knowledge of that ^ that I've just posted doesn't stop people buying calorific, lovely food. It tastes nice, it make us and our children fat, but it tastes so nice - so we buy it.

It's a combination of things. Nutrition has become politicised to he point that we are still basing guidelines on out of date information and faulty studies from the 70s this has demonised fat and changed the landscape of food as companys compete to give us 'healthy food' that is far free but packed full of sugar which for many people is far worse for you and has long term metabolic consequences. The sugar increase has been linked to all kinds of modern ailments including dementia and diabetes.

Couple thus with a consumer culture where we feel like snacking is a human right abd the amount of food in a portion has increased do much (look at plate abd wine glass sizes from a hundred years ago. The size of a side plate and sherry glass)

Also calories aren't real. At best they are a massive over simplification. Our bodies respond to different types of food in different ways depending on context, timing, hormones and personal biology. We know this from studies like one that simply changes the timing of meals. Two different eating schedules. Same calories. One group looses weight. So a calorie is not just a calorie. We are not a simple mathematical formula and all the doctors and media telling us we are does not make it true!!

I find this stuff fascinating. Our brains are hardwired to crave energy dense food and sweet tasting food. Long ago this was advantageous as we needed to eat the most calorie rich food when we came across it as we never knew when our next decent meal might be,

Fast forward to today. Our brains still have this primitive hardwiring but the modern world has an endless supply of food. Our brains still crave energy rich food even though there’s no danger of starving to death.

Pretty sure I would have been at a physiological advantage at some point in history. I’m short so need less energy and my body likes to hang onto fat stores. Not taking personal responsibility out of the equation. There is no doubt that some people are built with a higher natural weight and a tendency to need less calories. We can still lose weight but it’s harder.

Really?

Maybe because lifestyles are more sedentary now?
Maybe because there’s more fast food?
Maybe because ‘unhealthy’ food is more convinient etc
Food is a lot more accessible now than it was a long time ago and there’s more variety too.
But not because we know more about food.

I grew up in the 80s and I certainly ate between meals. I ate far more as a kid than I do now. But I was never fat.

I am not fat now and I think part of that is I live in the city so rarely use my car. I walk three miles to work and cycle everywhere. I also do all my shopping on foot everyday and carry it home.

I was born in 1953 and when I was in school I can only remember only one over-weight child. As for the adults; we had a Primary school teacher who was a fatty, the lady across the street was over-weight and so a girl's mother I knew and she happened to be the only mother who drove. So you can see being over-weight was very unusual.

Our mum’s walked everywhere or rode their bikes. We all walked to school. We didn’t play indoors unless the weather was really bad. The only take-out food we had was fish and chips. No ready meals. No fast food places. We were too busy to sit about eating all day or even to think about eating. I hated meal times because it meant we had to stop playing. Most of the time we were off playing with our friends, riding our bikes, riding ponies, building forts in the woods, fishing for sticklebacks/tadpoles etc.

Food wasn’t convenient because someone had to of through the trouble of cooking it first.

I was born and raised in England and my American husband tells me it was the same here in the U.S.

More and more current research is showing that low fat isn't the way to go
This isn't actually true. Latest research indicates that there is no significant advantage to following any specific diet when it comes to weight loss
examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/

Another one who only remembers one overweight child at school. However I do remember that all the housewives were overweight in my town. The men were generally slim but the women tended to be chunky.

Food is cheap now. That's the difference.

And in the past processed food was not so widely available.
I grew up in the 60s. Obesity was rare.
If we were hungry outside of mealtimes there was bread, jam or an apple.

I no longer live in the UK but when I come back it is always surprising to me how much food is available at every turn and how cheap it is. Most countries I have lived in don't have huge displays of chocolate bars and crisps in petrol stations, at the newsagents, at the till. It has become the norm to grab one of these and have it as a snack. I live in Italy and, whilst there is plenty to eat at mealtimes, snacks are often harder to come by unless you want the ubiquitous Kinder Bueno! Cakes are also less fattening and more expensive. I think this is no bad thing to be honest as when I come back I eat my bodyweight in chocolate caramel shortbread - if I lived in the UK year round I would be the size of a house!

So much if it is claim and counter claim about latest research.

Whereas the things that actually drive behaviour (loved the post above) are unconnected to that. The drive to eat, and to eat 'conveniently' is leading to highly processed foods which are a problem in themselves. There isn't going to be a regime which lets you eat badly with no bodily effects. The advice - eat less, eat plenty of a good variety of fruit and veg, have whole grains, avoid highly processed and refined foods, and drink less - is remarkably consistent. It seems to me more a case of why people choose (medical reasons aside) to eat in ways that are very different to that. (Note that even in a musing post on MN, it's necessary to caveat that there may be individual exceptions - the cult of the individual is such that talking by default about the majority population just doesn't happen much right now)

I think the rationing generation really learned how to cook, and that it 'set' the idea of how much to eat. Before car ownership was widespread, people walked more, and when it was one car per family, people drive their children around much less (because it was safer - more people on foot and fewer vehicles on the road).

And the key factor was cost. Food was relatively rather more expensive, and booze was significantly more. So people bought, and therefore ate and drank, less of it.

In my 60/70s childhood, I had sweets only on Sundays after lunch (one packet or tube shared with siblings) except at Christmas and a few other special occasions.

Now we have gym memberships because we need to do exercise

And ironically, most people who go the gym probably burn off far fewer calories than people of the 1970s and previously who walked miles, did manual jobs, hung the washing out instead of using the dryer, used a twin tub etc etc.

*A finger of fudge is just enough to give your kids s treat 1970s. There were snacks and we had unlimited access to crisps break time at my school. There were no lunch box police and kids ate Jaffa cakes and buns for lunch.

Again people did drink alcohol and most people had the ‘alpine pops man’ we guzzled gallons of fizzy drink*

I'm also a child of the 70s and this comment isn't typical. Pop, crisps and sweets were in much smaller portions and treats once a week at most for most people, very far from 'daily guzzling' or 'unlimited'.

We only had fizzy pop once a week at most, in reality more like holidays, parties and occasional trip to the pub, and would share a quart bottle (slightly more than a litre) between 6 people - so we got about 200 ml each - I remember if we went out, we got a 250 ml panda pops bottle that wasn't full. People these days think nothing of drinking a whole can or 500 ml bottle to themselves.

1970s diet wasn't necessarily worse. Today's high protein, superfoods is a gold plated gilded version of a healthy diet. People can be equally healthy on simpler, higher carb food. Potatoes, rice etc are not inherently unhealthy. People used to eat a lot less meat as it was much more expensive than today, an example being the much derided Mumsnet chicken, where a chicken can quite reasonably feed a family for more than one meal, but people of today are, quite frankly too rich, spoilt and greedy to consider doing this.

And most people aren't eating in a food pyramid style anyway. The overweight people are not the ones who are eating a higher carb lower fat diet, they're the ones who are eating lots of processed food and sugary drinks and snacks.

More alcohol is drunk these days too, because people can afford it. Most people would go to the pub once or twice a month for a couple of drinks. They wouldn't have wine at home multiple times a week or go out at the weekend for cocktails or multiple pints.

Short version of the above is that people moved a lot more. I don't know if calorie consumption has dropped - the rationing diet was 3000 calories and was fairly high sugar - the sugar ration was over 200 g per person per week, WTF did people do with all that sugar? I would have been swapping mine for eggs.

Many people today will consume fewer than 3000 calories, but some will eat more - if you got a coffee and a pastry on the way to work for breakfast, a premade sandwich, crisps and drink for lunch, and had a pizza for dinner (look how many people boast about being able to eat an entire large Domino's pizza without it touching the sides and scoff at the idea of it feeding the suggested 3-4 people) that would be about 4000 calories.

Wanders on to dispel the smoking keeps you slim myth , 18 stone smoker here .

people so focused on sugar fat things to avoid how to be thinner the atkins the carb no no the protein diets it all made the nation so focused we became unfocused!
we stopped giving kids treats they craved them
we stopped cooking or enjoying food as a delicious thing and made it a meal,a set plan,an effort
we lost hunger or listening to our bodies.
you wanted an apple you wanted a mars you had it.then it would balance it out because your body was always getting what it wanted and needed.you were happier then and so didn't crave,binge or restrict as much,
our parents didn't make us feel food was a meal plan and it was something you sat down for or enjoyed with granny making.
you leanrt family recipes.
you had the best memories of your past all linked with food.
now its body image,body shaming,being thin.mental health.eating disroders.
not letting kids have a snack on way home but veg sticks come on! all the kids our age loved stopping at tuck shop on way home or in break time they came round with our pcikeld onion crisps. chips we had for lunch and pizza and hot dogs.but also fruit and sandhwhces.
we had milk at lunch and drank as a drink
we didn't have so called allergy crap some people "lie" about
celebrity weren't influencing how we felt bout our bodies so much.
healthy food was a balance.
people gave a shit bout you and not just bout your body or food or shame or guilt or good fats bad fats portion control stuff
food was good.
now.everyone so focused in they cant see its just about balance.and food should be nice

Barbaraofseville re the sugar, people used to eat loads of sugar. Many people used to put sugar in tea and coffee, probably 2 teaspoons in every cup. I think my Mum used to buy at least a 2 pound bag of sugar every single week, I never buy sugar now. I can remember when there was a sugar shortage sometime in the 70's and the shops rationed it and people were going from shop to shop to panic buy it.

People have lost sight of what a normal portion is. One Ib of meat used to comfortably feed a family of 4, with leftovers. A pizza was something to be shared. Speaking of which anyone remember when Pizza Express doubled the size of its pizza bases? I used to like eating there, one pizza was plenty. Certainly no on ever ordered two. Now everyone is eating the equivalent of 2 old size ones, and often dessert as well. Last time I ordered steak the smallest available was 10oz. That's over half a pound! That amount of meat should feed at least two. Similarly the pile of chips was enough for 2 or 3 people. All piled on one enormous plate.

My parents have not changed the way they cook or the amount they serve in 50 years. Even to me their portions seem tiny. They are fit, healthy, very active, and slim. It isn't luck or genetics, they just don't over eat.

I have no real evidence to base this on but, I think it's all down to portion size. Yes we have more knowledge, more choice, more money (in a lot of cases) than we used to 'back in the day', however in many cases our eyes are bigger than our bellies (mine certainly included).

An example being supermarket pizzas, the average sort of Pepperoni costing a couple of quid each. I'd guess most people see getting one each as normal as that is what we're used to in Pizza Express etc. I know even as a teen in the 80's that one pizza would have served the three teens in our family, no way would my mum have got us one each!

I'll never forget reading on here once how a family of four (mum, dad, 2 kids aged 12) thought it totally normal to eat a whole box of potato waffles (12), sixteen sausages and two tins (400 grams each) of beans at one meal. This is where the issue lies.

Agreed Maddie, and there was a recent thread about eating a whole tub of icecream in one sitting

frumpety it's not a myth. Smoking is an appetite supressant. A lot of people used to replace meals with a cup of tea or coffee and a couple of fags. Some people used to smoke specifically to keep their weight down.

I think it's the rise of packed foods. Even when people try to be health conscious, sugar is added to so many things - pasta sauce, bread, yoghurt etc. I also think we have been conditioned by food promotions and restaurants into eating much larger portions than we used to.

I don't think education is counter-productive - I just think it's confusing and time consuming for people to read the labels of everything they buy. Companies should be regulated to be more responsible about listing the sugar content of their products in a really obvious way on the packaging.

If you are in a MC area people tend to be slim & heavier in poorer areas.

I think weight has become more polarised. I was born in the 80s & whilst very few kids were fat & obesity was rare people on tv & mums tended to look more “normal” or size 10/12. I seem to come across people who are either very slim/toned or overweight & not much in between.

We had to do PE , in some form, every day at school.Netball, hockey, athletics,rounders,cross country gym or country dancing. No getting out of it unless you were really ill. Schools have sold off playing fields and children can choose sessions such as yoga which don't burn off as many calories. I went swimming at weekend with my mates.
DS lost lots of weight when he joined a football team . The team, and others in our area, had to fold due to a lack of volunteers to run the teams. I think parents are reluctant to volunteer due to being scared of being accused of abuse and because of the abuse they receive from some parents if their child is left out of the team.