Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Study is worthless

Posted by randalland on 28 Feb 2013 at 22:15 GMT

The focus of this study is so narrow it renders the data useless. Perhaps you should have considered some other things that have changed. A supermarket in 1965 was the size of a Walgreens now. The proliferation of processed and genetically modified foods (fueled heavily by your study's funder) probably has a lot to do with it also. In 1965 the only thing you could get at a McDonalds was a regular hamburger, small fries, and a 10-oz. drink. A movie popcorn was the size of the current movie large drink. Frankly, pushing a vaccum around less is a pretty lame reason for expanding waistlines.

No competing interests declared.

RE: Study is worthless

edwardarcher replied to randalland on 01 Mar 2013 at 01:27 GMT

The focus of our study was how people (men & women) spent their day from 1965 to 2010, and how changes in activity may have impacted their energy expenditure (EE). We examined 91 categories of activity. In other words, we examined the entirety of 24hrs from 55,000+ respondents and reported on those activities that altered EE significantly.

With respect to obesity, physical activity is a main determinant of nutrient partitioning (i.e., what your body does with the food you eat). For example, if you run a marathon the metabolic fate of the next few meals over the next few days is very different than if you watched the marathon on the sofa. Therefore, what you eat is much, much less important than how you spend your day (sedentary or active). Low PA and high sedentary behavior will cause you to be unhealthy and increase your body fat percentage whether or not you increase your weight or eat more healthfully.

To paraphrase the ancient physician Hippocrates, you cannot diet your way to health, you must exercise.

No competing interests declared.