Sloth over gluttony?

Published 8.29.2016
Obesity is an energy balance problem occurring when energy intake exceeds energy expenditure. This is a fact, one that I have written about a number of times previously. The relationship is not linear— which is actually what people mean when the say that calorie in vs calories out (CICO) doesn't work. "Calories out" includes much more than simple bodily movements, but again, I've gone over this territory previously. "Calories in" is a simpler concept, basically everything you put into your mouth is considered energy intake.

Intake is easier to control than expenditure, and generally people accept that over time calorie consumption has increased. The most common estimate is that average consumption now is roughly 400 calories a day greater than in the 1970s. If true, there's your obesity epidemic right there. However, not everyone accepts the thesis that people are eating more and that's why as a population are fatter.

The thesis presented here is that our sedentary lifestyle more than our gluttony drives the obesity epidemic. Modern life is infinitely more convenient. In 2016, I can stand (or pedal) in front of a computer screen for the day and attempt to earn a living wage while my clothes are washed and then dried by machines. Before washers and dryers, laundry was a laborious, all day affair. I may not like doing laundry, but at least most of the process is automated.

Another example is the food supply. I don't have to plant and harvest my own food, I can go to the nearby farm stand or grocer. Cooking is made much easier with all the gadgets available today for home cooks. And of course, if you don't like cooking there are processed foods that can be simply heated up. they might not be the tastiest or healthiest option, but they are sustenance. Here's another example of how much easier it is to obtain calories now.

The problem with the "its all the modern conveniences" argument to explain obesity is that throughout the entire 20th century, new technology to make life easier was constantly being invented. Particularly in the 1950s the number of mass produced household gadgets, such as wash machines, became available to large numbers of people. I know how difficult laundry was to do by hand because my grandmother had a wash board that she used to clean the clothes of her seven children prior to owning a wash machine. I can say with certainty that my grandmother never looked fondly back at the era of cleaning. Here's the problem: obesity (at the population level) didn't increase with the additions of these technologies.

Other possible contributing factors noted are smoking cessation, and increased use of anti-depressants. Back before the dangers of smoking was commonly understood, people would smoke to blunt their appetite. Certainly that was a factor in my mother's beginning to smoke. Weight gain related to drug side effects is often cited in the fatosphere, but I have no personal experience with this.

This is the research being highlighted. It claims that food intake fell after 2008, because prices rose as incomes fell, and people couldn’t afford to buy as much. If I recall correctly, in that same time frame suddenly there were reports that the rate of obesity in the population was beginning to plateau. In November of 2015, the study's author, Rachel Griffith gave an interview.

Griffith claims that processed foods are more expensive, so though people are spending more they are actually getting fewer calories. Literally, she is claiming that people are eating less, but gaining weight. I don’t accept that as a fact at all. At least she accepts the energy balance as a reality. Both sides of the balance matter.

It's not just how we work that’s become more sedentary, the way we live in general has. “People are eating more than they’re burning.” Well, yes, otherwise obesity wouldn't be increasing. But It's folly to separate the two. I do agree with her point that trying to manipulate food intake (with taxes etc) is easier than getting people to move more. That's why there's noise about sugar and soda taxes in various places.

Griffith notes that as society changed people did eat a bit less when their jobs got less strenuous, but they didn’t cut enough. I’d say that people don’t change their habits until they notice the weight coming on— and then are faced with the sad reality that it’s a lot easier to gain than to lose. You do have to train your body to do with less food if you've become used to overeating. That can be accomplished either by eating the same volume of food, but of foods with lower calorie density or by simply eating the same stuff in smaller portions. Her final conclusion, that you have to consider both sides of the energy balance is what I've been saying for years.

This is another researcher that shows that an hour at the gym each day doesn't offset sitting on your butt all day. What she's actually talking about is the decrease in NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) is really what she’s talking about without using the term. As I've noted previously, NEAT is not genetic. NEAT is moving around to live and work in your life.

Agreeing— yet annoyed

She's really echoing the points I've been making for a while about moving, but I still found the attempt to downplay the role of eating more to be annoying. I don't think that it is true that people are eating less. Nor do I think that a switch to processed foods results in fewer calories being ingested. Her points about modern life involving less effort in many ways is not in dispute.

If her work would get people to take the impact of NEAT more seriously that would be positive as well. NEAT is not simply a matter of fidgeting, it's a matter of moving through the day. It used to be the default that most humans spent most of the day on their feet moving around doing things. We can return to that situation, and still have the conveniences of modern life. Stand UP. Replace the standard office desk and chair with a standing desk and stool. When needed the stool can be sat upon, but the default position becomes standing. And once standing, moving and/or walking around increases. At least that's how it worked out for me.

If you scroll through the links on the archive page, it's clear that I used to advocate strongly in favor of treadmills desks, I don't do that any longer (though I remain a fan) because I don't see treadmill desks as being a solution that will work across a broad range of offices. Bike desks are also not likely to ever become a standard in the office.

Standing desks with stools, on the other hand, can work in almost every work environment. Most jobs that can be done sitting, can also be done standing. I used to say standing desk and leave it at that, but have decided having a way to sit for a brief period would make the arrangement more amenable to workers.

Of course, there are other ways to increase NEAT, walking rather than driving someplace, climbing the stairs rather than taking an elevator. As positive as those options are, they don't change the fact that most people will still be on their butts for most of the day. The issue is getting up off your duff and moving around a bit. Standing while working also doesn't feel like anything that would require a "reward."

Many times, people negate whatever benefit they may had just earned in the gym by eating a protein bar of several hundred calories. Or replace protein bar with fruit smoothie or whatever other food. The need is to increase movement without increasing intake. Simply standing rather than sitting doesn't feel like much extra effort, which suggests that for most people standing would simply replace sitting.

Bottom line: it's not sloth over gluttony. Neither side of the energy balance can be ignored.

Disclaimer




Related writings:

• Even with low carb, adherence and calories are the key.
• What CICO is not
• In the end… it's the energy balance
• Misunderstanding the Energy Balance
• Making weight loss more difficult than it needs to be
• Eat better, move moderately, and live better for longer.
• In the end, there is the energy balance

Search this site: