UNC Study: Inactivity, not overeating, blamed for teens' weight gains

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,504
20,109
146
Inactivity, not overeating, blamed for teens' weight gains

By IRA DREYFUSS
The Associated Press


Over two decades, teenagers have been getting fatter because they have been exercising less, not because they have been eating more, a study says.

Researcher Lisa Sutherland of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill analyzed federal data on the diet, weight and physical activity of teens, ages 12 to 19. From 1980 to 2000, calories eaten rose 1 percent and obesity rose 10 percent, while physical activity dropped 13 percent.

Those percentages show that teenagers must have been getting fat primarily because they burned fewer calories. ``If caloric intake is flat and physical activity is declining, there is a cause and effect relationship there,'' Sutherland said.

She presented her findings last month in San Diego at a scientific conference of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. However, although other experts accept the idea that teens have become less active, the experts find it hard to swallow the conclusion that teens have not been overeating as well.

Sutherland looked at three large federal surveys. Data on weight came from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, and data on physical activity was from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, both maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data on caloric intake was from the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey maintained by the Agriculture Department.

The study said that teenagers ate an average of 2,290 calories a day over the 20 years. It also said that while 42 percent of teens reported doing at least 30 minutes of physical activity on a typical day at the start of the study, only 29 percent did at the end.

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from the National Soft Drink Association. But Sutherland said that in keeping with university rules, the association had no control over any aspect of the research.

``I was trained as a nutritionist,'' Sutherland said. ``The data kept coming out that caloric intake was basically flat, but there was a huge drive to look at diet. I said, 'Let's look at physical activity.'''

It's not surprising that teens have become less physically active, Sutherland said. Today's kids have more and better computers and video games, and less school physical education or after-school play, she said.

``I remember wanting to go outside the minute the sun came up, and my parents dragging me to go inside at sunset,'' said Sutherland, who is 35.

She noted that her study was limited because the three surveys had differing methodologies, and the decline in physical activity was based on students' self-reports.

While they accept Sutherland's idea that teenagers are burning too few calories, some outside observers think the report underestimates the damage also done by bad diet.

``I would take exception to that 1 percent (increase in calories),'' said Dr. Reginald Washington, of Denver, who chairs the sports medicine and fitness committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics. ``I think it's much higher than that.''

Fast food calories are a big part of teens' eating patterns, and supersizing is making the portions grow, Washington said.

``We are pretty sure they are eating too much, no matter what the data say,'' said Dr. Nancy Krebs of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver, who chairs the pediatricians' group's committee on nutrition. ``There is quite a consensus that it is due to a combination of factors.''

``Our view is that it is a complex issue,'' said clinical nutritionist JoAnn Hattner of Stanford University, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. ``It may well be their activity is down, and for some it may be a combination of increased caloric intake and decreased activity.''

Accepting the conclusion that food is not a big part of the problem could take pressure off food companies to cut the calories they feed the nation, Hattner said.

``There is enough clamor throughout the country that we are getting corporations to change,'' Hattner said. ``We need to continue that clamor.''

On the Net:

Youth Risk Behavior Survey: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/yrbs/2001/youth01online.htm

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm

Nationwide Food Consumption Survey: http://www.barc.usda.gov/bhnrc/foodsurvey/home.htm

05/09/03 18:38 EDT
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
Something I've been saying all along. And it's just not for teens, I think it's for pretty much all age groups.

Exercise anymore is conisidered walking out to get the mail.
 

TheNinja

Lifer
Jan 22, 2003
12,207
1
0
Well I've always thought people got fatter because calories in > calories out. I hope that never changes or my theory is screwed.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,504
20,109
146
What is most curious are the denials by the "big bad evil corporations made us fat!" crowd.

"We are pretty sure they are eating too much, no matter what the data say.."

and:

"Accepting the conclusion that food is not a big part of the problem could take pressure off food companies to cut the calories they feed the nation, Hattner said.

``There is enough clamor throughout the country that we are getting corporations to change,'' Hattner said. ``We need to continue that clamor.''

Um, riiiight.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Staley8
Well I've always thought people got fatter because calories in > calories out. I hope that never changes or my theory is screwed.

Well...with less activity, it takes fewer calories in to overcome calories out.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,504
20,109
146
Originally posted by: Staley8
Well I've always thought people got fatter because calories in > calories out. I hope that never changes or my theory is screwed.

The human body was built to do hard physical work for it's food. We replaced that with moderate physical activity for pleasure and got away with it. THEN we replaced all physical activity with sitting on our asses watching cable TV, surfing the net, and playing video games... and the explosion in obesity followed.
 

Spac3d

Banned
Jul 3, 2001
6,651
1
0
Originally posted by: Amused
The study said that teenagers ate an average of 2,290 calories a day over the 20 years. It also said that while 42 percent of teens reported doing at least 30 minutes of physical activity on a typical day at the start of the study, only 29 percent did at the end.
:Q

 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
Originally posted by: tweakmm
Still no cure for cancer

Actually, I *think* there is somewhat of a link between obesity and *certain* types of cancer.
 
Jan 31, 2002
40,819
2
0
Originally posted by: Electric Amish
Ummm.... DUH!

Why can't I get money to conduct studies like these... :(

amish

Yeah, honestly.

I think I'll apply for a few hundred thousand grant money to post my stupid polls on ATOT.

- M4H
 

AmigaMan

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
3,644
1
0
I blame video games. So in addition to causing violent behavior, video games can also make you fat. My kids (when I have them) won't have any games at all except a ball, a stick and maybe a tin can. No playstations in my house. Now daddy can play all the games he wants because it's too late for him and the youngins need to do as I say, not as I do. ;)
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
Originally posted by: shady06
i would think both inactivity and poor eating habits would be attributed to weight gain

True. But activity can overcome poor eating habits. Eating well doesn't always guarantee good health if you are metabolically challenged.
 

Electric Amish

Elite Member
Oct 11, 1999
23,578
1
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Staley8
Well I've always thought people got fatter because calories in > calories out. I hope that never changes or my theory is screwed.

The human body was built to do hard physical work for it's food. We replaced that with moderate physical activity for pleasure and got away with it. THEN we replaced all physical activity with sitting on our asses watching cable TV, surfing the net, and playing video games... and the explosion in obesity followed.

There's a recap for those of you that missed the last few millions of years of evolution. :)

amish
 

tweakmm

Lifer
May 28, 2001
18,436
4
0
Originally posted by: vi_edit
True. But activity can overcome poor eating habits. Eating well doesn't always guarantee good health if you are metabolically challenged.
20 bucks that this is the next PC term for fat people :D
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,504
20,109
146
Originally posted by: Electric Amish
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Staley8
Well I've always thought people got fatter because calories in > calories out. I hope that never changes or my theory is screwed.

The human body was built to do hard physical work for it's food. We replaced that with moderate physical activity for pleasure and got away with it. THEN we replaced all physical activity with sitting on our asses watching cable TV, surfing the net, and playing video games... and the explosion in obesity followed.

There's a recap for those of you that missed the last few millions of years of evolution. :)

amish

:D
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
Inactivity, not overeating, blamed for teens' weight gains

FANTASTIC! the Trial Lawyers of America will now mobilize to
sue television and internet providers for "making" teens inactive and
gain weight. Of course they're not gonna let MacDonalds off the hook yet...(working on a "fat" settlement no doubt).

Hey, lets get Sen. Edwards (Dem. Pres. aspirant, former personal injury lawyer) elected President..I'm sure he's
gonna make everything better
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,949
575
126
As someone mentioned, its all about the calories in/calories out equation. While I agree that our society in general is not burning as many calories because our physical activity has decreased, you cannot overlook how our diets have changed and become more gluttoned, either.

Proportions are unprecedented, so to are cumulative daily caloric instakes. Intake of animal protein from meat is unprecedented in modern times. Very few cultures except perhaps fishing societies (Trinidad at one end of the climate spectrum, Inuit on the other) subsisted to such an extent on meat, and fish is a heck of a lot better for you than beef. Meat, particularly beef, was more of an infrequent treat for most cultures. Your livestock was for producing milk, or eggs, or lard, or to sell, not for eating (unless they were going to be replaced).

You can affect the caloric equation on either side. If you're going to eat more, then you have to also get more physical activity. If you don't want to get more physical activity, then you're going to have to eat less (eat less meaning consume fewer calories).

Man is naturally disposed to laziness and gluttony when we can afford to be. Modern and affluent culture has its vices and downsides. Very few people wake up every morning and have to think about where breakfast, lunch, or dinner is going to come from and how fast it runs.