Post: #1

As we already know, modern lifestyle in general is making people fatter.

This new study suggests yet another reason for why women are becoming more... rotund. The culprit is a mix having modern technology to aid on housework, and the feminist dream life of being a Career Woman™. The latter in the form of living a lifestyle with very little physical activity, where they sit for the majority of the day, both in the commute and at the office.

Not doing enough housework is 'making women fat', study claims (Link)

Quote:They have saved women hours from domestic drudgery.
But dishwashers, microwaves and other labour-saving devices may have added pounds to their waistline.
Researchers say a drop in the amount of time spent on housework has contributed to the obesity epidemic.
A wide-ranging comparison of British lives today with those of 30 years ago revealed that women are spending more time at work and devoting less time to housework.

The average female now spends almost 20 per cent less time on chores than her counterpart in the early 1980s.
Advances in technology also meant the housework she does do is likely to be lighter than in past.
While this brings many benefits, substituting strenuous housework for sedentary office work may take its toll on the waistline.

For instance, while mopping floors burns off 200 calories an hour – roughly a bar of chocolate – sitting in front of a computer uses up as few as 70 calories.
Men, however, can’t use lack of housework as an excuse for their pot bellies.
The UK’s males are actually doing slightly more around the house in the past, the European Economic Association’s annual conference heard.
Britain has the biggest obesity problem in western Europe, with one in four adults obese - so heavy that their health is at risk.
Obesity rates have more than trebled in the last 30 years and it is feared that more than half the population could be obese by 2050.

The introduction of dishwashers, microwaves and other labour-saving devices may have added pounds to women's waistlines, the study claims
To work out what is driving the change, researchers from Manchester University and Royal Holloway, University of London, used a range of government data to crunch information on calorie counts and exercise levels.
To their surprise, they found that although we eat out more, snack more and spend more on food, we eat around 20 per cent fewer calories than we did 30 years ago.
Researcher Melanie Luhrmann said this is because we are filling our shopping baskets with fruit and vegetables and other healthier foods, rather than jams and other sugar-loaded treats.
Despite this, the weight is piling on, and Dr Luhrmann believes this is because we are exercising less.
Jobs have become more sedentary, people spend more time watching TV and little sport is played.
The study showed the average Britain spends just 11.5 minutes a day playing sport.
Finally, commutes are longer but less active.
So, while 30 years ago, someone may have had a short walk to work, today they may have a much longer journey but spend it sitting on public transport.
Dr Luhrmann, a lecturer in economics, said: ‘Basically, people are eating less but maybe they are not eating little enough, given that activity levels have declined a lot.
‘Our research suggests that we are probably ill-advised to just look at food consumption as the main factor explaining obesity.
‘Both physical activity and calories are important.
‘Maybe we should spend more time on a more comprehensive approach where we don’t tell people to do more sport or eat less, but to work out how active they are and work on their diet accordingly.’

Post: #2

Quote:To their surprise, they found that although we eat out more, snack more and spend more on food, we eat around 20 per cent fewer calories than we did 30 years ago.
Researcher Melanie Luhrmann said this is because we are filling our shopping baskets with fruit and vegetables and other healthier foods, rather than jams and other sugar-loaded treats.
Despite this, the weight is piling on, and Dr Luhrmann believes this is because we are exercising less.
Jobs have become more sedentary, people spend more time watching TV and little sport is played.
The study showed the average Britain spends just 11.5 minutes a day playing sport.
Finally, commutes are longer but less active.
So, while 30 years ago, someone may have had a short walk to work, today they may have a much longer journey but spend it sitting on public transport.
Dr Luhrmann, a lecturer in economics, said: ‘Basically, people are eating less but maybe they are not eating little enough, given that activity levels have declined a lot.
‘Our research suggests that we are probably ill-advised to just look at food consumption as the main factor explaining obesity.
‘Both physical activity and calories are important.
‘Maybe we should spend more time on a more comprehensive approach where we don’t tell people to do more sport or eat less, but to work out how active they are and work on their diet accordingly.’

I appreciate the sentiment here, but this sounds like bait-and-switch, with the "housewives are healthier" angle in there just to catch feminazis' attention.

Firstly: it's not a nutritionist running the survey or evaluating the results. It's an economist.

Secondly: I would be deeply suspicious of this study until I had a look at who funded it and probably sponsored this push piece. Fast food groups, and processed food manufacturers in particular, have been pushing investment in and funding exercise and activity initiatives hard these past few years.



Why? Partially because they know, like the cigarette companies, that they have the best chance at hooking people while they're young. But mainly because they don't want attention paid to the shit they're putting in virtually every piece of food that comes out of a factory right now.

Pushing the idea that "You can eat all you want of our shitty processed food so long as you bust your gut on a football field for a couple of hours on a Saturday or walk to and from work every day" is classic misdirection. It makes the foodmaker look good in the community and even if you question the hypocrisy of McDonalds sponsoring kids' sport, you don't go on to query what's going into your burgers. You don't query the pounds and pounds of salt injected into every fucking thing you eat to make it taste other than like cardboard. They want you to blame your weight gain on your failure to move and not blame it on the shit you're eating without being aware of it -- because if you did blame it on the latter, you would change your spending habits and they would lose money.

"20% less calories than 30 years ago" is also fucking dodgy as well without access to the original stats and papers. And even the number of calories is deceptive. DOBA, IvanDrago, and a couple of other guys were analysing the "diet" of a landwhale over in the Online Hamster thread and broke down pretty quickly that while the chick involved might've said she was on a 2,000 calorie diet (for all of 3 days lol), it was composed of low-nutrient, high-carb shit that provides no real benefit at all.

Maybe physical activity has declined, since the average twentysomething isn't giving himself a case of black lung down a Welsh mine anymore, but I really doubt we're comparing apples with apples here. London's been there for a fucking long time and people have had sedentary jobs in London for a fucking long time. Saying that a lack of physical exercise as opposed to caloric intake is the major factor responsible for the obesity epidemic in our society goes against pretty much every canon of nutrition and my own personal experience losing weight: the rule of thumb is that 80% of your physical results come from your diet and 20% from your physical activity.

Post: #3

^ Paracelsus said it all. Good and relevant documentary (I believe its on Netflix too) http://fedupmovie.com/#/page/home

Corporate food industries don't want you to stop buying their shitty food, which is the vast majority of the problem with the overweight population. Exercise is not the answer, diet is. Example:

Quote:For instance, while mopping floors burns off 200 calories an hour – roughly a bar of chocolate

The logical solution would be to not eat the fucking chocolate bar, not exercise your life away to balance out your shitty dietary habits.

Regardless, women living more sedentary lifestyles and going out on the town every other night bar hopping with their friends is certainly a factor I can agree with.

Post: #4

(08-27-2015 06:32 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Maybe physical activity has declined, since the average twentysomething isn't giving himself a case of black lung down a Welsh mine anymore, but I really doubt we're comparing apples with apples here. London's been there for a fucking long time and people have had sedentary jobs in London for a fucking long time. Saying that a lack of physical exercise as opposed to caloric intake is the major factor responsible for the obesity epidemic in our society goes against pretty much every canon of nutrition and my own personal experience losing weight: the rule of thumb is that 80% of your physical results come from your diet and 20% from your physical activity.

On a second thought, and as you pointed out, I can see what you mean by the bait-and-switch.

Considering that British population is amongst the most overweight in Europe (No. 1 for Women, and 3 for Men, if I remember correctly), I doubt whether they really are "loading their baskets with fruit and vegetables and other healthier foods, rather than jams and other sugar-loaded treats". You really are what you eat and a change in the workplace, i.e. home to the office, cannot be sole reason for the increase in weight. While she makes some valid conclusions in her study, it is a mix of a more sedentary lifestyle, and the easy access to cheap and unhealthy meals/snacks. As you said, it would be interesting to see who sponsored the study. and having McDonalds, Coca Cola, etc. sponsoring sports events is ridiculous and hypocritical. In my opinion it should be banned just like all advertisement aimed for children, as they are just preparing them for a consumerist lifestyle. It already is here in Sweden.

I reckon many an office hamster will rationalise away her blame on allowing herself to get to that point.

Post: #5

A 3.5 ounce (100g) bar of chocolate is more like 500 calories.

You would have to walk 3 or 4 miles.

Post: #6

Of course they don't figure the specter of "fat acceptance", "body positivity" and other similar nonsense into this. Encouraging people's bad habits leads to proliferation of those bad habits and the manifestations thereof.