>society starts to slowly eat less and less bread as time

>>7914005
>society starts to slowly eat less and less bread as time goes on

Ummm...?

>mfw Americans think bread is unhealthy so they eat bacon instead

>>7914024
It's true.

Are Americans aware that the brown flappy bit on top and bottom of their burger is bread?

File: bear juden.gif (498KB, 499x212px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 499x212px

>>7914031
It warms the old cockles to know foreigners are just as dumb as negroids.

I can't find any good statistics for bread consumption trends over the last decades. Maybe my Google-fu is just shit.

But yeah, since bread is just carbs, bread doesn't make people fat. It's the things that people put on their bread that make them fat... usually some fatty animal product with some fatty dressing. Cheese consumption is up in the US.

I can't find anything for the US right now, but this article says jam consumption is down in the UK as well, people are using chocolate, peanut butter and cheese instead.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9558240/Not-so-much-jam-tomorrow-as-spread-falls-out-of-fashion.html

Nobody ever got fat on white bread with jam (sugar), because it's all carbs. OP got the right idea

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP47Yessp_8

>>7914055
I have statistics from Ireland showing that in the 80's the average person consumed 6.4 slices of bread a day know in 2015 that number is 2.1 and Ireland is the quickly becoming one of the fattest countries in Europe. Also interesting to mention that in 2014 the consumption was 2.4

>>7914077
Oh,and Ireland was the skinniest country in Europe back in the 80's.

>>7914077
>>7914082
Of course, but let us not believe bread keeps you skinny. rather people are just eating worse food in place of bread, and just more food in general

File: palpatine.jpg (82KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 960x720px

>>7914085
lol

It's not carbs that makes people fat

It's cars

File: scooby.png (134KB, 283x476px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 283x476px

>>7914104
It's not cars that make people fat, it's submarine

sandwiches.

Zoinks!

>>7914123
Die cis scum

>>7914005
By the same token we'/re consuming more chicken and cheese than ever. Maybe that's where the obesity is coming from.

>>7914133
Huh?

>>7914005
>Can't be coincidence.

Yep. Both are being caused by a third factor you didn't mention: technology. Now that we have machinery to do many jobs for us we are performing far less manual labor than we used to. That means we don't need to eat as much, and we also get less exercise.

>>7914135
Think about it. Chicken is supposed to be healthy, and Americans are eating more of it than ever before. Yet we're more obese than ever before.

>>7914165

So what makes you think that chicken is the cause rather than some other factor?

>>7914133
I am being led to believe you and I have the same tokens. I do not trust that assertion.

The cause for obesity is simple; people don't have as much free time as before and the family structure is dissolving, forcing more and more people to eat quickly prepared food.

Fast food tends to be more calorie-dense. So people gain weight.

The 21st Century's "at least you showed up" mentality also reinforces things like body positivity or HAES or whatnot, enabling people to be fat and feel no remorse.

It is not the fucking bread. It is not the carbs. It is calories. Carbs or fats don't make you fat, calories do. If you eat more calorie-dense food, you will gain more weight. These foods can range from waffles to almonds.

>>7914199
>Fast food tends to be more calorie-dense.
Fast food is calorie-dense is because it's full of fat though. Bread has around 250 calories per 100g, jam has around 250 calories per 100g. Even if you incorporated a ton of additional sugar somewhere along the line you wouldn't typically go beyond 300 calories per 100g without the result tasting like garbage. Now if you look at some types of junk food, you're looking at 400, 500, 600 calories per 100g, which is only possible because fat has 9 calories per gram.

>>7914005
It completely can. Are you retarded?

>>7914199
Disagree completely. What happened was people used to eat a traditional diet - pretty much whatever their parents and grandparents ate. This diet evolved over the generations because it worked for most people. So that's what most people ate. If you look at places where people still eat traditional diets you don't see much obesity, even if some of the traditional foods seem rich.

The 20th Century dispensed with the idea of a traditional diet. Everything was suddenly available and convenient, so people ate what they felt like eating at any given moment, without the guidance offered by tradition.

This resulted in people having no idea how they ought to eat, and tons of diet fads and misinformation about nutrition floating around. Like the "chicken breast is healthy" bullshit.

>>7914199
>don't have as much free time as before
The opposite, actually.

"Before" we didn't have free time. We had to spend every daylight hour working because we didn't have tractors to plow the fields for us, we didn't have supermarkets to provide us with ready-made meals, and we didn't have factories to produce our needed goods. We worked our asses off.

Nowadays we don't need to do any of that. We work 9-5, not sunup to sundown. We don't need to spend hours cooking because we can just grab box mix or a ready-made meal. We don't need to break our backs digging a ditch or mowing our property with a scythe because we have machines that do all that for us. We don't need to stay up late with a needle and thread mending our clothing because we can just buy another factory-made shirt instead of patching the old one.

Now one thing we have tons of is free time. But we spend it sitting on our ass in front of the TV, movie screen, or phone. We don't get the exercise that we once did doing normal everyday tasks because what we choose to fill our free time with is mostly sedentary.

>>7914260
Huh?

>>7914261

Older generations weren't as obese because they got plenty of exercise doing things that we never do today.

>>7914199
I think one of the big things that people don't think about too is liquid calories. Just some of the shit that I see a lot of women get and then post on their social media accounts are fucking insane; one drink that's like at least 500 calories and they do this daily. I mean, god damn, if you're a lightly active 130lb chick who is just trying to maintain their weight you should be having around 1800-2000 calories per day. One of those Starbucks drinks is like a quarter of your daily calorie intake, and nutritionally all you're getting is a bit of calcium and little else, and you're probably getting about all the sugar you need in the day from that one drink; and not to mention that you're still going to be hungry on top of this..

File: 25feed_span.jpg (76KB, 600x280px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 600x280px

>bread

Well, there appear to be a sort of pastry these days also being referred to as bread.

Gotta be specific.

>>7914260
>Now one thing we have tons of is free time.
This is true. But people will never admit it. They'll talk about how busy everybody is in our modern world while they spend hours on Facebook and watching TV. But they're way too busy to cook.

>>7914238

It doesn't matter why it is calorie dense. If you eat 3000 calories of broccoli, you will still gain weight.

Besides, many traditional desserts have little fat in them and a fuckton of sugar.

>>7914253

How does what you are trying to say differ from what I am saying? People naturally choose to eat calorie-dense food because it is easy and healthier choices take more time to prepare. You are also hardwired to crave sugary and fatty foods, because if you are a hunter-gatherer you want to pack on as much weight as possible.

>Like the "chicken breast is healthy" bullshit.

Are you retarded or a vegan?

>>7914260

We men did. Women cooked.

>>7914005
Really makes you think

>>7914284
I'm not saying that it matters why it is calorie-dense. You said that food being calorie-dense is a problem, and that's true to a certain extent, although some foods are calorie-dense and still do not typically lead to overeating calories (nuts, seeds, oily fish, etc.)

My point is that a food cannot be truly calorie-dense without fat because fat itself has a higher caloric density than carbs. So when you say that caloric density contributes to obesity, you cannot also say that fat does not uniquely contribute to obesity. If you take the fat out of food, it stops being calorically dense, unless maybe we're talking about eating plain sugar out of the bag, which I'm not aware a lot of people do.

>>7914285

IF that's true then you need your brain checked.

Correlation has nothing to do with causality

>>7914284
>We men did.

No, we were either working our asses off out in a field somewhere, or we were working our asses off in a workshop or factory (well before the concept of an 8-hour workday).

>>Women cooked.
Yep. And they made clothes. And washed them. And mended them.

Fuck, even children worked their asses off.