Dietary caloric surplus is a solid, time-tested explanation for rising obesity that people, like the author of this article, just don't like. There are a variet

Dietary caloric surplus is a solid, time-tested explanation for rising obesity that people, like the author of this article, just don't like. There are a variety of reasons that people eat more and move less now than previously, but ultimately it's the caloric surplus that causes obesity. From the article: > So here’s the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According to government figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. But in 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when they’re included. On the other hand, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization data shows a very clear upward trend in per capita calorie supply in the US (since 1961) and the UK (since 1982). https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-supply-of-calories?country=GBR+USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-supply-o... https://ourworldindata.org/food-per-person#the-global-perspective-on-caloric-supply https://ourworldindata.org/food-per-person#the-global-perspe... Per capita calorie supply means the calories delivered to the household for each person. It doesn't account for food not eaten. From the article: > I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures. Meanwhile, I clicked through the “government figures” link in the article and downloaded the “UK - household and eating out nutrient intakes” file. The file itself tells you to be skeptical of the numbers therein: > It is a widely recognised characteristic of self reported diary surveys such as Family Food that survey respondents tend to under report their purchases (and any derived nutrient intakes based on purchased quantities are also likely to be underestimates). Empirical comparisons of sales and duty data for alcohol in particular suggest that reported alcohol consumption could be 40-60 per cent lower than the reality. For other food and drink, reporting is likely to be closer to actual purchases, but underreporting is likely to feature and some food types may be underreported to a greater extent than others. > Although such surveys are completely confidential, respondents may under report for a range of reasons, from self consciousness to simply forgetting to record purchases. 'Top up' and eating out purchases are probably more likely to be missed than the main household shop. There is no evidence to say whether levels of underreporting have changed over time but it is plausible that changes in household shopping and eating patterns may have contributed to increased underreporting. > Users should bear this issue in mind, when considering trends in estimated intakes and the values for individual years. For example the downward trend in energy intake estimates can appear counter-intuitive at face value given other evidence on the prevalence of obesity. Factors affecting obesity and other health issues are complex. Family Food trends are broadly consistent with other sources, such as the National Diet and Nutrition Survey, which also show reported energy intake in decline, although NDNS intakes are also known to be underreported. Furthermore, obese subjects are more likely to under-report intake and over-report activity. Example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1454084 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1454084 From the article: > A paper last year in the International Journal of Surgery states that “adults working in unskilled manual professions are over four times more likely to be classified as morbidly obese compared with those in professional employment”. “International Journal of Surgery” links to this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5673154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5673154/ The paper cites “UK Parliament. Select Committee on health—third report. 2004”, available here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhealth/23/2302.htm https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhe... The committee report says (§1 ¶38): > 38. In common with most public health problems the impact of obesity mirrors many other health inequalities. Men and women working in unskilled manual occupations are over four times as likely as those in professional employment to be classified as morbidly obese.[28] The Health Survey for England has shown that in 2001 amongst professional groups 14% of men and women were obese, compared to 28% of women and 19% of men in unskilled manual occupations.[29] I'm unable to track down the text of references [28] and [29]. But please note this other very interesting thing that the committee report says (§2 ¶67): > It is certain that obesity develops only when there is a sustained imbalance between the amount of energy consumed by a person and the amount used up in everyday life. I wonder why the article doesn't quote that? Occam's Razor says that obesity comes from eating too much and moving too little, and that articles like this come from wishful thinking and ignoring the evidence.