3 ms·
Your report just has "Carbs" - nothing to do with what sort they were. That could be flour, sugar, or potatoes, and they stay relatively constant, there's no de
by anthonyb 15y ago
Your report just has "Carbs" - nothing to do with what sort they were. That could be flour, sugar, or potatoes, and they stay relatively constant, there's no decline (p18).
There's a big increase in the amount of fat consumed, but I suspect a large part of the difference is going to be lifestyle, too. Around the turn of the century people walked a lot more and did a lot more manual labour.
- yummyfajitas 15y agoSee table 4 and 5. It doesn't give breakdowns of sugar vs HFCS or corn vs wheat, but it does separate sweeteners from potatoes from grains. Regardless - total calories went up. Carbs stayed almost constant in absolute terms (a slight decrease) and decreased in relative terms. Fat increased in both absolute and relative terms. I guess carbs must be the culprit!
- anthonyb 15y agoOk, I see that now, and it fits with what I know - if your blood glucose is saturated, then any extra fat and sugar you eat goes straight to your arse. Interesting that whole milk dropped off so sharply in the 1970s and 80s - about the time that 'fat is bad' started up? From what I've read, low fat milk contributes to heart disease too - something about the level of fat-soluble vitamins?