> Not really sure what you're referring to and this is not a useful comparison anyway, obviously many many aspects of the US food system and economy have change

> Not really sure what you're referring to and this is not a useful comparison anyway, obviously many many aspects of the US food system and economy have changed in 100 years. I don't really know how to respond to this. It is extremely useful comparison, and this is why you don’t really know how to respond to it. Your theory hinges on the fact that worse access to fresh food makes people more obese, but 100 years ago (and 150 years ago, even more so) most people had even worse access to fresh, healthy foods, but nevertheless obesity was not a problem at all. This is a problem to your argument, which is why you are lost for words. > Rich people tend to have more cars and eat healthier food because it's more accessible. Here's a study: The graph you linked shows that men with a car have higher BMI than men with no cars. Thanks for supporting my argument with evidence, I guess? In any case, this is just purely correlational study, which does not even attempt to answer whether access to car causes lower obesity. You might as well show me a graph of square footage per person against BMI and argue that small houses make people fat. On the other hand, it is perfectly consistent with the theory I elucidated above, which is that conscientiousness causes people to both be wealthier, and less fat.