The article is earnestly written, but -- as often with blog post research -- it falls apart on faulty premises. They rely on tables from early 20th century res

The article is earnestly written, but -- as often with blog post research -- it falls apart on faulty premises. They rely on tables from early 20th century research, but in doing so you have to consider the history of the "calorie" itself and changes in how it was being measured and quantified in both individual ingredients and prepared food. In their reference period, it was still all pretty much guesstimates as a thorough catalog of experimentally determined calorie counts wouldn't appear for decades. https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-counting-calories-became-a-science https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-counting-calories-became-a-sci... Better research would need to go back and look for reliable diet logs (good luck) and then try to work up calorie counts using modern measures, but even that is tricky because there's reason to doubt the nutrition profiles of most ingredients/meals have held steady in the last 100+ years anyway. So, this is a fun little "make you think" piece, but not anything you can take seriously.