4 ms·

>Why did humans 100 years ago consume fewer calories? Because they couldn't afford to eat more. In 1900, the average American household spent 43% of their inco

>Why did humans 100 years ago consume fewer calories? Because they couldn't afford to eat more. In 1900, the average American household spent 43% of their income on food. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-america-spends-money-100-years-in-the-life-of-the-family-budget/255475/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-ame...

thucydides 2y ago
Guatemala (arbitrary choice) spent 35% of their income on food in 2016, but 66% were overweight or obese. I don't know what's causing obesity, but it doesn't seem to be income, given everyone worldwide exploded into fatness around 1980. And I'm not satisfied with flimsy hypotheses, such as a historically unprecedented worldwide diminution in human "willpower." https://opendataforafrica.org/atlas/Guatemala/topics/Food-Security/Expenditures-Spent-on-Food/Expenditure-on-food-per-capita?lang=es https://opendataforafrica.org/atlas/Guatemala/topics/Food-Se... https://data.worldobesity.org/country/guatemala-85/#data_trends https://data.worldobesity.org/country/guatemala-85/#data_tre...
inglor_cz 2y ago
"Because they couldn't afford to eat more." But people differ in their incomes. While there always were fat rich people, if food prices were the limiting factor, your average noble from the House of Lords of 1930 would be as fat as average people are today. And yet if you look at those black and white photos of important politicians, businesspeople etc., they were way less fat than an average contemporary student. This is the Pacific War Council in the early 1940s. Do you believe that those people, decision makers whose decisions affected lives of millions, couldn't afford to eat ad libitum? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wood,_1st_Earl_of_Halifax#/media/File:Pacific_War_Council.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wood,_1st_Earl_of_Halif... Today, they would weigh +15 kg each at least, and asking their doctors for tirzepatide.

thucydides 2y ago

Guatemala (arbitrary choice) spent 35% of their income on food in 2016, but 66% were overweight or obese. I don't know what's causing obesity, but it doesn't seem to be income, given everyone worldwide exploded into fatness around 1980. And I'm not satisfied with flimsy hypotheses, such as a historically unprecedented worldwide diminution in human "willpower." https://opendataforafrica.org/atlas/Guatemala/topics/Food-Security/Expenditures-Spent-on-Food/Expenditure-on-food-per-capita?lang=es https://opendataforafrica.org/atlas/Guatemala/topics/Food-Se... https://data.worldobesity.org/country/guatemala-85/#data_trends https://data.worldobesity.org/country/guatemala-85/#data_tre...

inglor_cz 2y ago

"Because they couldn't afford to eat more." But people differ in their incomes. While there always were fat rich people, if food prices were the limiting factor, your average noble from the House of Lords of 1930 would be as fat as average people are today. And yet if you look at those black and white photos of important politicians, businesspeople etc., they were way less fat than an average contemporary student. This is the Pacific War Council in the early 1940s. Do you believe that those people, decision makers whose decisions affected lives of millions, couldn't afford to eat ad libitum? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wood,_1st_Earl_of_Halifax#/media/File:Pacific_War_Council.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wood,_1st_Earl_of_Halif... Today, they would weigh +15 kg each at least, and asking their doctors for tirzepatide.