Civil Eats posted a cool multimedia infographic showing “calories available per day per capita” from 1970 thru 2008 based on USDA data.
The data shows:
Between 1970 and 1980, calorie intake is relatively stable, rising only 1.2 percent. Between 1980 and 1990 consumption jumped 9.6 percent. Then, from 1990 to 2008, the last year with data available, the number of calories rises another 11.4 percent for a grand a total of 2,673 calories available per person–23.3 percent more than consumed in 1970.
Still, in comparing the “plates” from 1970 with 2008, I’m a bit struck by how similar they are — save for grains and added fat (click for larger versions).
Of course, this data represents “available calories” … and not necessarily ingested calories. And they are also averages.
I’m not sure that a 23% increase in calories (coupled with a likely decrease in physical activity) is the sole explanation for the increase in obesity (the question Civil Eats asks), but pun intended, it’s certainly food for thought.
Update 4/6: Tom Philpott adds his two cents over at Grist.
I bet someone with the initials GT would say about these data that, “We’re not fat because we overeat; we overeat because we’re fat.”
-Steve
Curiously, I tend to agree with Taubes on that point ;). It wouldn’t surprise me at all if initial overeating was environmental (lots of food cues, big portions, high-density foods etc), but once the snowball starts rolling down the hill, appetite regulation goes to hell!
Yes, I’ve always thought that there’s an assymetry between the initial causes of obesity and the causes of ‘obesity maintenance’ in already-obese people.
The obesogenic environment certainly contributes to making people heavier in the first instance (and of course, continues to exert its affects once the subjects have become obese); but the appetite disregulation and other attendant metabolic issues come into play once the weight has been added.
Perhaps GT should have stated, “We don’t stay fat because we overeat, we keep overeating because we’re fat. But we get fat in the first place because we’re influenced by our environment”.
Cheers
Harry
38% of the calorie increase comes from grains.
45% of the increase comes from added fats. Who wants to bet that the majority of those added fats come in the form of seed oils, or in other words, from grains?
That’s 83% all told. Or am I mis-interpreting?
Hugh, I think you’re spot on re the added fats being seed oils and thus the majority of the additional calories being grain-related.
That plus the 15% increase in added sugar certainly could have an effect aside from the calories.
Yes on the plates fats (double the calories per gram of carbs or protein) increased as did grains (and not good ones or whole versions I’m fairy certain). Of the 2 I think the grains are a bigger problem for this country as result in less satiety than fats.
Beth, I think I’m having browser issues. The two pictographs are side by side. Peeking out from under the one you have lovingly dubbed “Picture 339″ depicting the 2008 plate, is some of your prose (no doubt brilliant!) that I cannot read. Is there a trick to moving Picture 339 out of the way? I’m in some version of Explorer.
I added a tag to hopefully fix that. See if it does. And actually, you didn’t miss much afterwards ;).
Nope. The picture is still covering your prose.
Hmm. WordPress stripped out the code I inserted. I’m trying a different one, but just in case, here’s the rest:
Of course, this data represents “available calories” … and not necessarily ingested calories. And they are also averages.
I’m not sure that a 23% increase in calories (coupled with a likely decrease in physical activity) is the sole explanation for the increase in obesity (the question Civil Eats asks), but pun intended, it’s certainly food for thought.