You may have noticed that we’re getting fatter. Obesity seems to be the new normal.
Some people say we’re lazy and that we need to be more disciplined and move more.
But obesity likely also has something to do with what we’re putting in our mouth.
In this article we crunch the numbers in an effort to understand what it is about our food is so different these days.
What changed in parallel with the booming obesity epidemic?
As they say, truth is often stranger than fiction.
Why should you care?
The cost of obesity, both personally and to our economy, is massive, at $2 trillion or 2.8% of the global GDP in 2014. 
In the US alone, the cost of obesity to the healthcare system is $210 billion per year, with $4.3b lost due to absenteeism and a further $506 per obese worker due to reduced productivity per year.
At a personal level, being overweight will increase your chance of dying earlier with one of the common metabolic-related diseases.
The cost of type 2 diabetes (which occurs when our fat stores can no longer absorb the excess energy coming in from our diet) is massive! And it’s about to get a lot worse!
But it wasn’t always this way. Many people have asked, “Why are we suddenly eating so much more?
Thanks to the USDA we have some useful data to help us answer this question. As shown in the chart below, the energy available to each American started to increase around 1960.
Since 1910, carbohydrate took a dip but has risen again since the 1960s back to around the levels they were a century ago. Meanwhile, fat has been on a steady upward trend. There are more than 600 calories of fat available per day person in the food system compared to a century ago.
Since 1960, protein availability has increased by about 100 calories per day. However, during the same time, fat and carbohydrate have both increased by between 400 and 600 calories per day per person.
The reasons for this shift in our food system are complex and multifaceted. However, I think the central factor is our appetite for foods that are cheaper and more convenient, whether that be at home, at work, when you go out to eat or on the battlefield feeding an army.
If you want to understand the politics behind the agricultural subsidies that contributed this explosion in energy availability I highly recommend you read Robb Wolf’s bonus chapter from his Wired to Eat which you can download for free here.
The data below is based on the “loss-adjusted” consumption data which accounts for wastage and gives us a better indication of the amount of food eaten.
Energy intake increased from around 2000 to 2500 calories per person per day between 1970 and 2010. On average, we’re eating about 500 calories per day now more than when I was born.
Overall, it seems, vegetables and fruit don’t make up a large proportion of our energy intake compared to:
- added sugars,
- meat, eggs and nuts,
- flours and cereals, and
- added fats and oils.
The chart below shows the change in intake from each food group.
- Added sugars increased until around 2000 and then declined.
- Flours and cereals increased, but have also decreased since 2000.
- The big change is the added fats and oils that we have extracted from soy, corn and rapeseed and poured into our food system.
Based on this data, if you wanted to play it safe, you could simply:
- focus on consuming the foods that haven’t changed in the last forty years, and
- avoid the foods that have exploded in our food system in parallel with the explosion in diabesity.
If we drill down into the added sugars category, we can see that high fructose corn syrup (which is made from the oversupply of corn brought about through agriculture subsidies) increased by up to 170 calories per day, replacing the unsubsidised cane and beet sugar as the sweetener of choice.
Since 1999, use of HFCS has fallen, with a lot of people trying to reduce added sugar and the increasing use of artificial sweeteners (e.g. Splenda which was approved by the FDA in 1999)
Sugar made a slight come back since the late 80s, but nowhere near the levels of sugar used in the early 70s before the agricultural subsidies were ramped up (280 calories per day or 14% of energy intake in 1970).
Wheat and corn increased until the turn of the century. But similar to added sugars, they have decreased since around 2000
Added fat intake
Now here is the real clanger, the breakdown of the change in added fat!
- Shortening has fallen out of favour since 2004 (after the banning of trans fat).
- Margarine has been in decline for a while.
- Butter, lard and dairy fats only make up a negligible amount of our dietary fat intake.
- Increases in “salad and cooking oils” accounts for nearly 300 calories per day or about 60% of our energy increase.
Despite the innocuous sounding title, the increase in ‘salad and cooking oils’ is not just people adding a bit of extra olive oil to their salads. Soy, canola and corn oil make up the vast majority of the added fats in our diet.
Canola oil was marketed as a low cholesterol alternative to saturated fat. The theory was that Canola was safe because it didn’t turn solid at room temperature and hence would not clog our arteries and cause heart disease like saturated fat (importnat not: if your arteries and blood are ever at room temperature you have some much bigger issues to deal with than your choice of fat)!
Our use of them is booming everywhere!
The availability of saturated fat, which is more prevalent in dairy and animal-based products, has increased by about 80 calories per person per day over the past century. However, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat, which are more prevalent in subsidised plant-based sources, have increased by 300 to 400 calories each!
There are some who believe that many of our health woes are primarily due to saturated fat and or excess consumption of animal-based foods. However, the consumption data does not support this belief.
Growth in monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats (mostly from subsidised soy, canola and corn) have increased by six times that of saturated fat. Given that meat and dairy consumption has been fairly stagnant, it is likely that even the increase in saturated fat is mostly from plant-based sources!
When we combine subsided starches with subsidised fats we get a hard to beat combination that is hyperpalatable and cheap. Unsubsidised unprocessed whole food doesn’t stand a chance!
The cost of good nutrition
Unfortunately, good nutrition comes with a price. The table below shows common grocery items sorted in terms of macros and cost per 2000 calories.
|food||$/2000 cals||% protein||% fat||% carbs|
- Seed oils and flours are the cheapest sources of calories.
- Foods with a higher energy density are cheaper per calorie.
- Foods with more protein are more expensive.
- Olive oil and coconut oil, which do not enjoy subsidies, are significantly more expensive than canola oil.
While most people won’t drink a lot of canola oil or eat a lot of plain sugar or flour, cheap processed food is typically a mix of refined fat and carbs with less protein and fibre.
This isn’t fair!
At a fundamental level, I believe this is an issue of equity and discrimination against the most vulnerable people who can’t afford to invest in their health, whether in the supermarket, the gym, or the medical system.
- They are not able to afford quality food even if they wanted to.
- They are addicted to low satiety, hyperpalatable foods which are engineered to be over-consumed.
- Eventually, they end up in the hands of the medical system which sells them drugs and surgeries to cure their ills.
Given the expense of obesity-related disease on our economy it would make sense to remove the subsidies from grain products and do what we could to make nutritious high satiety foods more affordable for the people who desperately need them.
I would love to see an economic analysis of the benefits to farmers who receive subsidies to help them create cheap energy versus the whole of system cost of health care, lost productivity and drugs one the economy as a whole. Perhaps this will help to change policy in the future? But for now, you need to make an investment in your health.
Hopefully, providing people with better nutritional education and an understanding of what is really happening to them will help to cause a shift in the food market, with manufacturers responding to the demands of consumers for high satiety nutrient-dense foods.
What does this all mean?
Natural foods found in nature tend to contain either carb (e.g. summer or tropical foods) or fat and protein (e.g. winter or foods found closer to the north or south poles) but very rarely both at the same time. The closest we get is milk (which is designed to help babies grow) and some nuts like acorns (which are available in autumn to help animals store fat to survive the coming winter).
However, our modern food system is full of the cheap products of subsidised agriculture which are a blend of fat and starchy refined grain products from wheat and corn that fuel our fat and glucose metabolisms at the same time in a way that has never occurred before!
These highly processed ingredients are mixed together and then artificially flavoured and sweetened to taste better than nutritious whole foods ever could!
Due to our survival instincts, we have no “off switch” for these modern Frankenfoods. We just keep eating as long as we have access to them, even though they don’t provide much in the way of the nutrients we need to thrive.
What should you do?
Correlation doesn’t equal causation but is going to be a safe bet to avoid foods that contain the ingredients that have exploded in parallel with the obesity epidemic.
Your mission, if you choose to accept it… Next time you go to the supermarket try to put nothing in your trolley that contains some combination of vegetable oils and flour listed on the ingredients.
Addendum – How to read food labels
To help you understand what this means in practice, I thought it would be useful to highlight what to look out for on food labels.
While you probably won’t be able to eat a lot of plain potatoes, once you fry them in oil and add some salt you probably won’t stop until that packet is all gone.
Unfortunately, our taste buds have acclimatised to potato chips. Our ‘bliss point’ keeps on moving, requiring foods to be sweeter and with more and more flavour just to keep achieving the same stimulatory effect.
“Once you pop you just can’t stop”, but that’s because they’re made from a mixture of potato, oils, corn flour, wheat starch and flavourings.
Try to find a mayo on your supermarket shelves that isn’t mainly seed oils.
While Ritz crackers claim to be the “rich buttery classic” ironically they don’t actually contain butter, just a mix of flour, vegetable oils, salt and HFCS!
It seems even chocolate needs a healthy dose of vegetable oils these days!
Before you graduate to practice on your own in the supermarket, I’ll leave you to spot the processed starches and oils in the last couple by yourself…
31 thoughts on “Why Our Food System is Screwed (in Charts)”
Type 2 diabetes is NOT CAUSED BY EXCESSIVE FAT FFS. GRRRR
Have a look at the discussion about the Personal Fat Threshold in this post. https://optimisingnutrition.com/2018/05/03/ted-naimans-dam-fat-storage-insulinographic-explained/
Did you even read the article? Excess body fat clearly is a huge driver in diabetes and if you failed to understand that this was what was being discussed you lack basic comprehension skills.
I think a few of the columns in the cost of nutrition/2000 calories are mixed up. Olive oil is not 100% carbs. Great article!
That would depend on what you’re using for olive oil–the stuff sold in stores that’s really soybean oil masqueraded as olive oil, or the genuine stuff.
I stopped reading when it said type 2 diabetes is caused by obesity. A huge error like that right at the start doesn’t bode well for the rest of the article! Please, get you facts right. People are confused enough already.
More accurately, type 2 diabetes is caused by your fat tissue being pushing to hold more than your personal tolerance. This article explains more. https://optimisingnutrition.com/2018/05/03/ted-naimans-dam-fat-storage-insulinographic-explained/
Stop stealing pix around. Give credits.
Did you see the references at the end. The charts are mine based on USDA data and the other pix are from my friend Ted Naiman (who I have talked to about using his images).
Once again a great deal of good information. Thank you Marty.
Loved the article. For the posters above: reading comprehension +1. Would love to hear Robb Wolf’s feedback. He talked about some of this in Wired to Eat and has made a few references in his podcasts.
Robb is pretty passionate about this political/economic/systemic angle on nutrition but is bummed that no one want to touch it, including his publishers who removed he chapter from the book.
There’s aways self-publishing…
Enjoyed the article immensely!
Great informative article. Thanks for sharing your latest knowledge with the rest of us – and backing it up with trends and evidence. I always take a little bit away from each thing you shared. It’s all adding up and making sense.
How do you see the difference between cane sugar and high fructose corn sugar? From what I’ve read both products are basically 50 / 50 glucose and fructose. For sure you could purchase higher fructose percentage HFCS but the cost goes up and producers are always looking to keep costs down.
Is there something other than the basic ratio of glucose to fructose that comes into play with HFCS that is an issue?
Thanks for all the fantastic work you do!
I think it’s largely a cost thing. Energy without nutrients never seems to end well though.
Yea, here in the states it’s something along the lines of: Sugar cane has an import tariff while corn is subsidized so it’s the double whammy making HFCS really low cost.
My concern is that someone might interpret your text about sugar to mean that HFCS is somehow a worse choice than sugar. I’m of the mind that the two are equally “evil” with the emphasis on equally.
Thanks for the response! This stuff wouldn’t get figured out without dedicated people picking at the details until they’re as correct as possible.
Have a look at this post from a few years back. Bottom line is fructose whom whole food is not going to be a big deal. HFCS is dumb cos it separates energy and nutrients. https://optimisingnutrition.com/2016/01/25/fructose-victim-or-villain/
I don’t think fructose or sugar are worth worrying about if you have a limited bandwidth for public health messages. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WsxJ81UoTYXJ6e24O-nsknA2GnWgUrj-nUV3ofF2FLI
Fantastic article Marty
Great post as usual. I read it twice for good measure!
Typo: “rich battery classic”, haha. Also one “subsided” instead of subsidied.
Awesome! Thanks Nick!
Very interesting. This is of course a US centric view. Any thoughts on rise in the massive rise in obesity and diabetes in places like India?
The international chart show oil consumption increasing across the globe as does this article. https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/agri-business/indias-edible-oil-consumption-to-exceed-34-million-tonnes-by-2030-report/article24254536.ece/amp/
Thank you for another great article. Marty.
I have one question:
Why is intact whole grains (particularly oats) and legumes not among the foods one can eat for good health?
It seems to me the research regarding both heart health and weight loss, as well as studies of centenarian populations, indicate that whole grain cereals as well as legumes, are excellent foods to eat. Here is one recent study in favour of whole grains in general, but particularly oats, with myocardinal infarction is target variable.
A common argument for avoidance of oats & legumes are the high levels of antinutrients, phytic acid, etc. This is the argument made by most paleo/low-carb/primal-advocates. In my view this largely theoretical argument is not a strong one, as I failed to find empirical research linking intake of oats and/or legumes to bad health or weight gain.
*Here is a link to the study I mentioned in my above comment:
I have no big issue with legit whole grains and legumes, though I don’t see a lot of people actually eating them and they’re not particularly nutrient dense compare to other options. If they help you avoid processed flours mixed with vegetable oils I think you’ll come out in front.
Comments are closed.