several points.
1) methodology of the National Food Survey explained here.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/file ... 111213.pdf
Although they use till receipts to back up expenditure on food they also use diaries. Until 1994 food bought and eaten out of the home was not included and it is only since 2000 that the data for this is considered more reliable.
In 1940 there would have been little food eaten out of the home, from 1980 onwards I suspect this would account for more and more of the calories consumed in some households.
Averages cover a multidude of 'sins' from the elderly couple eating very little to those consuming large amounts
I would like to know why they changed things in 2000 was it just a change of overall administration or something else.
( For a brief time I worked for the OPCS on one of the other major surveys. I know just how much care and attention to detail went into the survey, both in the conducting of the interviews and the coding of the data. )
2) the graph posted by XYZZ comes from here which also looks at the calories expended ie exercise over the period: sorry about the title
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 5-0041.pdf
3) monkeys and chimps diet is "a low fat, high fiber diet compared to humans. The chimpanzees' diet was higher in digestible carbohydrates when there was an increase in ripe fruit availability. In addition, the chimpanzees maintained a fairly low and constant protein intake, due to their focus on fruit, with pith as a fallback food"
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/co ... nklin.html
4) going right back to Defrens list xyzz mentioned many of the points. I wrote a post about just the first 2 last night but couldn't send it.
The article claims:
"Of course the Pima Indians got fat: they went from eating a diet low in carbohydrates to a diet comprised of very insulinogenic carbohydrates (e.g. refined flour, sugar, etc)"
That is totally false. The Pima traditionally ate a very high carb diet (70%) until stuck on US reservations when the diet changed to foods that were government provided which contained a lot of calories but little nutrition. On their traditional diets they did not become fat, nor do their near cousins who still live a traditional lifestyle in S, America .
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/16/1/369
The example of obesity in Jamaica in the 1960s is interesting. (another of Taube's examples) There are several papers that describe the types of foods eaten in this period, again high energy, nutritionally poor foods . ( sweetened condensed milk as an 'early' weaning food) This group tended to be calorie rich but protein and nutrient poor. Moreover fatness was culturally desireable with young women using pills to try to put on weight rather than lose it.
I haven't put any references in for diet, they are easily looked up but this article from a study in the eighties shows a very different perspective on health, food and fatness.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&l ... bo&f=false