> this problem literally did not exist until the 80s.
Henry VIII might have a word for you on that one, as would many other of history’s aristocrats. The only thing that’s really changed is the cost of food that used to be reserved for kings.
Henry VIII might have a word for you on that one, as would many other of history’s aristocrats. The only thing that’s really changed is the cost of food that used to be reserved for kings.
When I lived, in my childhood, in communistic Bulgaria/Czechoslovakia, nobody was starving. Yes, we did not have bananas and Argentinian steaks, but there was enough basic food, including the protein-rich one (eggs, cheese, even meat, although the best cuts were 'under the counter'). Still, few people were really obese; those were obviously sick.
Nowadays, there is plenty of junk food. The food is not really cheap (especially with the recent inflation), even the junk one. Still, being obese is (almost) the new normal. You can see that everywhere.
Yes, people spend more time indoors - but even in the old times people tended to spend a lot of time behind TV.
My hypothesis is that the junk food just does not have enough real nutrients, just mostly empty calories. So the body signals 'I need more nutrients', to which the typical response is 'here you have more empty calories'.
The quality and type of food also completely changed, you can't ignore that.
5% of supermarket aisles are food, the rest are treats and comfort food you should have less than once a week at best
The markets responding by promoting extremely cheap calories from industrial sugar sources rather than cane cut by hand by (relative to a machine or petrochemical processes extremely costly) slave labour is really just a natural consequence of capitalism feeding capitalists.
It’s not the food killing people, it’s the people selling the food that are killing people.