Let's assume this graph is correct. Why did humans 100 years ago consume fewer calories? The body is a complex system with many homeostatic mechanisms. We stop eating when we're full (generally). What has adjusted that homeostatic thermostat upward? Why did obesity increase linearly for half a century and then suddenly increase exponentially starting in 1980? Why are wild animals and laboratory animals also more obese than 100 years ago?
"Is this really a mystery?" They address your question on the first page. Please read a few sentences of the article, or hey, even the entire article, before trying to refute it.
A brief sample, though their whole argument is more complex:
"People in the 1800s did have diets that were very different from ours. But by conventional wisdom, their diets were worse, not better. They ate more bread and almost four times more butter than we do today. They also consumed more cream, milk, and lard. Our great-grandparents (and the French) were able to maintain these weights effortlessly. They weren’t all on weird starvation diets or crazy fasting routines. And while they probably exercised more on average than we do, the minor difference in exercise isn’t enough to explain the enormous difference in weight. Many of them were farmers or laborers, of course, but plenty of people in 1900 had cushy desk jobs, and those people weren’t obese either."
I don't feel like dying on the hill of Catcher in the Rye - while I think it's a good book and worth reading, I have no desire to write about it beyond the words I chose in my comment above. But I have to say that your comment here is of exactly the kind that diminishes the quality of Hacker News. Mindless name-calling: "absolute shite," "bad poorly written book," and you sneer that anyone who claims it as a favorite is "not much of a reader." No reasons, no evidence or examples, just name-calling. Ironically, your own comment, in ignoring the context and content of the whole thread, which was about the merits of reading and re-reading, seems to suggest you're "not much of a reader" yourself.
What you offer is not a "counterpoint," as you put it. It's the equivalent of: "I don't like ketchup, ketchup is bad, people who like ketchup are stupid."
I read Catcher in the Rye as a teen and enjoyed Holden's angst.
Now I'm approaching middle age. Last year I was looking for books to read in a language I'm learning. I decided to re-read Catcher, and to my surprise, found it heartbreaking. I mostly remembered the plot, but it was a completely different book to me as a man than as a boy.
Everything Holden does is in the shadow of his grief over his dead brother. As a kid, that flew over my head. I couldn't have understood the hole in your heart that comes from losing someone you deeply love and admire. I didn't get the sad chain of cause and effect - there are hints at how it affects everyone in his family.
It's a beautiful and subtle book, and it rewards re-reading later in life.
It's hard to find this done well. I tried this myself on Twitter for a few months and realized that, even though I wasn't saying so explicitly, it was bland pathetic performative "I'm an entrepreneur, thinker, innovator, creator, TEDx Speaker" nonsense.
maybe you feel upset that someone has created a project similar to yours, but your accusation seems meritless.
what am i missing, if anything?