And all of those calories have been carbohydrates. So the question remains open: is it the calories or the carbs. And that is what the research in TFA is trying to answer.
If the hormonal food-partitioning theory is correct, had we increased calories 25% using fat instead of carbs, we wouldn't have an diabesity epidemic today. Instead, people would have perhaps gained a little weight and burned off a lot more using non-exercise activity thermogenesis.
It does include an annual increase in grain consumption of about 50 pounds and an increase of sugar consumption of about 45 pounds.
But it also includes an increase of meat consumption of about 50 pounds, an increase of fat consumption of about 30 pounds and an increase in fruit and vegetable consumption of more than 100 pounds.
There are reductions of about 15 pounds of eggs and 100 pounds of milk products (people drink less of it, much of that weight is water).
There is certainly an increase in carb consumption, but it's clear enough that "all" is an overstatement, people are consuming an additional 85 pounds a year of meat+fats.
If the hormonal food-partitioning theory is correct, had we increased calories 25% using fat instead of carbs, we wouldn't have an diabesity epidemic today. Instead, people would have perhaps gained a little weight and burned off a lot more using non-exercise activity thermogenesis.