Read down toward the bottom: the study was based upon one self-reported day of each individual's diet extrapolated over 18 years.
This study is even less meaningful than most. I'd go so far as to say that it's utterly devoid of useful information and quite probably is misinformation.
I wonder how much was spent on performing the study?
US average consumption is not an appropriate comaprison, because the general US average would cover all age demographics. Older people tend to eat less.
It's also true that people tend to self-report lower than they really consume. But that isn't exactly earth-shattering news to scientists who work in the field. They know about it & know how to adjust their interpretations of the research accordingly.
I agree with your point... just want to mention that I actually eat about that much (sub-2000 calories. I'm a white, middle class American). Of course, I have to try rather hard to stay that low here in the States but I feel great, doing it.
[insert bro-science disclaimer here] The volume of food you eat may be "normal" but the calorie density might be lower. The trick to increasing or decreasing calorie intake without feeling like you are stuffing yourself or starving is to keep the volume pretty much the same and tweak the calorie density.
Do you happen to have any links to descriptions of the densities of various foods? I've been aware that this is a good strategy for a while, but haven't been able to find anything that systematically discusses various food types and how they rank (as opposed to individual tidbits such as, hey, carrots have very few calories but are pretty bulky, so munch away).
I don't have a list, but I've developed a feel by tracking calories on MyFitnessPal. Over time you notice what food helps you hit your calorie goals while also being good (which is extremely subjective).
I wouldn't necessarily be so quick to knee-jerk throw out that technique. Perhaps it's like BMI where it's an approach that's completely inappropriate for assessing an individual, but when applied to a population its shortcomings average out in a way that lets it serve as a valid statistical tool for certain purposes.
I think the real story here is illustrated in the contrast between that last section that you mention, and how many folks are reacting to this study: The actual science is full of nuances and caveats which experts in the field are expected to understand, and like literally any scientific paper its results should be considered tentative unless and until it's been corroborated by further research, including research that uses different protocols. The public reaction, on the other hand, treats this as if it should be a cut-and-dry statement on a black-and-white issue.
> like literally any scientific paper its results should be considered tentative unless and until it's been corroborated by further research, including research that uses different protocols
To expand, this study is interesting in that it opens an avenue for further investigation. It's like learning an extra person was at the scene of crime. It proves nothing, and doesn't even necessarily SUGGEST anything. It's just another "lead" that researchers should investigate.
In this case, it doesn't help that the additional "suspect" is something sexy like protein-rich diets.
> The public reaction, on the other hand, treats this as if it should be a cut-and-dry statement on a black-and-white issue.
That's because the public as a whole usually wants cut-and-dry statements and black-and-white issues. And the news caters to the public.
This study is even less meaningful than most. I'd go so far as to say that it's utterly devoid of useful information and quite probably is misinformation.
I wonder how much was spent on performing the study?