So we need to do two things?:
1. Move a lot more (twice as much). What would this entail in today's society? Fitness?
2. Eat twice as much as we do now and focus on fish, fruits and vegetables?
1. Move a lot more (twice as much). What would this entail in today's society? Fitness?
2. Eat twice as much as we do now and focus on fish, fruits and vegetables?
Walk / Cycle to work every day at a fast pace (1 hour total). Play some kind of sport daily at lunchtime / after work (1 hour). You’ve just used an extra 1000 calories or so. Congratulations: you’re almost half way to your goal of doubling your daily calorie output.
Plus you still need to spend time doing all the other stuff to keep your life going outside work.
It can be done, but modern life guides people to a constant sedentary lifestyle. Drive to work, sit at home in the evenings watching TV etc etc.
TBH we only need to do one thing which is to ignore the article. As stated in other comments, the authors' life expectancy premise is horribly flawed to such an extent that it is hard to make the case that it isn't deliberate.
If you use the correct data, the only sensible conclusion you can make is that, for life expectancy at all ages, it's a hell of a lot better living now (in the UK at least) compared to living in the late 19C (in the UK).
Whether or not there were dietary benefits then versus now, I have no idea. Maybe there were but they are heavily swamped by medical and other considerations. What I do know is that this article adds nothing to the body of knowledge that would determine that.
It's not rocket science. But it is hard, since it goes against many of our instincts and marketing and societal pressures.
Well, within reason. But most are busy enough that this works out the same.