Big Portions

Via Chris Bertram, a nice demonstration of the growing size of food portions in the United States. Naturally, this trend toward increased consumption of calories has not been a good thing for public health.

It's also part of the reason I think rich countries like the United States are going to weather the long-run consequences of higher food and energy prices just fine -- at the low prices that have been prevailing recently, we're consuming substantially more than is good for us. Switching to an equilibrium where less food is eaten and more attention is paid to quality (in terms of both taste and nutrition) will be beneficial once the switching is done. Of course there's always what Keynes said about the long-run, but it still is worth distinguishing between long-run trends that point toward doom, and those that do not.

Comments

That's right, ignore the humiliating defeat the Celtics handed the Lakers last night.

Posted by minderbender | June 18, 2008 8:47 AM

Enough with the food blogging, where's the NBA post!?

Posted by TW Andrews | June 18, 2008 8:52 AM

Thank you, Minderbender. I was thinking that very thing all morning.

Posted by colleeniem | June 18, 2008 8:54 AM

Except that there's no reason to think that the equilibrium point for food will maximize 'quality', however that's defined. More likely is a decrease in variety and an increase in trips to industrial-style fast food restaurants.

Posted by MattF | June 18, 2008 8:54 AM

If it leads to a return to the bagel on the left, I'm for it. US-style bagels should be small and chewy.

(Actually I was going to say, isn't part of the point that in poor countries people will starve?)

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 18, 2008 8:59 AM

NBA:

Once again, I prove my use as a negative bellwether: I took one look at the first game and decided that the Lakers had it in the bag. Remember that if you ever see me predict anything. Anything. From an electrical storm to the outcome of a Greek Tragedy.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 18, 2008 9:01 AM

The Lakers had a huge portion of FAIL last night.

Posted by joejoejoe | June 18, 2008 9:05 AM

Remember that if you ever see me predict anything. Anything. From an electrical storm to the outcome of a Greek Tragedy.

"Man, I sure see things working out for this Oedipus guy!"

Posted by TW Andrews | June 18, 2008 9:06 AM

"Man, I sure see things working out for this Oedipus guy!"

Not really a good example. (c.f. Oedipus at Colonus.)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 18, 2008 9:15 AM

Not really a good example. (c.f. Oedipus at Colonus.)

I dunno, Oedipus' redemption via death after years wandering as a cursed, blind pauper doesn't strike me as more than breaking even (at best).

Posted by TW Andrews | June 18, 2008 9:27 AM

First of all, I am in Philly and the Boston fans were out in force last night since the Red Sox are in town battling with the Phillies. Congrats, but go the hell home now, please.

Second, about the portion sizes- just because a restaurant offers giant pizza slices, burgers, and sodas, it doesn't mean you have to have them. The problem in this country is only partly the insane portion sizes that are available; it's also a complete lack of self-control and a lack of knowledge about the right choices.

Posted by JG | June 18, 2008 9:28 AM

Wow. What a cold, callous, and thoughtless post.

Here's a more plausible interpretation of the effect of higher food prices on people's eating habits:

Matt Yglesias, Lampwick, and a few other Americans stop eating out so much at large-portion restaurants: bully for us.

The other 90% of Americans have to substitute regular brands for organics, bulk purchases for standard size purchases, and, for the quartile of Americans at or pretty close to the poverty line, have to eat Ramen Noodles, bananas, and baked beans for most of their meals, or even have to choose between eating three meals a day or paying for gas.

Posted by lampwick | June 18, 2008 9:33 AM

Was there ever a bagel the size of the one they picture? Was there ever a pizza the size of the slices they picture?

By the way: how 'bout them Celtics?

Posted by DaveL | June 18, 2008 9:45 AM

"Matt Yglesias, Lampwick, and a few other Americans stop eating out so much at large-portion restaurants: bully for us."

Right, because the people at the local Applebee's and Chile's are hoity-toity high-society types. You actually been to one of those places lately? They may not be the people at or near the poverty line, but it's hardly the elite 10% of the country.

A less callous interpretation is that the amount of food you get per dollar goes up when food prices are cheap. In other words, at many places, the amount of food you get for 9 dollars can be almost twice what you get for 7 dollars. This is going to be true as long as actual food costs remains cheap relative to things like labor and rent. If food becomes more expensive, those mondo portions that only cost a bit more than the "normal" size portions will go up substantially in price. It's true that the price of the normal portion will increase, but not nearly as much since a decent chunk of the price covers service and what-have-you.

Posted by TheF79 | June 18, 2008 9:46 AM

I call bullshit on that food sizes thing. It compares a cup of regular coffee from 20 years ago to a Starbucks latte with whipped cream. That's ridiculous. Coffee is still coffee. It also compares a small popcorn to a large tub. I don't know anyone who goes to the movies and orders a large tub of popcorn for themselves.

Anyway, I fail to see how getting more food for the same amount of money, or less money, is a bad thing. If you're going to make the claim that it's bad for public health, give some evidence.

And I won't even mention the fact that this post misuses the term "public health" to refer to the private health of people. Obesity ain't a contagious disease, therefore it's not "public health." Oops, I mentioned it.

Posted by too many steves | June 18, 2008 9:53 AM

It's also part of the reason I think rich countries like the United States are going to weather the long-run consequences of higher food and energy prices just fine -- at the low prices that have been prevailing recently, we're consuming substantially more than is good for us. Switching to an equilibrium where less food is eaten and more attention is paid to quality (in terms of both taste and nutrition) will be beneficial once the switching is done.

This is completely nuts. The problem with American nutrition isn't that people eat too much food, it's that we eat too much junk food.

Posted by right | June 18, 2008 10:48 AM

The problem with American nutrition isn't that people eat too much food, it's that we eat too much junk food.

No, it's both.

Posted by tom.a | June 18, 2008 10:53 AM

While portions at most restaurants can be very large, people often bring food home to eat at a later time, or share a single item.

Posted by Peter | June 18, 2008 11:04 AM

Re: junk food.

Restaurant food, especially fast food, *is* mostly junk food. So is most of the stuff the supermarkets are pushing on you in the prepared, frozen, canned, and baked goods sections (with various exceptions - there's nothing wrong with canned tomatoes or frozen peas, obviously).

Buy mostly vegetables, beans, and whole grains, locally when possible, and cook them yourself. The more thoroughly you escape the food *industry* in all of its manifestations, the healthier you and the planet will be.

All that same advice applies financially, with some caveats. Eating out is expensive. Eating meat is expensive. Eating prepared and convenience food is expensive. A loaf of whole-wheat bread that's better than *anything* I can buy in any American store costs me 40 cents to make, despite the skyrocketing cost of flour.

It's maddening how little people know about cooking economically - I grew up around very poor people, and mostly very poor myself, and I *know* this. Healthy, tasty food that won't make you fat is cheap, even with food prices skyrocketing - but you need some basic cooking skills.

Posted by Harvey Lobster | June 18, 2008 11:12 AM

The problem with American nutrition isn't that people eat too much food, it's that we eat too much junk food.

Shortly after trans-fat gets the heave-ho, childhood obesity levels off.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 18, 2008 11:15 AM

Serving sizes vs. self control. What a good comparitive example to generalize the liberal vs. conservative solution to our nations problems. While true liberals would probably say, lets control the serving sizes, conservatives would say people should control their own appetites.

I say I dont care how much other people eat as long as Im not subsidizing their health care - which I currently most certainly am. Wheres the party the represents me.

Posted by Self Controlled | June 18, 2008 11:20 AM

Wheres the party the represents me.

In the Jungle Room down the hall, sir.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 18, 2008 11:22 AM

"The problem with American nutrition isn't that people eat too much food, it's that we eat too much junk food."

This is absolutely false. Fifty years ago, people would be lucky if they had a serving of vegetables at a meal, everything was cooked in butter, and meat constituted an obscene percentage of the average American's caloric intake. Fast forward to now, and we've drastically increased intake of vegetables, grains, and lean meats like chicken and fish. Americans eat far healthier foods now than they did fifty years ago -- yet we're fatter than ever. Why? Because we've drastically increased our intake of EVERYTHING, and our activity levels have plummeted. People could eat McDonalds seven days a week if they ate the old-sized portions (i.e., a 600 calorie meal with a small cheeseburger, small fries, and small soda). Heck, eat that twice a day, a bowl of cereal for breakfast and a reasonable snack, and you have a 1700 or so calorie/day diet. That's far less than the average person currently eats -- and it's getting close to dieting levels, at least for men.

As for Matt's main point, I'm going to need an awful lot of convincing to believe that Americans are going to decrease volume but increase quality in their diets. I suspect that it will be the precise opposite -- they will switch to crappy food but eat a ton of it.

Posted by Joe | June 18, 2008 11:31 AM

There's nothing wrong with restaurants per se, Harvey, that's just ridiculous. The fact that large swathes of the US/UK etc. have succumbed to the takeover by corporate chains and processed food and are willing to gobble up almost anything as long as it's char grilled, deep-fried or dumped in a fatty sauce, shouldn't blind you to the fact that cooking is a wonderful craft and that a lot of chefs are really good at it.

Posted by novakant | June 18, 2008 11:40 AM

"Switching to an equilibrium where less food is eaten and more attention is paid to quality (in terms of both taste and nutrition) will be beneficial once the switching is done."

Why do we need higher food prices to do this? Are human beings so flawed that even Harvard educated authors can't conform to basic nutrition standards without having it forced on them?

Also, I hate to tell you but higher food prices will lead to more fat people. As food prices rise,those $1 double cheesebergers at McDonalds look alot more appealing than organic grapes for $6/lb at Whole Foods.

Posted by Dave | June 18, 2008 12:15 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with too many steves -- those comparisons are interesting, but completely ridiculous.

Cuppa joe = mocha with whipped cream? Uh, okay.

Posted by Klug | June 18, 2008 12:29 PM

The basic problem is that the human animal has not evolved to deal with a world of food abundance. It has evolved to survive in a world of relative food scarcity.

Many people are not very good at relying on their satiety cues to know when they have eaten enough and tend to eat more food when it is put in front of them. Their physiological processes are better at increasing caloric intake, not decreasing it.

Posted by blah | June 18, 2008 1:07 PM

Switching to an equilibrium where less food is eaten and more attention is paid to quality (in terms of both taste and nutrition) will be beneficial once the switching is done.

Okay. My gut intuition here is that in response to higher food prices, people will respond with a mix of lowered quality and lowered quantity. However, I could see a case that higher food prices mean reduced quantity while holding quality constant, or reduced quality while holding quantity constant.

However, the idea that higher food prices mean that people will reduce their quantity enough to compensate for higher prices, and then take a second cut in quantity in favor of higher quality? I just don't see the logic there at all.

Posted by Julian Elson | June 18, 2008 1:15 PM

Matt,

I am surprised you and everyone else seems to have missed a few key details. The devil's always in the details, it seems. It isn't just the portions that have increased, it is the relative calories. For example:

old fashioned coffee 45 calories @ 8 ounces or 5.625 calories per ounce

Starbucks coffee 330 calories @ 16 ounces 20.625 calories per ounce

So the calories in a cup of coffee have increase by 15 calories per ounce. They have quadrupled! If every ounce of food you eat has more calories, then you will gain weight.

It would be interesting to compare the calories per ounce of other foods from 20 years ago to today, but this article doesn't have any other portions that are easily divisible into comarative units. How many cups are in a tub of popcorn? It doesn't say. It would be interesting to also compare things like candy, and also make comparisons between the overall eating habits of yesteryear with today. I've read that the average family eats out more today than yesteryear. Does a homecooked meal contain fewer calories per ounce than a prepared meal? And are statistics controlling for grocery store prepared foods like hot pockets?

Posted by freddiemac | June 18, 2008 1:43 PM

It seems silly to me to argue that people should just exercise self control in order to stop the obesity epidemic. People today are no more lacking in self control than people of yesteryear, they are simply living in a very different environment in which the standard amount of food served is larger and each ounce contains more empty calories.

Of course, I have no pity for the people who order the huge lattes and crap at Starbucks every day. It's like drinking a milkshake for breakfast! What's wrong with a small coffee with some cream?

Posted by lfv | June 18, 2008 3:19 PM