Uh-oh...

I was on my way to look for a USB cord for my computer when I found out that McDonalds is going to discontinue their super-sized fries and drinks. I am not at all happy about this turn of events, although I am less bothered by it now than I would be under other circumstances. Although McDonalds spokespeople are saying that the move is at least equally concerned with operations issues, like reducing store inventory (when you buy fries or a drink, what you're really buying is the container, not the food substance.) and reducing the number of tasks for the employee, I think that this move is largely because McDonalds is one of the main targets of people like me, who are looking at the obesity epidemic. Like I said earlier, though, I'm not in favor of this move. First, as I mentioned when I wrote about this earlier, the staggering increase in obesity is not due to increased caloric consumption at meal times, but during snacking. While I never followed up on that post, the main thrust of the paper was that the increase in obesity is due primarily to the fact that food is cheaper and can be prepared faster. The basic idea is that food consumption is inversely proportional to the time-cost of that food. At first, this might seem counter-intuitive. Take the traditional Thanksgiving dinner, for instance. That takes a long time, but in eating that, people tend to take in more calories than they would with, say, a Hungry Man dinner with the same food. That part is true. The rub is that holiday dinners are special occasions and the time cost of those dinners is part of the whole celebration. Most people don't eat like that every day, or even every week. For many people, particularly those who have found themselves to be a part of the growing trend (no pun intended...well, maybe a little intended.), much of their diet is comprised of processed food, which tends to be cheaper, easier to prepare, and higher in calories. So while that homemade cornbread dressing may taste better than Stove Top, the fact that Stove Top is easier to make means that it's more likely to be made and consumed more frequently. But even that assessment is not quite true to the research. It's the snacks. If you think about processed foods, which are the cheapest, easiest to prepare, and highest in calories? Junk food and snacks. My personal temptation was Hostess frosted honey buns. How cheap? Two for a dollar. How easy to prepare? Open the package. How high in calories? I don't have a wrapper here, but high. I know that one of them has about 54g of carbohydrates in a serving. Translate that to calories and it's gotta be high. Since snacks are cheap and easy, people eat a lot of them. They take in a lot of calories, too. Without regular exercise, those calories add up quickly. To prove their hypothesis, the study's authors divided their test groups into five categories, with the idea that if the main cause of the increase in obesity was the reduced time cost of food preparation, then the people most impacted by the changes in food would be the people who experienced the changes in weight. The results seem to bear this out. Single men experienced the smallest increase in obesity, while married women experienced the greatest. If the authors' premise is correct, then this shows that groups that don't traditionally cook, like single men, didn't eat more because food was cheaper and faster. For groups who cook a lot, like married women, the decrease in preparation time corresponded with an increase in frequency of consumption, and therefore an increase in calories. To be sure there are flaws with this study. It does not disaggregate by race, or income, both of which could yield some very interesting results. My own research is focused on nutrition and obesity vis a vis walkability and urban design, so it's interesting to me to note which restaurants and stores are in which neighborhoods. If I live in the 'hood, is processed food the only thing I can buy? Did obesity rates around the way increase at the same rate as they did everywhere else? If so, what does that mean for the culpability of fast food joints like McDonalds or the ubiquitous corner stores that sell nothing but candy and ready-to-eat foods? If not, is there a difference in the amount of physical activity that explains the trend? In light of this study, I think it might be interesting to look at the rise of the microwave. That's the central locus of all cheaper, faster food. Thinking back, the popularity of the microwave really took off during the 80's, when the massive increase in obesity began in earnest. There are some other possilities for research variables I can think of, like the correlation between the microwave, kids, and the idiot box. I'm just not feeling like spelling them all out right now. Back to McDonalds, I guess the main thing that frustrates me is that I like super-sized drinks. Forty-four ounces, that's enough to last me...maybe 10 or 15 minutes. Those other sizes are barely enough to wet my throat.