‘Super-size’ not a super deal, study finds
- 06-01-2006, 03:25 PM
‘Super-size’ not a super deal, study finds
Read the second to last Paragraph! AMAZING!
NEW YORK - The "super-size" deals at fast-food restaurants aren't such a bargain once the costs of weight gain are considered, according to a new study.
Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that while the average "upsized" fast-food meal costs a mere 67 cents more than a regular meal, those bonus calories could translate into substantial daily costs due to weight gain.
When people put on weight, the study authors say, their grocery bills, healthcare costs and even gasoline expenses climb as well.
"These calculated costs exceed the value of upsized meals and may provide motivation to some consumers not to upsize their meals," Rachel N. Close and Dr. Dale A. Schoeller write in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.
Based on their estimates, each fast-food "value" meal would cost an adult 5 cents more in fuel expenses - as heavier passengers reduce a car's fuel efficiency - and about 35 cents in overall food costs, since heavier people need more calories.
Add to that the healthcare cost per super-size meal - which ranges from 82 cents to $6.64 - and these fast-food deals are no deal at all, Close and Schoeller assert.
"In essence," they write, "the more a person overeats, the greater the financial cost."
About one third of American adults are considered obese, and critics have long accused the fast-food industry of helping to fuel the problem with their swelling portion sizes. The new study took a different tack and sought to highlight the potential financial effects of voluminous fast-food meals.
"This is another way to present the costs associated with weight gain, and might help convince people that upsizing a meal is no bargain at all," Close said in a statement.
Using nutrition information from several major fast-food chains, the researchers estimated that super-sizing a soda and fries costs consumers only 67 cents, on average. But those cents buy about 400 extra calories, which may carry their own price tag.
For every 100 calories a person eats beyond his daily needs, Close and Schoeller calculate, the price in terms of food, medical care and gasoline rises anywhere from 48 cents to nearly $2. The heavier a person is, the greater the cost.
So while there may be immediate savings in choosing a super-size meal, the researchers conclude, consumers should be aware of the potential "hidden costs" that they will pay later.E-Pharm Nutrition Representative
- 06-01-2006, 05:42 PM
LOL - man...why would you want a double size serving of HighFructoseCornSyrup and Fryer Grease anyway?
06-01-2006, 05:47 PM
This is why I believe there should be increased tax on unhealthy foods. The 'fat tax' would be directly infused into health costs pertaining to extreme-obesity. I think it's ridiculous that we have to pay for our healthy lifestyle. Governments should be awarding tax incentives to companies deemed to be producing 'healthy foods' so that proccessing doesn't hit them so hard, which translates into more money spent from us.
06-01-2006, 06:08 PM
thats a very interesting point mullet never thought about it that way.
The way I look at is they upped the price of cigs nearly 3 times the amount with taxes because of known health problems and variouse other reasons, but yet their outlook on obeseity and the VAST problems it carrys for not only the individual but the society is turning away... I dont get it
06-01-2006, 06:13 PM
Well it just seems odd to me that we are fiscally punished for being less of a drain on the economy in our later years. I do realize that their are far to many socio-political issues pertaining to obesity to simplify it as I did. Many families are near or below the poverty line and cannot afford healthy foods, their only alternative is cheap, quick and almost always unhealthy foods. I would not advocate raising the net price of those products, but institute a program where a certain % of those companies profits is devoted into taking care of their customers basically. While awarding health food companies tax incentives to balance out the the high proccessing costs associated with healthy foods. There was actually a bill in my country where companies were going to be taxed for using hydrogenated oils, never passed though.Originally Posted by OCCFan023
06-01-2006, 06:25 PM
Very true, I failed to think of the people in those situations that health eating isnt even a choice due to financial problems and so on. The bill you were talking about hydrogenated oils sounded like a resourceful answer or beggning to a possible solution, too bad it got shot down. SOmething needs to be done soon though its scary to think that 34 million people in the US are clinical obese and even scarier that these 34 million pass it on to there children only further the problem...
06-01-2006, 06:31 PM
I see your point but it's easy to tax things like cigs and alcohol. Do you know how much of a pain it would be to tax only the bad foods. Some might say turkey burgers are bad because they have 4-5g of sat fat. Or maybe flax is bad because it's so high in calories. People are weird bro.Originally Posted by OCCFan023
06-01-2006, 08:45 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of setting protocol for proccessing, not the finished product. Setting regulations for the type of proccessing would be alot more efficient and far less micro-managed that super-regulating the finished product. The point would be to even the playing-field so to speak for healthy and unhealthy foods. The production costs for unhealthy foods are generally speaking far less than those of healthy foods, that's why they cost less. Tax incentives for healthy foods, and tax penalties for unhealthy foods would help to put them at par, which benefits would be twofold: a)the lower-middle class/working class would be able to afford these healthier foods b) it would be less of a hassle on us. This would be all for not without a far more zealous effort to quell the disgusting problem of obesity though.Originally Posted by jminis
06-01-2006, 10:00 PM
We all piss and moan and b*tch about gas prices.
Yet, that statistic costs us Americans waaaaay more than gasoline. (Well, those that pay Medicare/Medicade.)
06-01-2006, 11:43 PM
Those junk food people always prey on peoples' innate need to get a good deal. But this world's one where the ends justify the means and if that means making people more plump so a company can get a few bucks, i say that's craziness. Pure craziness.
06-02-2006, 06:25 AM
It would be extremly difficult to tax certain things (as god knows how many different types of sh*t food there are in this country) it be unachievable. However if guidlines were set (such as foods containing certain amounts of sugar or sat fat and so on would be taxed.) Something along thse lines would either a0 force companies to meet healthier guidelines, b) people would be turned off by the taxed foods and turn to somewhat healthier choices (unlikely), c) huge drop off in fast food revenue (overall goal but i dont think that 110 billion dollars is going to drop too much...)Originally Posted by jminis
This seems like a very simple and a problem that could be addressed but the overall scope and the strangehold fast food holds is almsot uncomprehensible
06-02-2006, 06:47 AM
I def think there should be tax benefits for companies who product healthy foods. I also think if your overweights your insurance should be higher. Why do I pay more because others don't take care of themselves? I could go on for ever but I think the bottom line to all of this is life just isn't fair. It's sucks but that's the way it is.Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
06-02-2006, 08:30 AM
Originally Posted by jminis
Howabout a tax break for healthy individuals? Most people seemed to be concerned more with their finances than their own bodies...tie the two together and you might have something.
06-02-2006, 08:48 AM
Originally Posted by jminis
There should be a tax benefit, but common sense never prevails. In the state of PA, There was a bill proposed this year that contained a clause on taxing gym memberships! Thank god it got alot of bad press and it was killed.
Similar Forum Threads
- By clk in forum AnabolicsReplies: 40Last Post: 12-07-2014, 07:11 PM
- By triceptor in forum SHR Show ArchivesReplies: 0Last Post: 10-03-2012, 03:43 PM
- By ConcreteConny in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 0Last Post: 07-26-2012, 02:22 AM
- By anabolicrhino in forum General ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 05-16-2007, 10:07 PM