Obesity in America is more about snacks than giant meals

The New York Times has a cool interactive project about what people actually order at Chipotle that, I think, is supposed to shock you with the revelation that the typical order contains 1,000 calories. That's a large meal, no doubt, but it seems to me that a 1,000-calorie meal could easily be one of the three meals consumed in a government-recommended 2,000 calorie day. The problem with this kind of restaurant-shaming (see also this earlier effort from the NYT) is that as best as people can tell eating big meals isn't actually what's driving America's obesity issues.

It's all about the snacks.

The above is a table from David Cutler, Jesse Shapiro, and Ed Glaeser's 2003 study "Why have Americans become more obese" and what it shows is that pretty much all of America's increased calorie consumption between the late-1970s and the mid-1990s came from increased snacking. Women actually started eating smaller meals during this period, they just more than made up for it with snacks.

That data is a little out of date, but according to Professor Richard Mattes the snack explosion only continued. In 1996, the average American ate about 423 calories worth of snacks per day but by 2006 that was up to 580.

The centrality of snacking to obesity is a significant challenge for public policy. There's a lot of focus on chain restaurant portion size, both in the media and in terms of the Obama administration's push for menus to state calorie contents. But the issue really doesn't seem to be that people started ordering gigantic meals. It's more that they started supplementing regular meals with more sweetened beverages and bigger bags of chips. It's noteworthy to me that I see a lot of emphasis lately on fancy places trying to push "healthy" snacks — nuts and dried kale and what not. But it's clear from the data that the actual pattern of the healthier eating habits of yore was simply less snacking rather than a universe of tasty nutritious treats.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via