The Dunch Factor
(my photo)
I was walking downtown the other day and saw this sandwichboard outside a Potbelly’s. The idea was, basically, that people ought to be eating larger sandwiches for lunch. Messing around with their nutritional information calculator, I see that if you order a regular-sized meatball sandwich and an oreo milkshake from Potbelly’s you’ll be taking in over 1,400 calories at lunchtime. So it’s not clear that a larger portion size is what’s really needed here. And, as a general principle, it’s very hard to believe on the merits that what Americans need to be doing is eating more food.
But there’s a very profound problem of evolutionary psychology here. For the vast majority of human existence people were engaged in much more daily physical activity than is the typical member of a contemporary rich society and it was impossible to be certain that food would be available in the future. Consequently, people are largely designed with the instinct to err on the side of eating more food rather than less. Especially if the food is tasty. These days, of course, we’re in a very different situation. Nobody starves to death in the contemporary United States, but lots of people have problems related to poor dietary habits.
Hardly an original point on my part. But the sign made me think of it. And I suppose I would make the point that at the margin expenditures of funds to fight this tendency are going to do a lot more to improve public health than will expenditures of funds to treat people’s diabetes.
47 Responses to “The Dunch Factor”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 15th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Not to be pedantic, but some people do starve to death in this country. It’s next to no one, and would be statistically insignificant (on examination I can’t even find a statistic, but I’m a lazy Google-er and I’m sure one is easy enough to find if one tries a bit) but in terms of human beings statistics about death are meaningless anyway (despite their near ubiquity in modern culture), as even one is too many.
This does not, of course, dispute your larger point which is entirely true: we’re too damn fat as it is.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:36 am
It’s funny, I thought the same thing about the larger Potbelly sandwich promotion. I didn’t realize that people were sitting around wishing they were more substantial. They’ve always seemed pretty normal-lunch sized to me.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:37 am
I saw a Vault ad recently that boasted 3 times as much caffeine as Mountain Dew.
I’m surprised that it’s effective marketing to say “we’ll get you fat and addicted!”
Perhaps it stems from the popularity of chauvinism under Bush.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Oreo Milkshake? You don’t think that’s overdoing your point just a tad?
While the point about overeating is obvious, I suspect Americans really would be healthier if we did eat our main meal at lunchtime rather than at the end of the day. Of course, a larger fastfood sandwich isn’t exactly the best solution there….
July 15th, 2009 at 8:40 am
I always thought one of the nice aspects of Potbelly was that the portion size was modest.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Humans aren’t “largely designed” to do anything.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:01 am
I’m not at all clear what the incentives are for fast food restaurants to keep massively increasing their portion sizes. 20 years ago, the sizes of S/M/L drinks were 12 oz/16 oz/20 oz — nowadays they’re something like 24 oz/32 oz/40 oz…why? Why do Wendy’s and Rally’s keep finding ways to stack even more patties on a bun? Why has McD’s invested in promoting massive, 1/2 lb Angus burgers? If we’re going to talk about portion size in the context of improving health outcomes, we have to understand the incentives that drive these changes and find ways to change them, preferably through the market.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:08 am
The oreo milkshake from potbelly’s has 740 calories and the meatball sandwich has 618 (only the PB&J has more among their original sandwiches). By adding in the shake, Matt pretty clearly put his thumb on the scale; I don’t know many people who habitually drink milk shakes for lunch.
Additionally, pairing a meatball sandwich with an oreo milkshake in a single sitting strikes me as just plain disgusting.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:08 am
A dietician at work likes to say that a healthy portion is what would would leave you feeling cheated at a restaurant.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Americans in the main are a flaccid horde of porcine layabouts. Everywhere you go and everywhere you look you see obscene masses of jiggle and stretch marks waddling atop pairs of legs. These fat fucks cost the healthcare system, employers and their families billions a year in lost time and failed attempts at healing their self incurred maladies. Look, quit eating so much and get some fricking exercise. Failing that just do everyone a favor and hurry along the Grim Reaper in any fashion you deem fit. Pills, pistol, whatever. You’re all ruining the view for the rest of us.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:15 am
#7:
Retailers face near-zero marginal cost to increase portion size, so they compete the cheapest way they can, on portions.
Killing our gigantic public subsidies to agriculture is the solution. Simple as that.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Entering my third month of a vegan diet, this former carnivore feels better, has more energy, and has plateaued at 16 pounds lost. Don’t know why I’m plateauing, but I understand that’s normal. But I read stories like this and see the advertisements (and recently watched Spurlock’s “Super Size Me”–a real eye-opener) and am happy to realize that I’m no longer saddled with this particular issue. Now, my mortgage…
July 15th, 2009 at 9:36 am
To me, “Dunch” means “drunk brunch”. As in “We went to the Earl for Dunch on Sunday before going to bed. Holly GoLightly was playing.”
July 15th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Actually, one of my biggest shocks in Europe were the rather large serving sizes here. People eat a lot for lunch and if they go out for dinner they eat appetizers, entrees and dessert. And the main dish is just as big as in the United States. There could actually be some benefit from shifting calorie consumption from dinner to lunch. However, I think the real problem with the United States is the quantity of HFCS consumed. I’m not sure whether the problem is boosting total calorie consumption or if they’re worse for the same calorie consumption, but if I had to make a bet, I’d say that’s probably 80% of why Americans are heavier than, say, the French.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:46 am
“Don’t know why I’m plateauing, but I understand that’s normal.”
Presumably, you are plateauing at the new equilibrium point that reflects the reduced average caloric intake of your vegan diet.
A few years ago, I also reduced my average caloric intake and lost about 30 poinds. Same thing here: I generally feel better and have more energy.
Unlike Steve Duncan, though, I don’t mind seeing fat people waddling around. Everyone can decide what tradeoff they want between short-term pleasure and long-term health.
I’m all for ending agricultural subsidies that artificially subsidize unhealthiness, though, as well as no-brainers like banning trans fats. On the other hand, we liberals don’t want to go too far and get accused of excessive nanny-statism and limiting freedom.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:49 am
If you leave out the milkshake, which is hardly typical lunchtime fare, the ~600 calories for the meatball sandwich compares favorably with other fast food meals, for example a burger and fries.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:01 am
OMG!! How does PB&J have 945 calories, for goodness sake! Holy crap.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:07 am
I’m not at all clear what the incentives are for fast food restaurants to keep massively increasing their portion sizes.
The cost of building and maintaining the restaurant, paying the workers, and advertising don’t increase with portion size. But the customer thinks they are buying food, so more food for more money is perfectly logical.
The customer is not just buying food, though – they’re also buying the convenience of having the food pre-cooked and served at a time of the customer’s choosing, often in places where it would be very difficult or impossible for the customer to have access to a kitchen of his/her own (downtown business districts, mall food courts, etc.) And of course they expect the right to sit and eat at the restaurant’s table if they choose to, also in a high-cost, high-density convenient location.
All of those costs don’t scale with portion size, but since they’re not salient to the customer, the customer will accept a price increase almost proportional to the portion size.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:11 am
@thehova I agree! I cheered the arrival of Potbelly’s because I like their portion sizes. Every other sandwich place leaves me with a huge pile of wasted food because they only offer Reptar-sized portions. Even when I say I want only half the portion size, often I can’t get it because the guys on the line are required to make sandwiches to specific portion sizes.
I’m gratified to learn that the sandwich I always get at Potbelly (”skinny” turkey, with cheese, lettuce, onion, italian seasoning) only has 416 calories. (I drink seltzer all day after finishing my coffee…definitely not Oreo milkshakes!) Which is good, because after reading this thread I’m going to have to go over and get one for lunch today.
Sigh.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:16 am
You mean type II diabetes. As a type I diabetic, its remarkably frustrating to have my disease associated with the poor dietary habits of so many Americans.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Rather than any kind of ill-fated calorie tax, we should impose the following regulation: any restaurant order over 800 calories must be delivered with the statement “enjoy your meal, fatty.”
July 15th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Potbelly’s is kind of amusing because they rolled out the Bigs at around the same time that they rolled out “Slims,” versions of their sandwiches with less meat. They’re trying to capture both ends of the market.
At least their marketing is not as gender-heavy as, say Burger King or Hardee’s, both of which decided that the pressure placed on McDonalds (as the big player in fast food) to offer “healthier” options opened the door for them to position themselves as the ones unapologetically offering “men’s meals” of big meaty sandwiches.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:39 am
The name “Potbelly’s” should be your 1st tip-off that this is not a lo-cal establishment.
And “dunch” sounds like a good term for someone who thinks there are no adverse consequences to eating this way.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Isn’t including the Oreo milkshake a cheap way to have a more eye-catching calorie count? Who orders a milkshake with lunch? And not just a milk shake, but rather the one with all the trans fats and the immediate message of indulgent gluttony. You could have still padded the stats by using a regular Coke (as opposed to a Diet Coke).
I point this out only because it seems like you are rigging the game, especially given that most nutritionists would recommend transferring calories from dinner to lunch, as they are less likely to turned into fat.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Jim W.
I’m all for ending agricultural subsidies that artificially subsidize unhealthiness, though, as well as no-brainers like banning trans fats. On the other hand, we liberals don’t want to go too far and get accused of excessive nanny-statism and limiting freedom.
Some liberals get off on being nags unfortunately, especially the well-off health-nut variety. It’s a class thing.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:09 am
The New Yorker article which recently came out clearly lays out that perhaps the issue is not necessarily that we are more sedentary or that our food is reallt worse. The problem is that portion sizes have grown to the point where what we consider normal has changed over the years.
The article brought out a great experiment done with soup bowls as well as how supersizing got its start (Movie Theater Popcorn), and how Americans cannot stop eating if it is in front of them.
However – Matt’s post indicates a level of gluttonous behavior rarely partaken by the normal public. Poeple rarely go to a sandwich shop and have both a sandwich and a giant milkshake…this seems more of a dinner option (which invariably is actually worse).
So the question is this: if we cannot get people to reduce portion sizes, then the only other option is exercise… I think the only realistic option is to stop Parents thinking that the weekends are for watching their kids, and get more sports where both Parents and Kids can participate. Cycling would be a perfect option, and would allow a level of involvement much greater than Little League (which should be called the League of Extraordinary Fat Kids in Stretch Pants Doing Nothing and Eating Ice Cream Afterwards…in other words, exactly opposite the intended purpose it was supposed to help generate (i.e. – physical activity for their kids).
July 15th, 2009 at 11:10 am
On the other hand businesses exist to make a profit, full stop. They don’t care about the health or well-being of their customers.
All their charity work etc is PR and to make them feel better. Whenever businesses engage in that sort of thing it seems disingenuous to me.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:13 am
I am surprised that Matthew doesn’t end this post by calling for a special federal tax on meatball sandwiches and oreo milkshakes. We gotta fund healthcare after all!
July 15th, 2009 at 11:38 am
This is why for-profit hospitals don’t work so well. Actually it could be all right if things were set up so they only made money when people got well, but that’s not how the incentives run in our system…
July 15th, 2009 at 11:44 am
It seems to me that the obesity epidemic isn’t all about calories. It’s about calories + perceived value + convenience + all the crap that’s in fast food + class (if you’re working three jobs and have a kid, there’s no time or money to cook your own food) + ag subsidies.
That said, obesity can mostly be reduced to this: burn off what you take in. Count your calories and then adjust your diet and exercise. Genetics aside, of course.
Re: vegans and weight-loss. As a 6 year vegetarian, it’s easy to be a bad vegan or vegetarian. Being vegan or vegetarian does not automatically equate to a healthier life. You still need to eat right. I know plenty of meat eaters who are probably healthier than my veggie friends.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Re thehova #5 and ajw_93 #19:
I have a huge appetite and high metabolism. I eat a ton, yet I am very thin. (I recognize that I am lucky and unusual.) I dislike Potbelly’s, and I get annoyed if my friends want to go there, because I find the sandwiches too small. :> Seriously. And I don’t want to pay for two sandwiches.
I usually get a footlong from Subway for lunch.
July 15th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
how Americans cannot stop eating if it is in front of them.
We’re socialized not to. Think of all those starving children in Africa! (Although, snark aside, I think this behavior may not be limited to Americans.)
The problem comes when we grow up and don’t know how much food we ought to be putting in front of ourselves (or our own children), and/or accept portion sizes determined by corporations whose interests don’t align with ours. If food eaten = food served, then the place to control our food intake is at our food purchasing and preparation habits, but we may need to resist self-serving nudges in order to do so.
July 15th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Maybe it is an age thing but back when I was a kid the standard fast food lunch meal was precisely a hamburger, fries and a chocolate milkshake. You didn’t go to your local Dairy Queen or Foster’s Freeze or A&W to have a vat of pop, instead you had a burger and shake or maybe a burger and root beer float. In fact when the MacDonalds (pre Croc) opened their first stand using the new business model they only sold burgers, fries and milkshakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_McDonald’s
And as several people noted traditionally what we call lunch was actually the biggest meal of the day and called dinner. Only rich people ate big meals late at night. Somehow Americans have managed to convince themselves that the dietary habits of Edwardian-era aristocrats are the ‘natural’ pattern with light lunches and big dinner/suppers. I suspect a lot of people would be healthier if they went to bed with an empty stomach and woke up ready to break their fast with breakfast, then work half the day and have a big healthy dinner at mid-day, and then have a light meal at work day’s end.
July 15th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
What always strikes me as odd, on the few occasions per year when I visit a fast food joint, is how damned expensive it is. A couple of months ago I was in a car that went through a Wendys drive in, and three kids’ meals (smaller hamburger, french fries and soda) and one adult meal (larger burger, fries, and soda) were ordered. The tab was over 13 bucks!
For thirteen bucks, I could have fed those four people at least five times as many meals, with about 90 minutes of cooking time, and maybe about 30 minutes of actual labor, with far better taste and nutrition.
People in this country have forgotten how to cook, unfortunately.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
It has often been remarked that America is the Land of Cockaigne for the impoverished European peasantry who migrated here and their offspring. Even today the newly arrived and settled residents judge an eating place by how much you can get for your money, not the quality of the food, attentiveness of the service, or the theatrical experience of dining (including lengnth of the meal and suprise extras) for which in, say, France, indicate the quality of the eating place.
http://www.orph.us/images/projects/Nap.jpg
July 15th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
It’s hardly limited to Americans. We’re just the land of cheap food subsidies and highly sedentary jobs.
July 15th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Re Bruce Webb #33
The problem with a big lunch, in an era where jobs are increasingly office-based, is that it makes you sleepy for the rest of the afternoon! At least, I have that problem (as I noted in my #31, I like to eat a lot)
July 15th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Giant Baguette at the Festival Excentrique:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOKXX65l
Shades of Gargantua and Pantagruel
All this month, villages across the Loire valley are celebrating the 2009
Festival Excentrique. Two American artists have taken a French food institution and given it a new international flavor. The baguette is getting a new and zany taste.
July 15th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Including the Oreo Milkshake in the calorie count for the meatball sub is like the comedian who noted that between him and Wilt Chamberlain, they’d slept with 20,002 women.
July 15th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
[...] wrote earlier today about the problem of large portion sizes in which many of us who might have one kind of desire to consume fewer calories nonetheless find [...]
July 15th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
A gastronomic utopia?
Luisa del Giudice suggests that in Italy another name for America was “Cuccagna”:
July 15th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
[...] is almost aggresively stupid: I was walking downtown the other day and saw this sandwichboard outside a Potbelly’s. The idea [...]
July 15th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
The problem with a big lunch, in an era where jobs are increasingly office-based, is that it makes you sleepy for the rest of the afternoon!
That depends on the kind of lunch, though. If you’re careful with what you choose, and have access to decent outlets or prep facilities, you can avoid the post-lunch crash.
I grew up in a “breakfast, dinner and tea” household, where my dad would come home from work at midday (as his dad had done). That changed perhaps 15-20 years ago, but I see the effects of an abbreviated lunch hour on people with office jobs, and I’m not convinced that eating at one’s desk is healthy.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Just wanted to chime in on the oreo milkshake being ridiculous. Seriously Matt, that’s really fucking weak.
Actually, one of my biggest shocks in Europe were the rather large serving sizes here.
Seriously? That seems like total nonsense to me. One thing that’s great about Europe is that while you obviously can get big portions if you go to sit-down restaurants and such, there’s lots of more “fast food” type places where you can get meals of much more reasonable size. Sandwiches at the bakery, for instance, would generally be cheap and much smaller than anything you can get anywhere in the US. Kabobs would also generally not be ridiculously huge.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Re: Somehow Americans have managed to convince themselves that the dietary habits of Edwardian-era aristocrats are the ‘natural’ pattern with light lunches and big dinner/suppers.
I think this has a lot more to do with our work schedules. A heavy lunch leaves one in a “food coma” for hours afterward. Not good for either manual laborers or knowledge workers. So we make supper the heavy meal and then vege out afterward.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Maybe Matt is cheating by adding the Oreo Milkshake to the calorie count of the lunch. Then again, maybe he’s just telling us something about his own eating habits…
July 16th, 2009 at 2:12 am
Will, you’re talking out your ass. What could you possibly be cooking that is well balanced and only costs .65 a serving?