One Way To Reduce Healthcare Costs From Obesity

August 31, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (4)

UPDATED 09/01/2009: Well as anyone who has read this has noticed, I misinterpreted this study pretty badly. The study actually found that higher wages had the REVERSE effect than that I suggested: they encourage grazing because their time becomes more valuable, and they don't dedicate time to actual eating.

Obesity has become almost more of an economic issue than a health issue in recent years, as policymakers propose various taxes, labelling regulations and bans on trans fats. Many of these policies are sold as partial solutions to the explosion of healthcare costs. But a new economics paper suggests that simply making people richer is a powerful way to promote healthier eating habits and create a drop in BMI (body-mass index a common measure of obesity.)

A problem boosting obesity among Americans is "grazing." These are the midnight snacks, extra trips to the cookie jar and linners (that's the extra meal between lunch and dinner) that we're all guilty of. How do you reduce grazing? Daniel Hamermesh of the University of Texas found that higher wages meant less grazing. Here's why:

When time becomes more valuable (as proxied by the hourly wage), people substitute grazing for eating, essentially switching to multi-tasking an activity that may be one of the more readily multi-tasked.

When your time is more precious (because you have higher earning potential with that time), you cut out the time-wasting activities like grazing, and your meals start to more closely resemble the healthier three square meals.

(HT: Mungowitz.)

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Matthews Bandyk should read the primary article and come back and apologize for his misrepresentation of this valuable study.

What the study actually shows is that grazing (within limits, of course) and higher incomes are directly proportional. The people who earn more income graze more often and in longer durations. Eating 3 meals a day plus snacks (yes, grazing) results in a lower BMI and better health.

Read what Bandyk wrote: "When your time is more precious (because you have higher earning potential with that time), you cut out the time-wasting activities like grazing, and your meals start to more closely resemble the healthier three square meals."

Now Mr. Bandyk please read the preceding sentences from your

article: "When time becomes more valuable (as proxied by the hourly wage), people substitute grazing for eating, essentially switching to multi-tasking an activity that may be one of the more readily multi-tasked."

What the study actually says is that if you are making more per hour/a higher salary, you know your time is valuable to you and your employer thus you resort to grazing or multi-tasking while you work. The study actually includes work and leisure time but the result is the same.

People who make more money can afford to graze, have snacks at work, and continue to work at their job and produce a living. The study makes no statements on the quality of the foods that are consumed yet Mr Bandyk takes the typical conservative narrow minded view that if you graze or eat snacks between meals, it will be an unhealthy event. This is simply not directly related.

I have long argued that we all need to eat not three but 5 or 6 small meals every day. You must feed your body a small 300-400 (for a man) calorie meal 5-6 times a day but you still can't exceed the calories expended by your body in basal functions, thermogenics, and activity level. Your body burns calories only through these three ways. Feeding your body more often creates more calorie burned during the day...thus raises your metabolism.

The food industry does promote unhealthy foods for snacks like chips and cookies but often people with higher incomes can afford fruits like apples or oranges or vegetables like carrots to have at their desk or work station. It is the less fortunate and less educated that must rely on cheap calorie dense snacks like a Snickers bar.

I respectfully request that you immediately pull this article and take your wrongly reasoned analysis of this study off this website. Evidently, you must have been eating a snicker's bar when you should have been reading this study.

Larry Matthews of NC 8:50AM September 01, 2009

If this causality is true, why is it that the United States has gotten fatter even as we have become richer?

Colin of DC 3:09PM August 31, 2009

Besides the point made in this article, higher wages would help to promote better eating habits in two more ways.

The first is that someone earning low wages cannot afford to buy the healthiest food. Fresh fruits and vegetables are some of the costliest items in the grocery store; and if you want to buy organic, they cost even more.

Secondly, if you are a person working two minimum wage jobs to make ends meet you are not going to have the time to prepare healthful meals from scratch. You'll have to make do with something from the fast-food place as you make the trip from one job to the other.

MN of VA 2:56PM August 31, 2009

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement