• Welcome
  • Community
  • Blogs
  • Photos
  • Videos
  • Join
  • Log in
Follow MNN    
MNN - Mother Nature Network - Envrionmental News
improve your world

 

Saturday, May 26, 2012
  • Earth Matters

    Browse All » Animals Weather Energy Politics Space Translating Uncle Sam Wilderness & Resources

  • Health

    Browse All » Allergies Fitness & Well-Being Healthy Spaces

  • Lifestyle

    Browse All » Arts & Culture Travel Natural Beauty & Fashion Recycling Responsible Living

  • GREEN TECH

    Browse All » Computers Gadgets & Electronics Research & Innovations Transportation

  • Eco-Biz & Money

    Browse All » Green Workplace Personal Finance Sustainable Business Practices

  • Food & Drink

    Browse All » Beverages Healthy Eating Recipes

  • Your Home

    Browse All » At Home Organic Farming & Gardening Remodeling & Design

  • family

    Browse All » Babies & Pregnancy Family Activities Pets Protection & Safety

Tweet
Pin It
Email Bookmark and ShareShare
WorldShares lets you earn donations for your favorite nonprofit. Earn up to 20 points now.
Learn More

Earn Points
What's this?
MNN.COM›

MNN BLOGGERS

Jim Motavalli

Fuel economy and our obesity problem: A weighty connection?

A new study shows Americans have packed on almost 30 pounds since 1960, and that's erasing all the gains automakers have made by putting their cars on a diet.

Fri, Dec 30 2011 at 1:54 PM EST
 4

McDonald's sign by a crosswalk indicator WALKING DISTANCE: Even without a car, a McDonald's is never far away. (Photo: Miss Barabanov/Flickr)
“Welcome to Wendy’s, how may I help you?” If you replied, “Make mine the Triple Baconator Combo Meal with small fries and a small Coke,” you’ve just agreed to pack on 1,850 calories, 106 grams of fat (43 of them saturated) and 2,780 milligrams of sodium.
 
And we wonder why Americans are so fat. That calorie count was from a new book, "10 Worst Fast Food Meals in America," and you’d do no better with the Large Triple Whopper with Cheese Value Meal (with fries!) from Burger King (1,790 calories). It’s no wonder that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the average American male between 20 and 74 has a 39-inch waist and weighs 194.7 pounds (up 28.4 since 1960). The news isn’t much better for women: They weigh in at 164.7 now (with a 37-inch waist).
 
As Automotive News (subscription required) recently noted, there’s a car angle to this. Automakers are bending over backwards to reduce the weight of their cars, using lightweight steel and carbon fiber whenever possible. It’s the quickest way to improve fuel economy. Ford cut 30 pounds from the automatic transmission in the Focus. The Chevy Cruze and the Hyundai Elantra have even done away with the spare tire. “But while engineers are removing one spare tire, their customers and passengers have each been adding one of their own,” writes columnist Larry Vellequette.
 
It’s simple math: If the car loses 30 pounds, but the driver gains the same amount, we’re left with a wash in terms of fuel economy. With two big and talls in the car, you’re losing ground.
 
The auto industry’s focus on losing weight is a welcome change. According to Christopher Knittel of MIT, formerly of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, “From 1980 to 2004, the average fuel economy of the U.S. new passenger automobile increased by less than 6.5 percent. During this time, the average horsepower of new passenger cars increased by 80 percent, while the average curb weight increased by 12 percent.” That’s awful. And, he adds, “[I]f weight, horsepower and torque were held at their 1980 levels, fuel economy for both passenger cars and light trucks could have increased by nearly 50 percent from 1980 to 2006; this is in stark contrast to the 15 percent by which fuel economy actually increased.”
 
OK, so now we have the cars losing weight and people gaining. Well, they were gaining back then, too, but all that extra poundage is cumulative. Now, here’s where the cars and calories thing comes together. As the Los Angeles Times reports, “A new study finds that living in an area populated by fast-food restaurants and not having a car may make your weight climb.” This is sociology writ large: poverty equals pounds.  
 
Talk about a vicious circle. In this case, fast-food proximity erases the undeniable benefit of walking. The heavyweights making the springs sag down will actually melt some of the fat away through the very act of owning a car.
 
The report, based on data from 2,156 adults in the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Study database and first reported in the Journal of Urban Health, reveals that car owners on average weighed 8.5 pounds more than pedestrians. But when those same non-car-owners lived in “lower middle socioeconomic status areas,” i.e., poor, neighborhoods, they weighed 12 pounds more than people living there with cars. Why is that? Because without a car you can’t drive to the affordable grocery stores that are usually located elsewhere, but you can walk to conveniently located Denny’s, Burger King and McDonalds.
 
This is kind of obvious, but the study’s authors write, “Car ownership may reduce the local effect of fast-food outlets in the neighborhood, while lack of car access tends to exacerbate it.”
 
The solution to all of this is either healthy fast food (fat chance of that!) or cheap green cars, so the urban poor can buy rides to take them food shopping. That would also help extend hybrid and electric vehicle ownership beyond the affluent early adopters to a broad — and I do mean broad — cross-section of all Americans.
 
Here's Natalie to give you the skinny on some popular fast-food choices. She's a bit preachy, but she gets the job done:
 
 
Previous Post
Wanted: A cheap green car
   Next Post
Guaranteed low prices! TrueCar's 'transparency' riles dealers
You might also like:
Related Topics: Dining Out, Fuel Efficiency & Mileage, Healthy Eating, Obesity

Comments

Follow this conversation
Add your comment
View:
  • All (4)

anonymous
khahstats 02/17/2012 20:23 PM

nary a mention of bicycling! It's much cheaper & healthier than riding a car, & much faster than walking or running for trips between, say, 1km to 3km.

  • |
  • Reply
  • report this post 

anonymous
Robert Allen 02/17/2012 15:11 PM

Have you guys driven a 1980 vintage car lately. 4-cylinders had like 80 horsepower, and most V8s had less than 200. Those things could barely get out of their own way. You could time the 0-60 runs on a Mayan Calender, and forget about passing a car!

  • |
  • Reply
  • report this post 

anonymous
Solo 02/17/2012 11:28 AM

I would think the bigger problem would be that fat people prefer larger vehicles in general to accommodate their girth. A larger car would be more comfortable for them. Same with tall people but you can't control your height (at least not yet). Driving larger cars would lead to a much larger decline in overall fleet fuel economy numbers than an extra 30 pounds around the drivers waist.

  • |
  • Reply
  • report this post 

poland.jr
poland.jr 12/31/2011 03:03 AM

This is an excellent example of how we manage to shoot ourselves in the foot when it comes to making progress. We more than compensate for what has been achieved by finding other ways to squander our resources. Balance and really thinking are our most potent weapons.

  • |
  • Reply
  • report this post 

Add your comment

Sign in with one of these accounts or just add your comment below.
    Log in or
    create an account
     
    •  
Used only for emailed comments and will not be displayed with your post
Notify me with an email when other people comment on this article.
The posting of advertisement, profanity or personal attacks is prohibited.
Click here to review our Terms of Use

EDITORS' PICKS

tease to asteroids

tease to pet facials

tease to emotional eating

ADVERTISEMENT

NEWSLETTER

Mother Nature. Delivered

CONNECT WITH MNN

Follow @twitterapi
 Tumblr
 Google +

About Jim Motavalli

New York Times contributor blogs about green transportation.

RSS feedMore about Jim

Recent Posts

  • 4 cool tech ideas for green cars and renewable energy
  • New electric car conversion kit will charge your car (and wallet)
  • Driving? That's so yesterday!
+ Add this to my site
From our sponsor

Roadster gets efficiency boost from lightweight aluminum

The new Mercedes-Benz SL-Class Roadster was redesigned with efficiency in mind,... more >

Mercedes-Benz Driving Academy prepares students for real-world

Mercedes-Benz Driving Academy is a state-certified driving school using a variety... more >

Mercedes-Benz drives green thinking at Aspen Ideas Festival

The automaker brings its hydrogen-powered F-CELL vehicle to share in an... more >

mbrace2: Digital driving innovations

Mercedes-Benz debuts new ideas for connectivity at the Consumer Electronics Show. more >

A promise kept for more than a century

Mercedes-Benz is thinking green and driving changes that help put us all on the... more >
Driving a cleaner tomorrow

Mercedes-Benz USA on Facebook

ADVERTISEMENT



Quick Links

  • About Us
  • Advisory Board
  • Editors' Blog
  • Press
  • Privacy
  • Sitemap
  • Terms of Service
  • WorldShares

MNN Tools

  • Advice
  • Blogs
  • Day in History
  • Eco-glossary
  • Infographics
  • Lists
  • Photos
  • Videos

Connect

  • Community
  • Contact Us
  • Contests
  • Idea Lab
  • Mixed Greens
  • Newsletters
  • Polls
  • RSS

Channels

  • Earth Matters
  • Health
  • Lifestyle
  • Green Tech
  • Eco-Biz & Money
  • Your Home
  • Family
  • State Reports

Follow MNN

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Tumblr
  • Google+
  • StumbleUpon
 

Copyright © 2012 MNN Holdings, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Website by GLICK INTERACTIVE | Powered by CIRRACORE
 
SPONSORS