Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
I'd be curious to know, with the reduction in size, if calorie density went up.

Because that would fit a lot of people's perception of how food is going: you get less, but what you do get is worse for you.

Potentially as a side effect. A lot of ingredients are switched to cheaper, often more processed substitutes.

For example, vegtable oil instead of olive oil, fructose corn syrup instead of honey or sugar.

Beyond that chainging composition to reduce amount of expensive ingredients. Think Pesto Genovese which is originally Parmesan, Basil, pine nuts, etc. Instead of only pine nuts, you now include other nuts for texture and only add a smaller amount for flavour (and worse add flavoring so customers don't notice too quickly).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22486545/

loading story #49255147
loading story #49246612
loading story #49245950
I'd be relatively surprised if the Mars bar's calorie density went up after it was ruined in 2002. The old Mars bar was a beast: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49245791 .
That's one reason I phrased it as density rather than weight or a raw count of calories. For density we would have the weight as a denominator.

It's conceivable that if they've removed better quality ingredients, calories per gram of weight could go up.

A lot of people feel like stuff tastes worse than it used to, too

That's obviously hard to measure because you can't do a blind taste test of a 20 year ago candy bar and one today, and people's tastes change as they get older. But worse ingredients making a worse flavor is possible too

Over here in the UK at the moment you can. They’ve recently made huge changes to a lot of chocolate products in the space of a year or two. Especially cadburys which is now just at the legal definition of chocolate over here. Any lower and they legally have to call it “chocolate flavoured” which has already recently happened to a bunch of classic lunchbox chocolate bars. So shit.