Shrinking Chocolate

KW9mr2P.jpg

Mars bars are 51g now.....

Has anybody been on the mars website?? you have to confirm your age, wow.
 
After driving across Europe last week and seeing how fit the women are there compared to the fatties here, we have bigger problems than chocolate bar sizes.

MW
 
Well no. How much raw ingredients they feed into their production line is based on demand and supply potential of their final products, not how big their bars physically are. Your idea may have more weight at an independent confectioners, however Mars is a massive demand and supply operation, they don't use less ingredients simply because they have a smaller bar - as in if they are actually selling more of the smaller bars then there is no difference.

That's exactly what he's saying?

They're making smaller bars now, which individually have less ingredients in. If they end up selling the same number (I can't see any reason why it'd increase, I'd expect it to decrease if anything if people are naffed off by the reduction in size) of smaller bars in a financial year at the same price as they did bigger ones, then they can correspondingly reduce the amount of bulk ingredients they buy accordingly and pocket the difference.
 
Last edited:
After driving across Europe last week and seeing how fit the women are there compared to the fatties here, we have bigger problems than chocolate bar sizes.

MW

I was thinking similar to this last week. Get me to Holland or Denmark! :p
 
They're making smaller bars now, which individually have less ingredients in. If they end up selling the same number (I can't see any reason why it'd increase, I'd expect it to decrease if anything if people are naffed off by the reduction in size) of smaller bars in a financial year at the same price as they did bigger ones, then they can correspondingly reduce the amount of bulk ingredients they buy accordingly and pocket the difference.

Or perhaps the smaller bar costs the same to make due to the increased cost of ingredients and there's no difference to pocket.
 
Or perhaps the smaller bar costs the same to make due to the increased cost of ingredients and there's no difference to pocket.

Possibly. Either way there's going to be a decrease in the amount of ingredients, both per bar and in total unless they end up making more of the smaller bars at an increased cost for some reason.
 
I was thinking similar to this last week. Get me to Holland or Denmark! :p

I drove through France, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland and they were all the same. There's a nice lack of fast food places and everyone cycles, even the ugly ones have fit bodies.

MW
 
I say we petition OCUK to create it's own brand of chocolate bar, sell it only to us loyal forum goers :)
 
As a young whipper snapper in the 70s and 80s, my free time was mostly spent outside playing football; tennis etc. burning off lots of calories. The amount of time spent in front of a Spectrum/Commodore/MSX was relatively moderate and balanced. I could get away with lots of sugar loaded snacks very easily.

As a 40-something these days, unsurprisingly less of my free time is spent doing such energetic things, with my zimmer frame on order. However, I imagine youngsters of today do far less exercise and proportionally, an awful lot more computer gaming... They simply are not doing enough to burn up the calories, even in these reduced size Mars bars and alike.

If humans are going to "evolve" into spending more of their lives on sofas and at computer desks, diets need to change a lot more than these ~10% weight reductions of chocolate bars!
 
The worrying thing is how easy it is to consume calories and how difficult it is to burn them off. It takes what 10 seconds to eat a chocolate bar and about 30 minutes at a good pace on a tred mill to burn it off. What used to be considered a one off treat is consumed several times a day as a normal diet.

MW
 
Back
Top Bottom