Skip to comments.
Gas Guzzlers (Obesity and Fuel Use)
Chicago-Sun Times ^
| October 25, 2006
| Monifa Thomas
Posted on 10/25/2006 11:43:27 AM PDT by Southside_Chicago_Republican
Fatter drivers cause increase in gasoline consumption, says study
Being overweight isn't just bad for your health. New research suggests that America's obesity epidemic is also feeding the growth in U.S. fuel consumption.
Americans are pumping almost 940 million more gallons of gas into their vehicles than they did in 1960 because the average American is roughly two dozen pounds heavier. That amounts to $2.8 billion more spent on gas each year, if gas is selling for $3 a gallon.
So says a new study from researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Virginia Commonwealth University.
Researchers used federal statistics to calculate how much fuel Americans in 1960 and other years would have used if they were driving in 2003.
"We basically looked at the average weights of people for different time periods, and then we took those people and we put them in . . . today's cars with today's driving habits," said Sheldon H. Jacobson, one of the study's authors and a professor of computer science at U of I.
Jacobson and Virginia Commonwealth professor Laura McLay also factored in variables such as passengers of different weights and ages.
The study, to be published in The Engineering Economist journal, shows that "our nation's hunger for food and our hunger for oil aren't independent of each other," Jacobson said. "Beyond public health, being overweight has many other socioeconomic implications."
The extra gas being used each year to carry more overweight Americans is about three days' worth of what the nation currently consumes, McLay said.
"Every additional gallon of fuel is coming from a foreign source, and it's expensive," Jacobson said.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: energy; fuelefficiency; gasguzzlers; gasoline; obesity; wasteofmoney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-62 next last
Just the other day, I was on the road, dodging potholes and bouncing over buckled seams and I thought, "I'll bet the roads are so bad because of all of those obese people driving around." Then I thought about something else. But if I had continued thinking about obese drivers/passengers, I might have come to the same conclusion as these university researchers did-- that obesity is taking its toll on automobile fuel efficiency. Wherever the funds came for for this study, it's money well-spent, I say.
I can't wait for the policy proposals that might result from this. Maybe even another Al Gore movie.
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
Fatter drivers cause increase in gasoline consumption, says study *gasp* FRENCH FRIES CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING!! FILM AT ELEVEN!
2
posted on
10/25/2006 11:46:03 AM PDT
by
Prime Choice
(True Conservatives don't vote for Liberals just because they have an 'R' by their name.)
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
Do smokers decrease the amount of fossil fuels burned in autos since they die early?
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
Al Gore and Tipper and John Edwards' wife are once again part of the problem.
4
posted on
10/25/2006 11:47:03 AM PDT
by
TracyTucson
(Teachers : Overpaid and Underworked........ Eliminate > ADA, EOE, NLRB, SS, DOE)
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
Skinny people waste gas driving to the gym.
5
posted on
10/25/2006 11:47:46 AM PDT
by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: Mr. Brightside
I don't know ... but a topic worthy of a university study.
6
posted on
10/25/2006 11:48:06 AM PDT
by
Southside_Chicago_Republican
(Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.)
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
Fat Democrats ain't got no reason to live.
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
I'm calling bullcrap. Cars and trucks are considerably more efficient. America is using more gas because we have over 100 million more people in the country than we did in the 1960's
8
posted on
10/25/2006 11:48:57 AM PDT
by
tort_feasor
(FreeRepublic.com - Tommorrow's News, Today)
To: tort_feasor
Yeah, I imagine there are some other problems with this study, too.
9
posted on
10/25/2006 11:50:29 AM PDT
by
Southside_Chicago_Republican
(Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.)
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
Here's a load (pant-load)
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
More politically biased junk science from academia . . .
Time marches on . . .
11
posted on
10/25/2006 11:51:23 AM PDT
by
blues_guitarist
(I noticed citgo is advertising on FNC now . ... . .BOYCOTT CITGO!!)
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
Yeah wait till they come for the smokers with this.. lol
"Fat smokers who drive SUVs use more gas" lol
Boy I tell ya, every day there is another one of these "studies" that fit their agenda.
12
posted on
10/25/2006 11:52:13 AM PDT
by
eXe
(Si vis pacem, para bellum)
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
Won't be long before obese SUV drivers are ticketed and fined.
13
posted on
10/25/2006 11:53:02 AM PDT
by
Rennes Templar
("The future ain't what it used to be".........Yogi Berra)
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
The extra gas being used each year to carry more overweight Americans is about three days' worth of what the nation currently consumes, McLay said. That's simply not plausible unless they made the cars get obese in concert.
14
posted on
10/25/2006 11:53:29 AM PDT
by
lepton
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
I'm thinking too many Guvmint grants available to too many Liberal researchers pursuing their pre-conceived phoney Liberal results ...
15
posted on
10/25/2006 11:54:44 AM PDT
by
Babu
To: tort_feasor
Elites leftists go after fat people because most rich people are thin and most fat people are poor. Under the pretense of concern for fat people themselves or, as is the case here, concern for the environment, lefties want to pass laws that directly or indirectly target the obese. Makes me sick.
16
posted on
10/25/2006 11:54:50 AM PDT
by
utahagen
To: Prime Choice; All
*gasp* FRENCH FRIES CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING!! FILM AT ELEVEN!ROTFLMAO!
17
posted on
10/25/2006 11:54:50 AM PDT
by
Fiddlstix
(Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
To: eXe
And probably contribute to global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer, and other horrors, with their second-hand smoke.
18
posted on
10/25/2006 11:54:58 AM PDT
by
Southside_Chicago_Republican
(Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.)
To: lepton
Don't know if the 3 day number is correct or not but it's real simple. The more weight you haul the more fuel you burn.
19
posted on
10/25/2006 11:56:59 AM PDT
by
nomorelurker
(wetraginhell)
To: eXe
"Fat smokers who drive SUVs use more gas"
CORRECTION: Fat smokers who drive SUV's and eat at Waffle House use more gas...
There..
20
posted on
10/25/2006 11:57:42 AM PDT
by
GeorgiaDawg32
(At 53, I'm the life of every party I go to, even if it lasts till 8 p.m...)
To: tort_feasor
Exactly. My sierra is stickered at 15-18mpg I get 22 Highway and 16.5 around town measured at the pump. I weigh 280lbs. (I'm 6'-8" tall) but that is a lot of weight yet I am exceeding my expected fuel economy.
Further this fuel economy of a 5k+ lb. truck is better than the average sedan bought in 1960...
I would like to see their control data for this supposed "study".
21
posted on
10/25/2006 11:57:51 AM PDT
by
miliantnutcase
("If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -ichabod1)
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
Yes, but it balances out. Obese people tend not to be eligible to be Hollywood movie stars. This means they will not be using thousands of gallons of private jet fuel to fly around the world fighting global warming and adopting children. Even the amount of extra corn (ethanol) they consume will not diminish fuel supplies at the same rate as a private jet. </s>
To: Rennes Templar
Won't be long before obese SUV drivers are ticketed and fined. The nanny state has its eye on the overweight.
They will find something to get chubby people to loose weight. It is what the nanny state wants and what the nanny state will get.
Just ask a smoker.
To: Gabz
oh jeezz
24
posted on
10/25/2006 12:00:56 PM PDT
by
qam1
(There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
"And probably contribute to global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer, and other horrors, with their second-hand smoke."
Only if its tobacco smoke - pot smoke is somehow NOT harmful...
We can start to solve this problem by converting Al Gore, Ted Keneddy, and Michael Moore to biodiesel.
25
posted on
10/25/2006 12:02:48 PM PDT
by
nickm71
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
And newspapers cause the destruction of spotted owl habitat. This is an incredibly stupid story.
To: nickm71
We can start to solve this problem by converting Al Gore, Ted Keneddy, and Michael Moore to biodiesel.That's an plan I can get behind!
27
posted on
10/25/2006 12:04:37 PM PDT
by
Southside_Chicago_Republican
(Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.)
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
In 1960 an NCAA tailback (not obese) weighed in at what 180 to 200lbs???? Now they are 250+. Folks are just bigger and healthier than they've ever been.
24lbs does not equate to obese, especially when people are 4 inches taller.
28
posted on
10/25/2006 12:07:51 PM PDT
by
Dead Dog
(What Would Mohammad Do? WWMD)
To: miliantnutcase
" Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards
* The enactment of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 1975 resulted in a near doubling of cars' average fuel economy, measured in miles per gallon (mpg), over the ensuing decade and an increase for light trucks of over 50%.
* Fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles save the United States over 55 billion gallons of fuel annually Without CAFE, total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would be more than 10% higher than they are today."
http://www.aceee.org/energy/cafe.htm
29
posted on
10/25/2006 12:09:15 PM PDT
by
tort_feasor
(FreeRepublic.com - Tommorrow's News, Today)
To: Dead Dog
No doubt about that. And no doubt about what another poster wrote -- if you haul more weight you burn more fuel, all things considered. I just thought it was interesting how the researchers managed to link two current scares. Next thing you know, there will be a study that shows that obesity is causing the earth to wobble out of its orbit.
30
posted on
10/25/2006 12:13:26 PM PDT
by
Southside_Chicago_Republican
(Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.)
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
Not only can walking save money, but this guy(?) used to weigh 300 pounds.

:O)
31
posted on
10/25/2006 12:14:14 PM PDT
by
jdm
To: jdm
And when someone gives him a lift, he's easy on the MPG's.
32
posted on
10/25/2006 12:17:09 PM PDT
by
Southside_Chicago_Republican
(Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.)
To: tort_feasor
33
posted on
10/25/2006 12:18:24 PM PDT
by
miliantnutcase
("If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -ichabod1)
To: Mr. Brightside
Do smokers decrease the amount of fossil fuels burned in autos since they die early?
i would think that they decrease the amount of fuels burned because they have the windows open rather than using the a/c all the time.
34
posted on
10/25/2006 12:20:58 PM PDT
by
absolootezer0
("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
well, as far as gas, i don't know if they cost more but they contribute to higher car costs due to warranty work. for some reason, when you put a 300 person in an escort it pulls left.
if you don't allign the car to compensate for the weight, the customer will bring it in half a dozen times.
35
posted on
10/25/2006 12:26:39 PM PDT
by
absolootezer0
("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
Another excuse for the nanny state to start regulating every morsel that goes into your mouth.
36
posted on
10/25/2006 12:45:49 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: Mr. Brightside
Do smokers decrease the amount of fossil fuels burned in autos since they die early?They also weigh less than they would if they didn't smoke. (Most people who quit smoking put on weight.)
37
posted on
10/25/2006 12:47:27 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: nomorelurker
The more weight you haul the more fuel you burn.That is true. But I would imagine driving big pick ups and SUVs wastes a lot more gas than being obese.
38
posted on
10/25/2006 12:49:19 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
My fat a$$? How about the case of beer in the backseat, does it count?
39
posted on
10/25/2006 12:51:13 PM PDT
by
ryan71
(You can hear it on the coconut telegraph...)
To: nomorelurker
I agree - while this study is taking some leaps, weight does have an impact in fuel economy and 'off the line' time.
I lurk around some car-nut forums and people are always taking out 'extra' parts, cutting out material and replacing steel with aluminum/plastic whenever they can just save a few ounces. Most are interested in upping their performance 'off the line' but some have actually calculated the MPG they've gained.
Inadvertently tho, in every discussion at least one person chimes in "just loose some weight, fatty" to which most respond it's easier to pull that spare tire out of the trunk than it is to get it off your waist :-)
To: ryan71
It counts while it is in the back seat, and it counts from the time you drink it and are still in the car until you dispose of it. Once it's disposed of, it's no longer a factor. Of course, disposing of it is a whole other environmental issue.
41
posted on
10/25/2006 12:56:10 PM PDT
by
Southside_Chicago_Republican
(Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.)
To: tort_feasor
The term "haul ass" comes to mind. ;-)
42
posted on
10/25/2006 1:01:29 PM PDT
by
glorgau
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
Algore had to put a turbo on his Prius to keep from getting rear-ended on freeway ramps.....
To: utahagen
Elites leftists go after fat people because most rich people are thin and most fat people are poor. Under the pretense of concern for fat people themselves or, as is the case here, concern for the environment, lefties want to pass laws that directly or indirectly target the obeseHow do you know that this beauty is poor? Hope you have time for a drink to relax before dinner.
44
posted on
10/25/2006 1:25:50 PM PDT
by
USS Alaska
(Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
45
posted on
10/25/2006 1:48:00 PM PDT
by
Cobra64
(Why is the War on Terror being managed by the DEFENSE Department?)
To: Cobra64
Sorry. But I didn't think it was too subtle!
46
posted on
10/25/2006 1:53:59 PM PDT
by
Southside_Chicago_Republican
(Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.)
To: dead
Skinny people waste gas driving to the gym.They don't need to go to the gym. The last time I was in a gym was 40 years ago in high school.
47
posted on
10/25/2006 1:54:09 PM PDT
by
Cobra64
(Why is the War on Terror being managed by the DEFENSE Department?)
To: tort_feasor
I'm calling bullcrap. Cars and trucks are considerably more efficient. America is using more gas because we have over 100 million more people in the country than we did in the 1960'sThis study is worthless. Don't these morons consider the vaying weights of the cars? Ummm. a 3,000 pound car versus a 4,000 SUV? Instead they discuss a 24 pound person's weight delta.
48
posted on
10/25/2006 2:00:58 PM PDT
by
Cobra64
(Why is the War on Terror being managed by the DEFENSE Department?)
To: Cobra64
This article is BS. In 1960 the vehicles themselves were boats made of real metal that weighed almost twice what the vehicles weigh today. Way more than a freaking 24 pounds. And the engines were a heck of a lot bigger (and faster) too.
49
posted on
10/25/2006 2:01:35 PM PDT
by
Help!
To: traditional1
That's not a load... Here's a load.
50
posted on
10/25/2006 2:02:55 PM PDT
by
Cobra64
(Why is the War on Terror being managed by the DEFENSE Department?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-62 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson