This is a dumb/pointless headline + article imo. Its actually probably a GOOD thing that candy bars are smaller by default, for health reasons. What matters, and what the article fails to even mention, is the inflation-adjusted cost per gram. Not saying shrinkflation is not an issue, but this article does nothing at all to highlight it.

From an article someone posted downthread ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49246228 ) :

> Mars could appeal to a more exciting chocolate eater, and a smaller lighter bar could increase consumption per capita: “While people loved the anticipation of biting into the chocolate, they often found that the bar lay rather heavily on their stomach at the end of eating it.

> “Which means they wouldn’t eat another, sometimes for the rest of the day.”

So the big change was a cynical attempt to make people eat more, not less.

The part that has dated most about that quote is that in 2002, Mars were happy to put that on record!

Like everything in life, it depends. Due to ingredients, the old larger Mars may well have a lower glycemic index than the smaller newer bars.

I'm not saying that eating the old bar is like eating a banana. But ingredients-wise, the newer bars probably raise blood sugar a lot faster than the old bars.

it’s much more likely this led to customers buying two