IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v57y2026i1ne70060.html

Effects of Aerobic and Strength‐Based Exercise on Consumer Preference for Protein

Author

Listed:
  • Justin D. Bina

Abstract

The role of protein consumption in adaptations to physical exercise is well documented in prior research. However, little is known about how physical exercise and associated protein needs impact consumers’ protein demand. This study pairs matching methods with discrete choice experiments to estimate the impacts of physical exercise on willingness‐to‐pay for protein while reducing the confounding influences of other consumer characteristics. Aerobic and strength‐based exercise, and fitness‐driven protein consumption, increase willingness‐to‐pay for retail protein by up to $1.91 per pound for ribeye steak and foodservice protein by up to $2.47 for a ribeye steak meal. These results indicate that the physically active population is a reliable consumer base that bolsters US domestic protein purchases during periods of price increases.

Suggested Citation

  • Justin D. Bina, 2026. "Effects of Aerobic and Strength‐Based Exercise on Consumer Preference for Protein," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 57(1), January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:57:y:2026:i:1:n:e70060
    DOI: 10.1111/agec.70060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.70060
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/agec.70060?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glynn T. Tonsor & Robert S. Shupp, 2011. "Cheap Talk Scripts and Online Choice Experiments: "Looking Beyond the Mean"," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1015-1031.
    2. Iacus, Stefano M. & King, Gary & Porro, Giuseppe, 2011. "Multivariate Matching Methods That Are Monotonic Imbalance Bounding," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(493), pages 345-361.
    3. Nicole J. Olynk & Christopher A. Wolf & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2012. "Production technology option value: the case of rbST in Michigan," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 43, pages 1-9, November.
    4. Jayson L. Lusk, 2017. "Consumer Research with Big Data: Applications from the Food Demand Survey (FooDS)," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(2), pages 303-320.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, Enero-Abr.
    6. Ben B. Hansen, 2004. "Full Matching in an Observational Study of Coaching for the SAT," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 99, pages 609-618, January.
    7. Valerie Kilders & Vincenzina Caputo & Jayson L. Lusk, 2024. "Consumer preferences for food away from home: Dine in versus delivery," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(2), pages 496-525, March.
    8. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Vass, Caroline M. & Boeri, Marco & Poulos, Christine & Turner, Alex J., 2022. "Matching and weighting in stated preferences for health care," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    10. Justin P. Johnson & David P. Myatt, 2006. "On the Simple Economics of Advertising, Marketing, and Product Design," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 756-784, June.
    11. Gary W. Brester & Ted C. Schroeder, 1995. "The Impacts of Brand and Generic Advertising on Meat Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(4), pages 969-979.
    12. Nicholas E. Piggott & Thomas L. Marsh, 2004. "Does Food Safety Information Impact U.S. Meat Demand?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 154-174.
    13. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(01), pages 1-13, April.
    14. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1990. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(1), pages 189-190, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bina, Justin D. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Richards, Timothy J., 2026. "GLP-1 use and protein demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    2. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    3. Isler, Cassiano Augusto & Blumenfeld, Marcelo & Caldeira, Gabriel Pereira & Roberts, Clive, 2024. "Long-Distance railway mode choice in Brazil: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    4. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    5. Shang, Xia & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2017. "Food safety recall effects across meat products and regions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 145-153.
    6. Brander, Luke & Eppink, Florian & Hof, Christine Madden & Bishop, Joshua & Riskas, Kimberly & Goñi, Victoria Guisado & Teh, Lydia & Teh, Louise, 2024. "Turtle Economic Value: The non-use value of marine turtles in the Asia-Pacific region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    7. Zabala, José A. & Martínez-Paz, José M. & Alcon, Francisco, 2021. "Integrated valuation of semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem services and disservices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    8. Andrew M. Johnson & Tahirou Abdoulaye & Bamikole Ayedun & Joan R. Fulton & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar & Akande Adebowale & Ranajit Bandyopadhyay & Victor Manyong, 2020. "Willingness to pay of Nigerian poultry producers and feed millers for aflatoxin‐safe maize," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(2), pages 299-317, April.
    9. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2016. "Making the Most of Cheap Talk in an Online Survey," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236171, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Luke, Jaime R. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Brown, D. Scott, 2024. "Wholesale pork demand: Understanding primal-level heterogeneity," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    11. Kar Ho Lim & Wuyang Hu, 2023. "Contextual reference price in choice experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(4), pages 1288-1306, August.
    12. De Bauw, Michiel & Franssens, Samuel & Vranken, Liesbet, 2022. "Trading off environmental attributes in food consumption choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    13. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    14. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Wu, Laping, 2014. "Chinese producer behavior: Aquaculture farmers in southern China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 17-24.
    15. Elliott J. Dennis & Glynn T. Tonsor & Jayson L. Lusk, 2021. "Choosing quantities impacts individuals choice, rationality, and willingness to pay estimates," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 945-962, November.
    16. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    17. Shimokawa, S. & Niiyama, Y. & Kito, Y. & Kudo, H. & Yamaguchi, M., 2018. "No-tolerant Consumers, Information Treatments, and Demand for Stigmatized Foods: the Case of Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident in Japan," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277198, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Katherine Fuller & Carola Grebitus, 2023. "Consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for coffee sustainability labels," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 1007-1025, October.
    20. Mohammed Hussen Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "An analysis of the impacts of tasting experience and peer effects on consumers’ willingness to pay for novel foods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 653-674, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:57:y:2026:i:1:n:e70060. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.