Calorie information on menus helps diners eat a bit less
Diners consumed 45 fewer calories per meal.
20 September, 2018
Travelers order meals using McDonald's restaurant digital menu boards self-serve kiosks with touch screen in passenger area at Terminal 1 of Humberto Delgado International Airport on September 04, 2018 in Lisbon, Portugal. Photo: Horacio Villalobos (Corbis)
- According to the CDC, obesity is costing the U.S. $147 billion each year in medical costs.
- The new Cornell study found that knowing calorie information helped diners eat less.
- Experts believe this could force chain restaurants to offer healthier, low-calorie options
<br></li></ul>
<p>Of all the dietary trends, superfood cleanses, high-intensity workouts, fad pills and powders, and metabolic superstar programs guaranteeing weight loss, one tried and true method continues to be a sound means for maintaining a healthy weight: reducing your calories. </p><p>A Cornell <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w24889.ack" target="_blank">study</a>, published in August, has discovered that restaurants that list calorie content help customers moderate the amount of food they consume — albeit, by a little. Still, a little can go a long way once you become accustomed to it. </p><p>The research team of John Cawley, Alex Susskind, and Barton Willage set up shop in two restaurants for a randomized field experiment. Two different groups were then told to order: a control group with normal menus and a treatment group, which read from menus featuring calorie information. By the end, 5,500 diners contributed to the study. </p><p>The treatment group ended up ordering 3 percent fewer calories than the control group — a result of 45 calories per meal. The biggest effect seems to be on consumer awareness. The researchers noted that customers were surprised by how many calories basic meals, such as a tomato soup/grilled cheese combo, has. They continue, </p><blockquote>The findings come at a time when most Americans don't have a precise estimate of how many calories they're eating, because one-third of their food is prepared outside the home. At the same time, the obesity crisis in America has reached epidemic proportions; the prevalence of obesity in adults has nearly tripled in the past 50 years, to nearly 40 percent of the population in 2016.</blockquote>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d6170fb55be4e75a6981e2c75d32204d"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jQma_BdPgFg?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>This follows a <a href="https://www.eater.com/2018/5/7/17326574/calorie-count-menu-nutrition-fda-law" target="_blank">law</a> requiring chains with 20 or more locations to post calorie content on menus and menu boards, which went into effect earlier this year. The move was set to launch in 2011 as part of the Affordable Care Act's requirements, yet pushback from lobbying efforts delayed its implementation. </p><p>Part of the gripe from restaurant chains (especially pizza establishments) is that it will reduce profits. Yet in the Cornell study researchers found no evidence of monetary loss between the groups. In fact, healthier options often cost more than junk food. That said, patrons realizing which restaurants are not healthy could have a ripple effect. Though the Cornell study is an outlier — other <a href="https://www.eater.com/2015/11/3/9664850/restaurant-calorie-counts-healthy-menu-items" target="_blank">studies</a> have found that the calorie content <em>does not</em> change minds — it might be pushing restaurants to offer more low-calorie options.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODY0MzUyOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNDQ1MzE2NH0.GkutrM9CVRw5snra6MEDkCJ4AWKVBm_8KqPn_CLtUl8/img.jpg?width=980" id="59541" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="dae17cb018e4fd58559a5c0cbbd403b7" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Photo: Hero Images
<p>The cost to restaurants does not nearly equate to those on our medical infrastructure. According to the CDC, obesity is costing the U.S. <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/causes.html" target="_blank">$147 billion</a> each year. This involves direct and indirect medical problems related to being overweight, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, immune system-related problems, and many other ailments.</p><p>John Cawley, a professor of policy analysis and management in the College of Human Ecology at Cornell, views the calorie listing on menus as an easy to implement solution. </p><blockquote>It's a cheap policy to put in place, and the fact that there is a reduction in calories ordered makes it appealing.</blockquote><p>While not the only solution, it's a step in the right direction. Awareness is a catalyst for change, and one thing is certain: we can't keep heading blindly in the direction we've been going. The consumption of unhealthy high-calorie foods, beginning with the <a href="https://livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/life_15.html" target="_blank">frozen dinner revolution</a> of post-World War II America right up through <a href="https://www.livestrong.com/article/274448-starbucks-pumpkin-spice-latte-nutrition-information/" target="_blank">pumpkin spice lattes</a>, has made us a sick and diseased nation. Every calorie counts. </p><p><em>--</em></p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a>.</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Ancient Humans Took Part in Cannibalism — But It Wasn't for Survival
How many calories are in human anyway?
09 April, 2017
Actors portraying humans during the Paleolithic era. Getty Images.
Few things strike as unnatural and disturbing as the eating of human flesh. What most people don’t know is, cannibalism was extremely common in all that cultures that abhor it today. The taboo must’ve started somewhere. Several Stone Age archaeological sites in Western Europe have uncovered evidence of cannibalism, such as El Sidrón cave in Spain and Gough’s Cave in England. What isn’t clear is why the former inhabitants engaged in the grizzly practice. Were they faced with starvation, like the Donner party, or the 1972 Uruguayan rugby team (inspiration for the movie Alive)?
<p>Archaeologists consider Paleolithic cannibalism either ritualistic (religious) or nutritional in nature. A new study however, questions “nutritional” cannibalism, as the sole motivation behind most historical cases. Published in the journal <em><a href="http://www.nature.com/articles/srep44707" target="_blank" title="Nature">Scientific Reports</a></em>, archaeologist James Cole, from the University of Brighton, in England, posits that there is very little evidence that early hominids ate human flesh in order to survive, during the Paleolithic period.</p>
<p>This is the Old Stone Age, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/science/cannibalism-human-body-calories.html?_r=1" target="_blank" title="The New York Times">between 2.5 million to 10,000 years ago</a>. The time period is typified by simple stone tools, cave paintings, and ivory carvings of objects, such as flutes. The Venus of <span>Dolní </span><span>Věstonice</span> is perhaps its most famous artifact. This is a carving of a female figurine, discovered in the mountains of the Czech Republic, <a href="https://australianmuseum.net.au/image/the-venus-of-dolni-vstonice" target="_blank" title="Australian Museum of Natural History. ">dating back 29,000–25,000 BCE. </a></p>
<p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODMzOTExMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NTk3OTU0NH0.rxpdwvNvArw6jqLsxR9UbIWIRkFe_YU7QdG60AFe7Gw/img.jpg?width=980" id="9f089" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e5308036adadd2a230d306bcd6c572c8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></p>
<p><em>The Venus of Dolní Věstonice in an exhibit in Helsinki. By: Daderot (Daderot) [CC0 or CC0], via Wikimedia Commons. </em></p>
<p>To try to gain some insight into nutritional cannibalism, Cole calculated how many calories eating an entire human body might offer. Though such calculations can vary widely, he discovered it would probably contain more than 125,000 calories, in all. He compared this to the species of fauna available for hunting at the time.</p>
<p>Of course, you wouldn’t eat a whole human body. The thighs, with the most meat, offer about 13,350 calories in all, the upper arms 7,450, the calves 4,490, and the forearms 1,660. That’s not to mention the organs. Though these numbers sound impressive, this offering would only be able to feed about 25 adult males for half a day. The same number of men in a hunting party could take down a steppe bison, which would offer 612,000 calories, enough food to last them a week and a half. </p>
<p>A wooly mammoth, widely hunted at this time, would provide 3.6 million calories, enough food for two months, acquired in such a way that left nobody asking whether anyone’s seen Rick. The human offering in the calorie department is paltry, compared to other animals which were readily available during the Paleolithic, according to Cole. These findings suggest that ancient hominids may have taken part for “…more socially or culturally driven narratives.”</p>
<p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODMzOTExNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMDIzMTkyOH0.uicU53CNXHBeODAmPsyko12au5MvLO3xuqBnIkkFdf8/img.jpg?width=980" id="1d71d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="29e0a7daeb2aa308676de5f66919052c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></p>
<p><em>El Sidrón cave in Spain. Getty Images. </em></p>
<p>Though an interesting approach for sure, critics argue that Dr. Cole’s methodology leaves something to be desired. For instance, he based his calculations on four adult males. There weren’t any calculations for women or children and how many calories they might offer. He included studies from several decades ago. As a result, some argue that his calorie calculations may not be accurate.</p>
<p>Susan Roberts is a nutritional scientist with the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center. She told <em>The</em> <em>New York Times</em>, “The energy contents of lean tissue, fat and body carbohydrate are well established, and using four cadavers to get to estimates of quantities is a terrible way to go about calculating the human body.” Others argue the opposite: that this is the same approach used to calculate the caloric value of the livestock we consume today.</p>
<p>Another shortcoming may be Cole’s caloric requirements. Modern humans are thought to eat far less calories than say, Neanderthals or even prehistoric Homo sapiens. British anthropologist Silvia Bello agrees with Cole, that consuming human flesh was probably more of a choice, than a way to stay alive. But how can we as modern humans determine their motivations? Oddness aside, Cole may not have put us directly in the minds of ancient hominids, but he does offer a stepping stone, and a way of discovering more of our ancient past, and what it may say about our species, today.</p>
<p>For further insight into our more unseemly acts and where they originate, click here:</p>
<p><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="80b6d13270329500707d0fd3ec58d267"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/m9v5DuZPOCw?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
