Nutritional information on menus meaningless (1 Viewer)

cdogg

THE WOOD WAS BROUGHT
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 22, 1997
Messages
23,912
Reaction score
12,874
Location
Ft. Collins, CO
Offline
Is anyone surprised?

Customers pay little heed to calories on menus
Posting calories on menus has little effect on what customers buy, according to a recent study.

Customers at TacoTime (a western Washington chain) who read how many calories are in their chimichangas, burritos and tacos on the restaurant's menu were just as likely to order them as people who don’t have that information.

For 13 months, researchers recorded food purchases at seven suburban TacoTimes and seven inside Seattle, Washington. Seattle passed a law requiring that all fast food chains post their calories, fat and sodium content to the menus in 2009.

Once the law went into effect, public health researchers in Seattle and researchers from Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School compared what people were buying at TacoTimes inside and outside the city.

Contrary to their hypothesis, “We found no difference,” said lead author Eric Finkelstein. “We looked at the variables – the transactions, total calories per transaction, food, dessert, entrees. We weren’t able to find any effect whatsoever.”

The findings suggest that having calorie information did not change public health behavior.

http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/customers-pay-little-heed-to-calories-on-menus/?hpt=C2
 
I'd assume that if you're trying to watch calories, you're not going to Taco Tme to get a deep fried chimichanga in the first place. I am trying to watch what I eat right now, and if I'm grabbing fast food, I'm probably going to Subway. Mostly because they post calorie counts and have a few items that are reasonable, even if they're not the tastiest sandwich in town.
 
I'd assume that if you're trying to watch calories, you're not going to Taco Tme to get a deep fried chimichanga in the first place.

This. If you did a "study" like this at a relatively healthy place (like Subway) you might get different results.

Also, the thread title is misleading. The nutritional info is very meaningful, it's just that TacoTime customers are ignoring it. I expected to hear that someone was misleading people on the nutritional info.
 
People who are serious about watching their calories, already know the calories of the food they are ordering, otherwise, they wouldn't be watching their calories.
 
Just a few days ago I was starvin for some Taco Bell. I thought there must be something at least marginally healthy there with the fresco menu and all that. So I went to tacobell.com on my phone and checked out the menu. Took about 3 minutes to decide to go somewhere else.

I think that's what you're seeing here. Now if there were a way to determine how many people ordered NOTHING after seeing the nutrition info...
 
Just a few days ago I was starvin for some Taco Bell. I thought there must be something at least marginally healthy there with the fresco menu and all that. So I went to tacobell.com on my phone and checked out the menu. Took about 3 minutes to decide to go somewhere else.

I think that's what you're seeing here. Now if there were a way to determine how many people ordered NOTHING after seeing the nutrition info...

What exactly were you starvin for from Taco Bell? As long as you don't eat there a lot, you can scratch that itch, no matter how gross the food is. Where did you wind up going that helped satisfy that starvin for Taco Bell?
 
Just a few days ago I was starvin for some Taco Bell. I thought there must be something at least marginally healthy there with the fresco menu and all that. So I went to tacobell.com on my phone and checked out the menu. Took about 3 minutes to decide to go somewhere else.

I think that's what you're seeing here. Now if there were a way to determine how many people ordered NOTHING after seeing the nutrition info...


That should still show up in their findings. If people chose not to go, they would have noticed either a significant dip (or slower increases if they are in a growth mode) in the customer counts overall or a dip in specific products. A long term shift of just a couple percentage points would be easy to spot.
 
Alright, so people are ignoring the nutrition info. Does that mean we shouldn't require restaurants to post it? Lots of people don't care how much fat is in a Hungry Man TV dinner, but does that mean we shouldn't require the maker to provide the information? I'm just puzzled as to why we wouldn't have nutrition info at restaurants, since we already have it at the grocery store. People who are interested in it - like me - can read it, and people who aren't interested can ignore it. Problem solved!
 
I'd assume that if you're trying to watch calories, you're not going to Taco Tme to get a deep fried chimichanga in the first place. I am trying to watch what I eat right now, and if I'm grabbing fast food, I'm probably going to Subway. Mostly because they post calorie counts and have a few items that are reasonable, even if they're not the tastiest sandwich in town.

i concur. but subway is one of the better in my town... mcallisters SUCKS, jason's deli is good, but the workers dont speak much english there and it bugs the crap out of me. so i stay away. quizno's is terrible. you gotta know which subway to go to though.
 
Alright, so people are ignoring the nutrition info. Does that mean we shouldn't require restaurants to post it? Lots of people don't care how much fat is in a Hungry Man TV dinner, but does that mean we shouldn't require the maker to provide the information? I'm just puzzled as to why we wouldn't have nutrition info at restaurants, since we already have it at the grocery store. People who are interested in it - like me - can read it, and people who aren't interested can ignore it. Problem solved!

i ate the volcano box at taco bell one day. while i was eating it i was like man, i wonder what the nutrition facts are...

calories - 1360
fat - 74g
cholesterol - 135mg
sodium - 2740 mg
carb - 133g
protein - 41g

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/taco-bell-volcano-box-correct-5102633

just for reference, raising canes box combo:

calories - 798
fat - 30g
cholesterol - 24mg
sodium - 1191 mg
carb - 93g
protein - 22g

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/raising-canes-the-box-combo-4117333
 
What exactly were you starvin for from Taco Bell? As long as you don't eat there a lot, you can scratch that itch, no matter how gross the food is. Where did you wind up going that helped satisfy that starvin for Taco Bell?

When I looked it up, the healthiest thing IIRC was a fresco taco, with 150-ish calories. You know how many of those I'd have to eat to get anything out of it?

I swung by Rouse's and grabbed a protein shake (120 calories, 20g protein) which made me feel full til I got home to eat. I'm sure I had a sammich and some soup or something.
 
Here's a fun one. Try a double quarter pounder meal from McD's with a large fry and large Coke. Go ahead, take a guess.

1550 calories. That's not a typo. Sick.

The healthiest thing at McDonald's is the ice cream cone. You could eat TEN ice cream cones and get less calories than the above meal. Think about that for a second. :hihi:
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom