Do calorie recommendations make a difference in calories purchased?

   I want to mention a few things from the study I cite below.  Here is the most important one. A conclusion statement in the summary is misleading.  The statement, "Posting calorie benchmarks had no direct impact..." implies that the benchmarks were posted on the menu or menu board, but they were not. The study did not assess the effect of posting daily or per meal calorie recommendations (i.e., the benchmarks) ON A MENU.  It tested the effect of handing someone a piece of paper with this information on it as they walked into a restaurant.  That is a huge difference.  The researchers do not try to say otherwise.  It is just the one sentence that is wrong.  Unfortunately, a lot of people will not read the study to find out the difference.  In addition, it is that conclusion that most of the popular press headlines are touting.

   This was not a study on whether or not menu labeling works.  The study tested the effect of telling someone how many calories they might need in a day and the effect of telling them how many calories they might need in a meal.  In other words, would  people given either piece of information purchase a lower amount of calories than people not given any information.  (This was tested in a situation where calories were listed on menus and in a situation where calories were not listed on menus. That condition did not make a difference.)

    The slips of paper they handed the customers did not seem to help.  But I caution you not to conclude that the information isn't helpful.  There is a big difference in a menu board disclosure and a piece of paper someone hands you.  Still, it fuels my argument for something more powerful and less mathy... traffic light labeling. 

   There was something else I found interesting in this study.  The researchers asked the customers how many calories a doctor or nutritionist would recommend that they consume in a day.   Both men and women substantially UNDER estimated their own caloric needs, by 200 or 300 calories.. and YET, they ordered enough to far exceed their own estimated daily number.

E.g.,  a person who thought they needed 1100 calories for a whole day ordered 900 calories for their lunch.  Again, too much math.  Too much thinking at the point of purchase when other factors, like taste, cost, time, etc are more important.  (isn't it crazy that people think they need 1300 to 1600 hundred calories when our packages refer to a 2000 calorie diet AND people tend to actually consume 2000 or more a day  - more than most people need)

   STILL, the menu item calorie information should be available to every one every where.  Consumers have the right to know what they are eating. However, the best chance for changing the number of calories purchased may come when the restaurants start revising their recipes and the calories AVAILABLE to us become fewer.  Traffic light labels and lower calorie meals.. that's the ticket :)

 (Also, note - the people in this study were all eating at McDonalds.. there might be something about McDonalds customers that is different than other restaurant customers)

Article cited:

Downs, J. S., Wisdom, J., Wansink, B., & Loewenstein, G. (2013). Supplementing menu labeling with calorie recommendations to test for facilitation effects. American Journal of Public Health, e1-e6. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301218

Summary

What does your body tell you about that meal?

   It is quite interesting to read articles about diet and health that were written between the 70s and 90s compared to those written in the last ten years.  Our ability to measure - whether it be the items that people eat or the metabolic processes that certain foods trigger - has gotten much sharper over time.  This better measurement has led to changes in what is recommended for health and left many of us confused about what to eat.
   One thing has remained consistent for the last 30 years... the majority of people in developed countries are eating too much food and gaining weight because of it.  
   Scientists are now challenging the notion that a calorie is a calorie - even for weight gain (since we already knew that some calorie sources were bad for our health).  It is very likely that the body is doing something different with foods that are high in SoFAS - saturated fats and added sugars, especially if these foods are highly processed.  Refined grains tend to be high in both sat fat and sugar and even contain the dreaded trans fat.  
    People frequently go out to eat lunch when they are working or attending conferences. The majority of foods served in chain and fast food restaurants are calorically dense - made so from the SoFAS.  YES? So, what does nearly every one say about work and presentations after lunch?  "I don't want to be the presenter after lunch, everyone will fall asleep."  OR, "I don't feel like doing any work, I just want to take a nap."  
   I used to feel that way after lunch, too.  I don't now because I eat food that is not calorically dense.  My meals are always low in saturated fat and added sugar. They have a low glycemic load (are not starchy).  I never feel lethargic after I eat.  
   Think about how you feel after you next few meals.  Eating too much of any food will make you uncomfortable, but eating certain foods, even reasonable portions, trigger a different kind of discomfort.  I believe that the way you feel after you eat something - after the taste rush has passed - is a clue as to whether or not it was a healthy food.