.bmp)
A couple of weeks ago, an editorial was published in the New York Times about the outcome of Standford University study on the way that New York City’s “Calories-on-Menu” law has had on people’s buying habits since the law came into effect in 2008. To sum the study up, researchers were granted access to receipts from Starbucks encompassing every transaction which occurred between January 1, 2008 (just before the law was put in place in NYC) through to February 28, 2009. They compared the receipts from New York City to transactions from Philadelphia and Boston (cities where the calories are not posted) to see if knowing the calorie counts made any difference in what people ordered. The findings showed that before the law went into effect, the average calorie count of orders in New York, Philadelphia and Boston were very similar. After the law however, the findings showed that the average calorie count for orders in New York dropped by 6% (or a 15 calorie reduction), while Philadelphia and Boston were both unaffected. If you’re interested, the editorial is posted here.
After reading this editorial though, I decided to dive into the subject a little bit further, and I began to wonder if simply posting calories on a menu is enough to affect people’s overall health the way in which the law was intended? Is cutting calories the answer to beating the obesity epidemic in NYC (or all over the world
for that matter), or is this law just a public relations tactic?
For starters, the editorial mentions briefly that similar studies conducted using fast food chains in low-income neighbourhoods in New York showed no significant change in people’s eating habits after calorie counts were posted. What it doesn’t mention however, is that although New Yorkers cut an average of 6% of their calories over the entire 13-month period of the study, it also showed that during what some experts call “eating season” (between Halloween and the Super Bowl), the average calories per order in New York was still equal to that of Philadelphia and Boston. What this suggests to me is that nutritional education, more so than posting calorie content alone is the real answer to fighting weight gain, because what we put into our bodies is just as important as how much.
The problem with counting calories is that the final number doesn’t tell the whole story. For example, Meal A has 410 calories and Meal B has 428. Simple math will tell you that the difference of 18 calories per meal over the course of a year will contribute to approximately a two-pound weight gain. Based on that information, most people would tell you that Meal A is obviously healthier because it has fewer calories. What’s the problem with that? Meal A is a McDonald’s Quarter Pounder, and Meal B is a standard serving of chicken breast, broccoli, and brown rice. One is going to give you a healthy balance of protein, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals; the other is going to give you an expanding waistline. I don’t think I need to tell you which is which.
So the next time you are faced with a calorie conundrum while dining out (or cooking at home for that matter) consider the overall benefits of what you are putting into your body and not just the caloric count. If you want help planning your meals ahead of time, there are some great (and free) websites like Calorie Count and Fit Day that will tell you the nutritional breakdown of almost any food you can imagine.
For more news and updates on the blog, join our Facebook page or follow us on Twitter.
Posts
