—

A Case for Menu Labeling

By Sally Kuzemchak, M.S., R.D.
Real Mom Nutrition
http://www.realmomnutrition.com/

When I think about the debate over restaurant menu labeling, I think about a stick of butter—specifically, the stick of butter that is melted into the marinara sauce at a certain Italian bistro (that will remain nameless) here in Columbus, Ohio.

I wouldn’t know about this dirty little secret unless one of the servers was a friend of mine. Who knew that penne with marinara could be just as lethal as fettuccine alfredo? But that’s the problem with restaurants: You can order your salad dressing on the side, choose baked instead of fried, and pick red sauce over cream. But when it comes right down to it, you have no clue what really goes into your food—and how it all adds up.

And neither do the pros. When put to the test, even dietitians consistently underestimate the calorie and fat content of restaurant meals—in one study, by 687 calories and 57 grams of fat for a hamburger with a side of onion rings. Perhaps that’s because it’s hard to wrap the brain around one meal containing 1,550-calories, the amount some women should have for the whole day.

Everyone knows that restaurant portions are out of hand and that eating out is no longer reserved for indulgent celebrations (unless you’re regularly celebrating, say, the fact that it’s Tuesday). Calorie counts on menus and menu boards would cut out the guesswork and let you have a shot at making well-informed choices. In a new study from Yale University, diners who saw the calorie content of menu items (plus a 2,000-calorie-per-day reference) ate 250 calories less at dinner and afterwards than those who got less info, or none at all. And that can really make a difference: If you eat out twice a week, it’s a seven-pound weight loss every year.

Yet the bottom line is that even with menu labeling, you still have to eat defensively when eating out. In a recent study in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, researchers analyzed meals at popular restaurant chains to check the accuracy of the advertised calorie counts. The results: While some were right on—or pretty close—others were way, way off. An order of P.F. Chang’s asparagus was listed as 260 calories but clocked in at 558, and a Taco Bell Express Taco Salad’s published value was 326 but actually packed 607.

So trust your gut and know your portion basics (a deck of cards equals a serving of meat, a half of a baseball equals a serving of grains or ice cream, and the size of your fist equals a serving of baked potato). If the restaurant’s portion size looks off the charts, eat half. But as much as possible, cook your own food at home. And save the butter for baking.

References:

Backstrand J, Wootan M, Young L, Hurley J. Fat Chance: A survey of dietitians’ knowledge of the calories and fat in restaurant meals. Center for Science in the Public Interest: Washington, DC. 1997 January.

Roberto C, Larsen P, Agnew H, Baik J, and Brownell K. Evaluating the Impact of Menu Labeling on Food Choices and Intake. American  Journal of Public Health. Dec 17 2009. [Epub ahead of print]

Urban L, Dallal G, Robinson L, Ausman L, Saltzman E, Roberts S. The Accuracy of Stated Energy Contents of Reduced-Energy, Commercially Prepared Foods. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. January 2010 (vol. 110, issue 1, pp. 116-123).

—–

ScienceDaily (2009-12-29) — Scientists searching for the secrets of how calorie-restricted diets increase longevity are reporting discovery of proteins in the fat cells of human volunteers that change as pounds drop off. The proteins could become markers for monitoring or boosting the effectiveness of calorie-restricted diets — the only scientifically proven way of extending life span in animals.