Everyone knows that fast food isn’t good for you, right (with the noted exception of a few fools who sued McDonalds because they didn’t know a regular diet of Happy Meals would make them fat, but be that as it may…)? This fact largely explains why when conscientious health consumers decide to eat out, they tend to choose restaurants where French fries, triple-decker burgers and batter-encrusted chicken strips don’t represent the lion’s share of menu items.
But how many of these so-called “conscientious health consumers” know that fast food dinners have fewer calories than traditional restaurant fare?
That’s right. According to researchers from Purdue University, when comparing the average meal at a fast food restaurant to the average meal at a restaurant where a waiter or waitress brings food to the table, fast food meals tend to be much smaller in size. And as anyone who exercises portion control knows, the whole point of the practice is to reduce calories at a given meal. And the fact that Value Meals and Happy Meals tend to be smaller in size compared to the average table service dinner, it is little wonder they have fewer calories as well (by the way, this held true whether the meal was for a child or an adult, according to the study).
So, do these findings suggest that one is better off eating at a Sonic or KFC over an Olive Garden or Macaroni Grill? Not necessarily.
While Purdue’s findings did suggest that meals at table service restaurants were larger and had more calories, their analysis also indicated that people who ate at fast food restaurants tended to have more calories throughout the day than those that ate at table service restaurants (this is likely due to the fact that table service restaurants have a greater selection of food options that are high in fiber, which provides a greater sense of fullness throughout the day).
The full details of the study are published in the journal Review of Agricultural Economics.
Sometimes the best way to make sure a commitment to health gets fulfilled is by aiming low; in other words, not setting one’s self up for failure by establishing goals that are too lofty. I happen to agree with this, so long as the commitment is at least somewhat challenging and establishes a way to make broader strides toward improvement. Perhaps you yourself thought one way of setting an accomplishable goal was to stop eating so much fast food and to eat more food from a traditional, non-fast food restaurant. Let this study be a testament as to why that’s a bad idea.
The fact is, changing outlets for dining isn’t accomplishing anything – it’s just kicking the health can farther and farther down the road. What needs to be implemented to get back on the proper eating track is to eat more meals from home. The Purdue study found that the best meals were those eaten and prepared from home; they tended to be smaller and had fewer calories.
If you’re someone who always eats out, start out slowly – prepare at least one meal from home one week, and continue to add to that total until you’re eating at home on a regular basis. Trust me, you’ll wind up saving loads of money – and pounds of weight – in the process.
