The effect of menu labeling with calories and exercise equivalents on food selection and consumption

BMC Obesity

Table 2 Calories ordered and consumed (mean ± SE) by meal and study groups

	Model 1: Calories ordered (mean ± SE) by meal¹
Study group	n	Lunch 1³	Lunch 2	Difference	Proportionate change (%)⁴	p	Cohen’s d
No calorie or exercise equivalent information	22	1,201.4 ± 100.0	1,176.1 ± 99.5	-25.2 ± 95.2	9.3 ± 11.6	0.43	0.17
Calories only	20	1,282.8 ± 89.7	1,077.0 ± 114.0	-205.8 ± 110.6	-14.4 ± 7.3	0.06	0.45
Calories and exercise equivalents	20	1,162.8 ± 141.1	1,000.5 ± 98.2	-162.3 ± 132.5	1.6 ± 13.3	0.90	0.02
	Model 2: Calories consumed (mean ± SE) by meal ²
Study Group	n	Lunch 1 ³	Lunch 2	Difference	Proportionate change (%) ⁵	p	Cohen’s d
No calorie or exercise equivalent information	22	986.6 ± 84.1	995.4 ± 91.5	8.8 ± 83.9	10.7 ± 11.6	0.36	0.2
Calories only	20	1,059.6 ± 72.7	898.8 ± 87.6	-160.7 ± 106.3	-9.3 ± 10.7	0.39	0.2
Calories and exercise equivalents	20	840.9 ± 88.6	841.3 ± 82.0	0.5 ± 76.9	11.9 ± 13.7	0.40	0.2

¹ANCOVA p-value = 0.43, controlling for age, BMI, race, dietary restraint, and calories ordered at Lunch 1; partial eta squared = 0.03, observed power = 0.19.
²ANCOVA p-value = 0.31, controlling for age, BMI, race, dietary restraint, and calories consumed at Lunch 1; Partial eta squared = 0.04, observed power = 0.25.
³All persons received menus with no calorie or exercise equivalent information at Lunch 1.
⁴Overall mean ± SE of individual proportionate changes, each calculated as (calories ordered in Lunch 2-calories ordered in Lunch 1)/calories ordered in Lunch 1.
⁵Overall mean ± SE of individual proportionate changes, each calculated as (calories consumed in Lunch 2-calories consumed in Lunch 1)/calories consumed in Lunch 1.

ISSN: 2052-9538