Skip to main content

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

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

  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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 3All persons received menus with no calorie or exercise equivalent information at Lunch 1.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.