@PsiCop: +1. We all know how truthful statistics are (See "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." and "How To Lie with Statistics").

[en.wikipedia.org]

[en.wikipedia.org]

And the same thing with the sides of a story.

I also would like to suggest that the people that DO actually know what a good amount is would most likely be the ones that also have a good idea of the amounts of the items without needing a chart.

Just saying, ive seen the calorie and other counts on the side of products in the grocery store for years (even worked at one when I was younger) and they still mean nothing to me. Not saying they shouldnt (I am over weight and this is most likely a major cause of that) but the counts alone will not a skinny nation make.

The biggest surprise I've gotten from those calorie postings was in a Starbucks. Banana, 90-150 calories. It shouldn't have surprised me--bananas are a starchy staple--but we've been taught that fruit is mostly low in calories.

@pecan 3.14159265: High five for the roasted chicken with lots of vegetables. I've recently been putting lite ranch on as well (I know, not exactly healthy but better than ranch) and it's one of my favorite subs (and one of the cheapest to boot)

Not to mention the Subway promotion appears to have skewed the results in one of them, right off the top, meaning that even if the study had been done by independent researchers with no vested interest in the outcome, the results don't necessarily reflect reality very well.

I don't think it's a good idea to reach any conclusions as yet, based on either of these studies. Let's get more data ... and let's get some from people who have no incentive to want the regulations to look good.

@Outrun1986: That's very true. If I know I've got a long day of walking ahead of me, I eat a bigger meal so I have the energy to burn.

I think for the most part, tourists in DC are likely to walk because there's a lot to see and just walking the Mall will take off a bunch of calories. But I'm not seeing as many now that it's getting cold.

@FigNinja: I find my stomach still growling after eating the six inch sub, so I tend to actually eat the whole thing. I don't eat chips or drink soda with it, though. I'm not a big eater, either. It's just that I get the plain oven roasted chicken with a lot of vegetables, and apparently it's healthy but not particularly filling.

Go the way of the college student. Ask them to cut it in half. That way you have 2 dinners for the price of one ;) I can never eat enough of my pasta at some places and ideally, eat half and then doggy bag it! There is no shame in doing so and, when you think about it, leaving it there is incredibly wasteful and disrespectful.

I agree. There should be calories and nutritional information everywhere. My little cousin has a SEVERE gluten allergy and no one can ever tell us if something contains gluten. Likewise, my grandmother is a very careful diabetic (she wants to live a long time and has had this disease almost her whole life) and can never find how much sodium is in something or how many carbs this has. I just want to eat well, but would still like to know how much sodium and fat something has and if I have an allergy to an ingredient. I am very allergic to shellfish and have reactions to certain nuts and also MSG. Thus, I don't want to be sick.

If you go to the grocery store and compare # calories/dollar, you can't really do better than large bags of white rice. At Costco rice can be had for ~25 cents a pound- 7000 calories/dollar.

It would be interesting to chart a McDonald's or other fast food restaurant in a non-tourist neighborhood and one that is used primarily by tourists to see how the calories fare.

I still get the 6-inch ones. I think only once in my life could I actually eat a footlong. I wish the 6-inch ones were cheaper though. $5 for a footlong, then ... $4 for a 6-inch? Uh, no. $3 would be reasonable.

I like knowing how many calories/carbs because my son is Type 1 diabetic so "knowing is half the battle!" I can get him to be reasonable about wanting a chocolate shake or m&m McFlurry with his 10 pc chicken nuggets if we know the carb cost.

Healthy Fast Food is very expensive, you have to brown bag it to make it cost effective, but if you have to do it you'll know what choices to make.

End rant now... phew that feels good to get that off my chest. :D

It makes me feel guiltier about the crap I eat. But I still eat it.

That being said, I don't think that the quantity of people helped is the important metric to be focused on in the debate about whether calories should be posted. They should be posted because its important information about your food and those few who do want or need to know should be able to have that info readily available.

The problem I noted at Wendy's in NYC is that is posted a range. For example item A was 200-500 Calories. I know its all based on how you ordered the item etc but it still shows that these new rules don't allow a consumer to know 100% at a quick glance.

Who cares whether the labels help the average human lifeform make better choices? More information is always good, even if some people use it badly.

And when it comes to McDonald's, I think more calories does equal worse food. They don't exactly have 1,000 calorie whole wheat vs. white bread buns to choose from.

Do they help people make better choices?

Does closing the barn door after the horse has run away help keep the horse in the barn?

Frankly, I think it may make things worse; people see a low calorie count on the menu and are tricked into believing it's healthy, regardless of the fat, cholesterol, sodium, and other "bad" counts. It just invites folks to be lazy in making informed eating decisions.