↓ Skip to main content

The Fast-Casual Conundrum: Fast-Casual Restaurant Entrées Are Higher in Calories than Fast Food

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
20 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
44 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Fast-Casual Conundrum: Fast-Casual Restaurant Entrées Are Higher in Calories than Fast Food
Published in
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, May 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jand.2016.03.020
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danielle E. Schoffman, Charis R. Davidson, Sarah B. Hales, Anthony E. Crimarco, Alicia A. Dahl, Gabrielle M. Turner-McGrievy

Abstract

Frequently eating fast food has been associated with consuming a diet high in calories, and there is a public perception that fast-casual restaurants (eg, Chipotle) are healthier than traditional fast food (eg, McDonald's). However, research has not examined whether fast-food entrées and fast-casual entrées differ in calorie content. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the caloric content of entrées at fast-food restaurants differed from that found at fast-casual restaurants. This study was a cross-sectional analysis of secondary data. Calorie information from 2014 for lunch and dinner entrées for fast-food and fast-casual restaurants was downloaded from the MenuStat database. Mean calories per entrée between fast-food restaurants and fast-casual restaurants and the proportion of restaurant entrées that fell into different calorie ranges were assessed. A t test was conducted to test the hypothesis that there was no difference between the average calories per entrée at fast-food and fast-casual restaurants. To examine the difference in distribution of entrées in different calorie ranges between fast-food and fast-casual restaurants, χ(2) tests were used. There were 34 fast-food and 28 fast-casual restaurants included in the analysis (n=3,193 entrées). Fast-casual entrées had significantly more calories per entrée (760±301 kcal) than fast-food entrées (561±268; P<0.0001). A greater proportion of fast-casual entrées compared with fast-food entrées exceeded the median of 640 kcal per entrée (P<0.0001). Although fast-casual entrées contained more calories than fast-food entrées in the study sample, future studies should compare actual purchasing patterns from these restaurants to determine whether the energy content or nutrient density of full meals (ie, entrées with sides and drinks) differs between fast-casual restaurants and fast-food restaurants. Calorie-conscious consumers should consider the calorie content of entrée items before purchase, regardless of restaurant type.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Master 8 13%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 3 5%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 14%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 15 24%
Unknown 17 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 199. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2019.
All research outputs
#198,702
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
#90
of 3,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,719
of 323,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
#4
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.