Restaurant meals ‘more calorific’ than fast food

Meals from the likes of McDonald’s are often less calorific than meals purchased at sit-down restaurants, a new study has found.

Researchers from the University of Liverpool calculated the calories in more than 13,500 meals from 21 fast-food brands and six restaurant chains.

In a paper published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the team reveal that the average calorie count for a fast-food meal came in at 751 - almost 300 fewer than in restaurant meals, at an average of 1,033 calories.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) topped the fast-food list, with an average of 987 calories per meal, while Hungry Horse had the most calorific meals of all the restaurants, at 1,358 calories.

Harvester clocked up 1,166 calories, JD Wetherspoon 1,119, and Nandos 1,019, reports Sky News.

Overall, sit-down restaurants were five times more likely than fast-food outlets to serve up meals containing more than 1,000 calories.

Health experts at Public Health England recommend that meals should not exceed a far more modest total of 600 calories, says the BBC.

The new study concludes: “The energy content of a large number of main meals in major UK restaurant chains is excessive, and only a minority meet public health recommendations.

“Although the poor nutritional quality of fast-food meals has been well documented, the energy content of full-service restaurant meals in the UK tends to be higher and is a cause for concern.”

The researchers also note that their findings almost certainly underestimate the number of calories consumed by diners in restaurants, because they did not factor in drinks, starters, desserts or side orders.

Lead researcher Dr Eric Robinson, a behavioural psychologist, said: “Only one in ten of the meals we surveyed could be considered a healthy number of calories.

“It’s really clear what the food industry need to do - they need to act more responsibly and reduce the number of calories that they’re serving.”

A spokesperson for Hungry Horse said: “We have been working hard to increase the range of lower-calorie options, including recently launching a dedicated Live Well range with dishes under 600 calories, and we are committed to further changes.”