Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Preventing Chronic Disease logoLink to Preventing Chronic Disease
. 2014 Dec 31;11:E229. doi: 10.5888/pcd11.140202

Temporal Trends in Fast-Food Restaurant Energy, Sodium, Saturated Fat, and Trans Fat Content, United States, 1996–2013

Lorien E Urban 1, Susan B Roberts 1, Jamie L Fierstein 1, Christine E Gary 1, Alice H Lichtenstein 1,✉
PMCID: PMC4283359  PMID: 25551184

Abstract

Introduction

Excess intakes of energy, sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat are associated with increased risk for cardiometabolic syndrome. Trends in fast-food restaurant portion sizes can inform policy decisions. We examined the variability of popular food items in 3 fast-food restaurants in the United States by portion size during the past 18 years.

Methods

Items from 3 national fast-food chains were selected: French fries, cheeseburgers, grilled chicken sandwich, and regular cola. Data on energy, sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat content were collated from 1996 through 2013 using an archival website. Time trends were assessed using simple linear regression models, using energy or a nutrient component as the dependent variable and the year as the independent variable.

Results

For most items, energy content per serving differed among chain restaurants for all menu items (P ≤ .04); energy content of 56% of items decreased (β range, −0.1 to −5.8 kcal) and the content of 44% increased (β range, 0.6–10.6 kcal). For sodium, the content of 18% of the items significantly decreased (β range, −4.1 to −24.0 mg) and the content for 33% increased (β range, 1.9–29.6 mg). Absolute differences were modest. The saturated and trans fat content, post-2009, was modest for French fries. In 2013, the energy content of a large-sized bundled meal (cheeseburger, French fries, and regular cola) represented 65% to 80% of a 2,000-calorie-per-day diet, and sodium content represented 63% to 91% of the 2,300-mg-per-day recommendation and 97% to 139% of the 1,500-mg-per-day recommendation.

Conclusion

Findings suggest that efforts to promote reductions in energy, sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat intakes need to be shifted from emphasizing portion-size labels to additional factors such as total calories, frequency of eating, number of items ordered, menu choices, and energy-containing beverages.

Introduction

Excess intakes of energy, sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat are associated with elevated risk for cardiometabolic disorders (1–3). For this reason, Dietary Guidelines for Americans (1) and health advocacy organizations (4–6) recommend limiting intakes and maintaining a healthy weight. Nevertheless, intakes of these nutrients exceed recommendations (1–7).

The contribution of away-from-home foods to total energy has nearly doubled in the past 30 years, rising from 18% in 1977 to 33% in 2010 (8,9), and fast food in particular has historically contributed a disproportional amount of dietary sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat (10–12), making these foods a target for modification. Although there has been progress in this area, including an increase in the number of “healthier” offerings, sales for the most frequently ordered items from fast-food restaurants remain strong (15).

One area that has gained attention is the portion size (ie, amount served to customer) of frequently ordered items. Between 1998 and 2006, fast-food retailers attempted to minimize publicizing the issue of changing portion sizes by redesignating sizing (eg, medium renamed small), which resulted in an increase of portion sizes in absolute terms (13). Little information exists for trends in the energy content of fast-food items since 2006 or trends in the amounts of sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat in fast-food menu items over time. These data are important because, in addition to changes in menu options, they can be used as an indicator of whether foods as served outside the home have been modified to be consistent with population-wide dietary guidance. They also provide a basis on which to evaluate industry trends and provide data to inform public health campaigns and clinical programs designed to promote improvements in dietary patterns.

Our aim was to collate available data for energy, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium for some of the most frequently ordered fast-food items from 3 national fast-food chains by portion size and describe trends over a 18-year period from 1996 through 2013.

Methods

Three fast-food chain restaurants (designated Chain A, Chain B, and Chain C) were selected as examples on the basis of their offering similar menu items, having a national presence, and being in the top 10 for total US sales revenue (14). Chain A was identified as the top restaurant on the basis of sales; the other restaurants were then chosen according to the criteria described above. The most commonly ordered menu items offered according to a recent report (15) included French fries (fried potatoes; small, medium, and large), cheeseburger (approximately 2 oz and 4 oz, uncooked beef weight), grilled chicken sandwich (1 available size), and regular cola drink (small, medium, and large). To obtain objective and complete information, the Wayback Machine (http://www.archive.org/web/web.php) was used to collate data for energy (kcal/portion), sodium (mg/portion), saturated fat (g/portion), and trans fat (g/portion). The Wayback Machine is a publicly available web archive database that includes information, in this case, from company websites. For the 4% of data not available from the Wayback Machine website, nutrition information was obtained directly from restaurant websites or found at other Internet sites.

Our analysis included 3 food items for energy, sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat; 1 beverage item was included in the energy analysis only, because the sodium content of cola beverages is low and may vary by local water supply, and the beverage did not contain fat. Because fast-food restaurant orders and special offers frequently include a cheeseburger, French fries, and regular cola (bundled meal), we assessed the combined energy, sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat amounts and calculated the relative contribution of each in each chain for small and large portions.

Time trends were assessed for energy, sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat per serving for individual menu items at each chain using simple linear regression models in which energy content or the nutrient was the dependent variable and year was the independent variable. Differences among chains for individual menu items were assessed using analysis of variance for the mean energy or nutrient components across the 18-year period, and the Tukey post hoc procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc).

Results

Individual menu items

Energy

The energy content of the 27 items examined differed among chain restaurants for all menu items (P ≤ .04) except for large French fries. The energy content of 15 items (56%) decreased over the 18-year period (β range, −0.1 to −5.8 kcal); of these, the differences were significant for 8 items (30%; β range, −0.6 to −5.8 kcal, P < .01) (Figure 1). For items whose energy content decreased, 5 items were offered at Chain A, 2 items at Chain B, and 1 item at Chain C. The energy content of 12 items (44%) increased over the 18-year period (β range, 0.6–10.6 kcal); of these, the differences were significant for 9 items (33%) (β range, 1.8–10.6 kcal, P ≤ .05). For items whose energy content increased, 6 items were offered at Chain C, whereas Chain A offered 1 item and Chain B offered 2 items. In absolute terms, a similar number of items increased and decreased in energy content, and the mean changes were modest.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Energy content (kcal per portion) for popular menu items at 3 large, national fast-food chains. Energy content for 3 sizes of French fries (small, medium, large); 2 sizes of cheeseburgers (2 oz, 4 oz); 1 size of grilled chicken sandwich; and 3 sizes of cola beverages (small, medium, large) from chains A, B, and C from 1996 through 2013. β estimates and P values derived from individual simple linear models; chain comparison P values derived from ANOVA (analysis of variance) models comparing mean values between restaurants. Dashes indicate that data were not available; blank cells indicate that the item was not offered for the year(s). Abbreviations: S, small; M, medium; L, large; NS, nonsignificant. a Difference is between Chain B versus Chain C. b Difference is between Chain B versus Chains A and C.

Chain/Year French Fries, kcal
 Cheeseburger, kcal
 Grilled Chicken Sandwich, kcal Cola, kcal
S M L 2 oz 4 oz S M L
Chain A
1996 210 450 540 320 530 150 — —
1997 210 450 540 320 530 440 150 — —
1998 210 450 540 320 530 440 150 — —
1999 210 450 540 320 530 440 150 210 310
2000 210 450 540 320 530 450 150 210 310
2001 210 450 540 330 530 450 150 210 310
2002 210 450 540 330 530 450 150 210 310
2003 210 450 540 330 530 400 150 210 310
2004 220 350 520 330 540 400 150 210 310
2005 230 350 520 310 510 420 150 210 310
2006 250 380 570 310 510 420 150 210 310
2007 250 380 570 300 510 420 150 210 310
2008 230 380 500 300 510 420 150 210 310
2009 230 380 500 300 510 420 150 210 310
2010 230 380 500 300 510 420 150 210 310
2011 230 380 500 300 510 350 150 210 310
2012 230 380 500 300 520 350 150 210 310
2013 230 380 500 300 520 350 140 200 280
β 1.8 −0.6 −2.7 −1.8 −1.4 −5.5 −0.2 −0.3 −0.8
P value <.001 <.001 .007 <.001 .002 <.001 .10 .11 .11
Chain B
1996 — — — — — — — —
1997 — 370 380 730 550 204 280 —
1998 — — — — — — — —
1999 250 400 590 360 760 530 204 280 407
2000 250 400 590 360 760 530 204 280 407
2001 230 360 500 370 780 550 — — —
2002 230 360 500 360 850 580 160 230 330
2003 230 360 500 360 800 580 160 230 330
2004 230 360 500 350 800 570 160 200 330
2005 230 360 500 350 800 570 140 200 290
2006 230 360 500 330 760 510 140 200 290
2007 230 360 500 330 760 510 140 200 290
2008 230 360 500 340 770 490 140 210 290
2009 340 480 580 340 770 490 210 290 390
2010 340 440 540 310 770 490 210 290 390
2011 340 440 540 300 760 470 190 290 380
2012 340 410 500 280 760 470 190 290 380
2013 340 410 500 288 710 510 190 290 380
β 8.9 3.9 −2.0 −5.8 −1.7 −5.5 −0.1 1.5 0.6
P value .001 .05 .36 <.001 .39 .002 .97 .52 .85
Chain C
1996 260 380 460 320 490 310 90 108 180
1997 270 390 470 320 490 310 90 108 180
1998 270 470 570 320 490 310 90 108 180
1999 270 470 570 320 490 310 90 108 180
2000 270 470 570 320 490 310 90 108 180
2001 270 420 470 310 480 300 104 130 208
2002 250 390 440 310 480 300 112 140 224
2003 250 390 440 310 480 300 112 140 224
2004 250 390 440 310 480 360 112 140 224
2005 280 440 490 320 490 360 112 140 224
2006 370 420 540 320 490 370 140 224 294
2007 330 420 520 320 500 320 140 224 294
2008 340 430 550 260 500 320 140 210 280
2009 330 420 540 270 540 350 160 240 320
2010 330 410 540 270 540 340 160 240 320
2011 320 420 530 270 550 360 160 240 320
2012 320 420 530 290 620 390 160 — —
2013 310 410 500 290 600 390 160 240 320
β 4.9 −0.5 1.8 −3.0 6.1 4.5 5.2 10.3 10.6
P value .001 .73 .40 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
Chain comparison P value ≤.002 .04a NS ≤.008b <.001b <.001 ≤.01 ≤.02 <.001b
Open in a new tab

No one-time trend characterized the changes that occurred across chains. For example, the final energy content in 2013 of small French fries at chains A, B, and C was 20 kcal, 90 kcal, and 50 kcal higher, respectively, than in 1996 (all P ≤ .001) (Figure 1). For large French fries, the time trend changes were significant only for Chain A (P = .007), and for that chain the final energy content was 40 kcal lower in 2013 than in 1996. For cola we found a significant difference in time trends among the 3 restaurant chains (P ≤ .01).

Sodium

Of the 18 items examined for sodium, the sodium content of 5 (27%) items decreased significantly (β range, −4.1 to −24.0 mg, P ≤ .05) (Figure 2). In contrast, the sodium content of 7 (39%) items significantly increased (β range, 1.9–29.6 mg, P ≤ .04). Average sodium content differed among chains for all individual menu items (P ≤ .01) except the 2-oz cheeseburger. We found marked heterogeneity among chains.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Sodium content (mg per portion) for popular menu items at 3 large, national fast-food chains. Sodium content for 3 sizes of French fries (small, medium, large), 2 sizes of cheeseburgers (2 oz, 4 oz), and 1 size of grilled chicken sandwich from Chains A, B, and C from 1996 through 2013. β estimates and P values derived from individual simple linear models, with energy as the dependent variable and time as the independent variable; chain comparison P values derived from ANOVA (analysis of variance) models comparing mean values between restaurants. Dashes indicate that data were not available; blank cells indicate that the item was not offered for the year(s). Abbreviation: NS, nonsignificant. a Difference is between Chain B versus Chains A and C.

Chain/Year French Fries
 Cheeseburger
 Grilled Chicken Sandwich
Small Medium Large 2 oz 4 oz
Sodium, mg
Chain A
1996 135 290 350 770 1,200
1997 135 290 350 820 1,290 1,040
1998 135 290 350 820 1,290 1,040
1999 135 290 350 820 1,290 1,040
2000 135 290 350 830 1,310 970
2001 135 290 350 830 1,310 970
2002 135 290 350 830 1,310 970
2003 135 290 350 800 1,250 890
2004 150 220 340 790 1,240 1,020
2005 140 220 330 740 1,150 1,240
2006 140 220 330 740 1,150 1,240
2007 140 220 330 750 1,190 1,190
2008 160 270 350 750 1,190 1,190
2009 160 270 350 750 1,190 1,190
2010 160 270 350 750 1,190 1,190
2011 160 270 350 750 1,190 820
2012 160 270 350 680 1,100 820
2013 160 270 350 680 1,100 820
β 1.9 −2.1 −0.2 −7.5 −10.2 −2.8
P value <.001 .10 .63 <.001 <.001 .71
Chain B
1996 — — — — —
1997 — 240 770 1,350 480
1998 — — — — —
1999 550 820 1,180 760 1,380 1,060
2000 550 820 1,180 760 1,380 1,060
2001 630 690 940 750 1,390 1,110
2002 410 640 880 790 1,430 1,370
2003 410 640 880 790 1,420 1,370
2004 410 640 880 770 1,450 1,410
2005 410 640 880 770 1,450 1,410
2006 380 590 820 780 1,450 1,180
2007 380 590 820 780 1,450 1,180
2008 380 590 820 780 1,450 1,250
2009 590 820 990 770 1,450 1,220
2010 530 670 830 740 1,450 1,220
2011 530 670 830 710 1,410 1,100
2012 480 570 710 690 1,410 1,330
2013 480 570 710 690 1,240 1,350
β −1.7 2.1 −24.0 −4.1 <0.1 23.7
P value .75 .79 <.001 .01 .99 .04
Chain C
1996 85 120 150 770 1,130 780
1997 85 120 150 830 1,240 790
1998 85 150 180 830 1,240 790
1999 85 150 180 830 1,240 790
2000 85 150 180 830 1,240 790
2001 85 130 150 800 1,180 740
2002 220 340 380 820 1,210 740
2003 220 340 380 820 1,230 730
2004 220 340 380 820 1,230 1,100
2005 270 430 480 820 1,220 1,100
2006 380 430 550 810 1,200 1,070
2007 340 430 550 800 1,220 950
2008 290 370 480 690 1,190 950
2009 300 380 500 700 1,260 1,000
2010 280 350 460 730 1,290 1,030
2011 350 460 570 670 1,270 1,110
2012 350 460 570 820 1,440 880
2013 330 440 540 800 1,220 1,000
β 18.8 22.0 29.6 −4.7 5.9 17.9
P value <.001 <.001 <.001 .05 .03 .002
Chain comparison P value ≤.01 <.001a <.001a NS <.001a ≤.001a
Open in a new tab

Saturated and trans fat

The saturated fat content of French fries, post-2001, was modest for all chains (1.5–6.0 g) (Figure 3). We found a noticeable decline in the saturated fat content of chain B’s French fries between 2000 and 2001. Nevertheless, the saturated fat content of the large-sized meal in 2013 contained 61% to 80% of the recommended 10% of energy upper limit (22 g/2,000 kcal) (1) and 104% and 135% of the recommended 6% of energy upper limit (13 g/2,000 kcal)(6).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Saturated fat content (g per portion) for popular menu items at 3 large, national fast-food chains. Saturated fat content per serving for 3 sizes of French fries (small, medium, large), 2 sizes of cheeseburgers (2 oz, 4 oz), and 1 size of grilled chicken sandwich from Chains A, B, and C from 1996 through 2013. β estimates and P values derived from individual simple linear models; chain comparison P values derived from ANOVA (analysis of variance) models comparing mean values between restaurants. Dashes indicate that data were not available; blank cells indicate that the item was not offered for the year(s). Abbreviations: NS, nonsignificant; NC, no change. a Difference is between Chain B versus Chains A and C.

Chain/Year French Fries
 Cheeseburger
 Grilled Chicken Sandwich
Small Medium Large 2 oz 4 oz
Saturated Fat, g
Chain A
1996 1.5 4.0 4.5 6.0 13.0
1997 1.5 4.0 4.5 6.0 13.0 3.0
1998 1.5 4.0 4.5 6.0 13.0 3.0
1999 1.5 4.0 4.5 6.0 13.0 3.0
2000 1.5 4.0 4.5 6.0 13.0 3.0
2001 1.5 4.0 4.5 6.0 13.0 3.0
2002 1.5 4.0 4.5 6.0 13.0 3.0
2003 1.5 4.0 4.5 6.0 13.0 3.0
2004 2.0 3.0 4.5 6.0 13.0 3.0
2005 2.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 12.0 2.0
2006 2.5 4.0 6.0 6.0 12.0 2.0
2007 2.5 4.0 6.0 6.0 12.0 2.0
2008 1.5 2.5 3.5 6.0 12.0 2.0
2009 1.5 2.5 3.5 6.0 12.0 2.0
2010 1.5 2.5 3.5 6.0 12.0 2.0
2011 1.5 2.5 3.5 6.0 12.0 2.0
2012 1.5 2.5 3.5 6.0 12.0 2.0
2013 1.5 2.5 3.5 6.0 12.0 2.0
β <0.1 −0.1 −0.1 NC −0.1 −0.1
P value .61 <.001 .08 NS <.001 <.001
Chain B
1996 — — — — —
1997 — 5.0 9.0 16.0 6.0
1998 — — — — —
1999 5.0 8.0 12.0 9.0 17.0 5.0
2000 5.0 8.0 12.0 9.0 17.0 5.0
2001 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 17.0 5.0
2002 3.0 5.0 7.0 8.0 30.0 5.0
2003 3.0 5.0 7.0 8.0 18.0 5.0
2004 3.0 5.0 7.0 8.0 18.0 4.5
2005 3.0 5.0 7.0 8.0 18.0 4.5
2006 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.0 16.0 3.5
2007 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.0 16.0 3.5
2008 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.0 16.0 4.0
2009 3.5 5.0 6.0 7.0 16.0 4.0
2010 3.5 4.5 6.0 7.0 16.0 4.0
2011 3.5 4.5 6.0 6.0 16.0 3.5
2012 2.5 3.0 3.5 6.0 16.0 3.5
2013 2.5 3.0 3.5 6.0 15.0 4.0
β −0.1 −0.2 −0.4 −0.2 −0.2 −0.1
P value .03 .001 <.001 <.001 .28 <.001
Chain C
1996 2.5 4.0 5.0 6.0 10.0 1.5
1997 2.0 3.0 3.5 6.0 10.5 1.5
1998 2.0 3.5 4.0 6.0 10.5 1.5
1999 2.0 3.5 4.0 6.0 10.5 1.5
2000 2.0 3.5 4.0 6.0 10.5 1.5
2001 2.0 3.0 3.5 6.0 10.5 1.5
2002 2.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 10.5 1.5
2003 2.0 3.0 3.5 6.0 10.5 1.5
2004 2.0 3.0 3.5 6.0 10.5 1.5
2005 2.5 3.5 4.0 6.0 10.5 1.5
2006 2.5 3.0 4.0 6.0 10.5 1.5
2007 2.5 3.0 3.5 5.0 10.5 1.5
2008 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 10.5 1.5
2009 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 11.5 1.5
2010 3.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 11.5 1.5
2011 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 12.0 1.5
2012 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 16.0 3.5
2013 3.0 3.5 4.5 6.5 13.0 1.5
β 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <−0.1 0.2 <0.1
P value <.001 .33 .06 .06 .002 .15
Chain comparison P value ≤.001 <.001a <.001a <.001a <.001a <.001
Open in a new tab

Data for trans fat became available in 2001. The trans fat content of French fries declined to undetectable levels between 2006 and 2009 (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Trans fat content (g per portion) for popular menu items at 3 large, national fast-food chains. Trans fat content per serving for 3 sizes of French fries (small, medium, large), 2 sizes of cheeseburgers (2 oz, 4 oz), and 1 size of grilled chicken sandwich from Chains A, B, and C from 2001 through 2013. β estimates and P values derived from individual simple linear models; chain comparison P values derived from ANOVA (analysis of variance) models, comparing mean values between restaurants. Dashes indicate that data were not available; blank cells indicate that the item was not offered for the year(s). a Difference is between Chain C versus Chains A and B. Abbreviations: NS, nonsignificant; NC, no change.

Chain/Year French Fries
 Cheeseburger
 Grilled Chicken Sandwich
Small Medium Large 2 oz 4 oz
Trans Fat, g
Chain A
2001 — — — — — —
2002 — — — — — —
2003 — — — — — —
2004 — — — — — —
2005 2.5 4.0 6.0 1.0 1.5 0
2006 3.5 5.0 8.0 1.0 1.5 0
2007 3.5 5.0 8.0 0.5 1.5 0
2008 0 0 0 0.5 1.5 0
2009 0 0 0 0.5 1.5 0
2010 0 0 0 0.5 1.5 0
2011 0 0 0 0.5 1.5 0
2012 0 0 0 0.5 1.5 0
2013 0 0 0 0.5 1.5 0
β −0.5 −0.1 −1.1 −0.1 NC NC
P value .01 .01 .01 .03 NS NS
Chain B
2001 3.0 5.0 6.0 1.0 1.5 —
2002 3.0 4.7 6.4 0.7 1.5 0.5
2003 3.0 4.7 6.4 0.7 1.4 0.5
2004 3.0 4.5 6.0 0.5 1.5 0
2005 3.0 4.5 6.0 0.5 2.0 0
2006 3.0 4.5 6.0 0.5 1.5 0.5
2007 3.0 4.5 6.0 0.5 1.5 0.5
2008 3.0 4.5 6.0 0.5 1.5 0
2009 0 0 0 0.5 1.5 0
2010 0 0 0 0.5 1.5 0
2011 0 0 0 0 1.0 0
2012 0 0 0 0 1.0 0
2013 0 0 0 0 1.0 0
β −0.3 −0.5 −0.7 −0.1 <−0.1 <−0.1
P value <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 .06 .03
Chain C
2001 — — — — — —
2002 — — — — — —
2003 3.0 4.5 5.0 0.5 1.0 0
2004 3.0 4.5 5.0 0.5 1.0 0
2005 3.5 5.0 6.0 0.5 1.0 0
2006 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0
2007 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0
2008 0 0 0 0.5 1.0 0
2009 0 0 0 0.5 1.0 0
2010 0 0 0 0.5 1.0 0
2011 0 0 0 0.5 1.5 0
2012 0 0 0 0.5 1.5 0
2013 0 0 0 0.5 1.5 0
β −0.4 −0.5 −0.6 NC 0.1 NC
P value .001 .001 .002 NS .005 NS
Chain comparison P value NS NS NS NS <.01a NS
Open in a new tab

Meals

Over time the total energy content of the bundled meal varied inconsistently among the 3 chains (Figure 5). In 2013, the energy content of a large-sized bundled meal (cheeseburger, French fries, and regular cola) represented 65% to 80% of a 2,000-calorie-per-day diet, and sodium content represented 63% to 91% of the 2,300-mg-per-day recommendation and 97% to 139% of the 1,500-mg-per-day recommendation. We found a gradual downward trend in the sodium content of Chain A and Chain B and a gradual upward trend for Chain C. The saturated fat content of the meals exhibited little change for Chain A or Chain C, whereas it steadily declined for Chain B. The total trans fat content of the combination meals declined dramatically.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Comparison of energy, sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat content for popular menu items at 3 large, national fast-food chains. Energy (kcal), sodium (mg), saturated fat (g), and trans fat (g) content for 1999, 2003, 2008, and 2013 in popular small-sized (ie, 2-oz cheeseburger, small French fries, and small cola) and large-sized (ie, 4-oz cheeseburger, large French fries, and large cola) meals from chains A, B, and C. Trans fat data were not available for 1999. Dashes indicate that data were not available. Abbreviation: NA, not applicable.

Year/Item Chain A Chain B Chain C
Energy, kcal (% Total meal kcal)
1999
2-oz Cheeseburger 320 (47) 360 (44) 320 (47)
Small French fries 210 (31) 250 (31) 270 (40)
Small cola 150 (22) 204 (25) 90 (13)
Total small meal 680 (100) 814 (100) 680 (100)
4-oz Cheeseburger 530 (38) 760 (43) 490 (40)
Large French fries 540 (39) 590 (34) 570 (46)
Large cola 310 (22) 407 (23) 180 (15)
Total large meal 1,380 (100) 1,757 (100) 1,240 (100)
2003
2-oz Cheeseburger 330 (48) 360 (48) 310 (46)
Small French fries 210 (30) 230 (31) 250 (37)
Small cola 150 (22) 160 (21) 112 (17)
Total small meal 690 (100) 750 (100) 672 (100)
4-oz Cheeseburger 530 (38) 800 (49) 480 (42)
Large French fries 540 (39) 500 (31) 440 (38)
Large cola 310 (22) 330 (20) 224 (20)
Total large meal 1,380 (100) 1,630 (100) 1,144 (100)
2008
2-oz Cheeseburger 300 (44) 340 (48) 260 (35)
Small French fries 230 (34) 230 (32) 340 (46)
Small cola 150 (22) 140 (20) 140 (19)
Total small meal 680 (100) 710 (100) 740 (100)
4-oz Cheeseburger 510 (39) 770 (49) 500 (38)
Large French fries 500 (38) 500 (32) 550 (41)
Large cola 310 (23) 290 (19) 280 (21)
Total large meal 1,320 (100) 1,560 (100) 1,330 (100)
2013
2-oz Cheeseburger 300 (45) 288 (35) 290 (38)
Small French fries 230 (34) 340 (42) 310 (41)
Small cola 140 (21) 190 (23) 160 (21)
Total small meal 670 (100) 818 (100) 760 (100)
4-oz Cheeseburger 520 (40) 710 (45) 600 (42)
Large French fries 500 (38) 500 (31) 500 (35)
Large cola 280 (22) 380 (24) 320 (23)
Total large meal 1,300 (100) 1,590 (100) 1,420 (100)
Sodium, mg (% of total meal)
1999
2-oz Cheeseburger 820 (86) 760 (58) 830 (91)
Small French fries 135 (14) 550 (42) 85 (9)
Total small meal 955 (100) 1,310 (100) 915 (100)
4-oz Cheeseburger 1,290 (79) 1,380 (54) 1,240 (87)
Large French fries 350 (21) 1,180 (46) 180 (13)
Total large meal 1,640 (100) 2,560 (100) 1,420 (100)
2003
2-oz Cheeseburger 800 (86) 790 (66) 820 (79)
Small French fries 135 (14) 410 (34) 220 (21)
Total small meal 935 (100) 1,200 (100) 1,040 (100)
4-oz Cheeseburger 1,250 (78) 1,420 (62) 1,230 (76)
Large French fries 350 (22) 880 (38) 380 (24)
Total large meal 1,600 (100) 2,300 (100) 1,610 (100)
2008
2-oz Cheeseburger 750 (82) 780 (67) 690 (70)
Small French fries 160 (18) 380 (33) 290 (30)
Total small meal                               910 (100) 1,160 (100) 980 (100)
4-oz Cheeseburger 1,190 (77) 1450 (64) 1,190 (71)
Large French fries 350 (23) 820 (36) 480 (29)
Total large meal 1,540 (100) 2,270 (100) 1,670 (100)
2013
2-oz Cheeseburger 680 (81)                     690 (59) 600 (65)
Small French fries 160 (19) 480 (41) 330 (35)
Total small meal 840 (100) 1,170 (100) 930 (100)
4-oz Cheeseburger 1,100 (76) 1,380 (66) 1,220 (69)
Large French fries 350 (24) 710 (34) 540 (31)
Total large meal 1,450 (100) 2,090 (100) 1,760 (100)
Saturated fat, g (% total meal)
1999
2-oz Cheeseburger 6 (80) 9 (64) 6 (75)
Small French fries 1.5 (20) 5 (36) 2 (25)
Total small meal 7.5 (100) 14 (100) 8 (100)
4-oz Cheeseburger 13 (74) 17 (59) 10.5 (72)
Large French fries 4.5 (26) 12 (41) 4 (28)
Total large meal 17.5 (100) 29 (100) 14.5 (100)
2003
2-oz Cheeseburger 6 (80) 8 (73) 6 (75)
Small French fries 1.5 (20) 3 (27) 2 (25)
Total small meal 7.5 (100) 11 (100) 8 (100)
4-oz Cheeseburger 13 (74) 18 (72) 10.5 (75)
Large French fries 4.5 (26) 7 (28) 3.5 (25)
Total large meal 17.5 (100) 25 (100) 14 (100)
2008
2-oz Cheeseburger 6 (80) 7 (70) 5 (67)
Small French fries 1.5 (20) 3 (30) 2.5 (33)
Total small meal 7.5 (100) 10 (100) 7.5 (100)
4-oz Cheeseburger 12 (77) 16 (73) 10.5 (72)
Large French fries 3.5 (23) 6 (27) 4 (28)
Total large meal 15.5 (100) 22 (100) 14.5 (100)
2013
2-oz Cheeseburger 6 (80)                               6 (71) 4 (57)
Small French fries 1.5 (20) 2.5 (29) 3 (43)
Total small meal 7.5 (100) 8.5 (100) 7 (100)
4-oz Cheeseburger 12 (77) 10 (74) 13 (74)
Large French fries 3.5 (23) 3.5 (26) 4.5 (26)
Total large meal 15.5 (100) 13.5 (100) 17.5 (100)
Trans fat, g (% total meal)
2003
2-oz Cheeseburger — 0.7 (19) 0.5 (14)
Small French fries — 3 (81) 3 (86)
Total small meal — 3.7 (100) 3.5 (100)
4-oz Cheeseburger — 1.4 (18) 1 (17)
Large French fries — 6.4 (82) 5 (83)
Total large meal — 7.8 (100) 6 (100)
2008
2-oz Cheeseburger 0.5 (100) 0.5 (14) 0.5 (100)
Small French fries 0 3 (86) 0
Total small meal 0.5 (100) 3.5 (100) 0.5 (100)
4-oz Cheeseburger 1.5 (100) 1.5 (20) 1 (100)
Large French fries 0 6 (80) 0
Total large meal 1.5 (100) 7.5 (100) 1 (100)
2013
2-oz Cheeseburger 0.5 (100) 0 0.5 (100)
Small French fries 0 0 0
Total small meal 0.5 (100) 0 0.5 (100)
4-oz Cheeseburger 1.5 (100) 1 (100) 1.5 (100)
Large French fries 0 0 0
Total large meal 1.5 (100) 1 (100) 1.5 (100)
Open in a new tab

Discussion

Despite concern that portion sizes have increased over time, contributing to the obesity epidemic and high rates of cardiometabolic disorders, among the 3 fast-food chain restaurants surveyed and menu items selected, no clear temporal trends were observed. Nevertheless, the energy, sodium, and saturated fat contents were high relative to recommendations (1).

Although there appeared to be an upward trend in portion size of the fast-food restaurant items through 2002 (13), our data and recently published data (17) indicate that this trend appears to have abated. Changes did vary substantially among the 3 chains, and portion sizes remain large. For example, in 2013, large-sized fries, regardless of chain, represented 25% of the daily energy needs of an adult, assuming an energy requirement of 2,000 kcal per day. A large-sized bundled meal composed of a large cheeseburger, large French fries, and regular cola beverage represented 65% to 80% of a 2,000 calorie diet.

Although the sodium content of some menu items decreased, sodium levels mostly remain high and in some cases they increased. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends a sodium limit of 2,300 mg per day for the general population and 1,500 mg per day for some subpopulations (1). For all 3 chains, the sodium content of a 4-oz cheeseburger approached or exceeded half the 2,300-mg-per-day target and 75% of the 1,500-mg-per-day target (1). For the large-sized meal, the sodium content was 63% to 91% of a 2,300-mg-per-day recommendation and 97% to 139% of a 1,500-mg-per-day recommendation.

The saturated fat content of the items surveyed was consistent, with the exception of a decrease in 1 chain’s French fries, presumably due to a change in frying fat (from beef tallow to partially hydrogenated fat). Nevertheless, the saturated fat content of the large-sized meal in 2013 was 61% to 80% of the recommended 10% of energy upper limit (22 g/2,000 kcal) (1) and 104% and 135% of the recommended 6% of energy upper limit (13 g/2,000 kcal)(6).

Of the menu items assessed, French fries historically contributed most of the trans fat. More recently, the trans fat content of French fries decreased because of a shift away from the use of partially hydrogenated fat. This change was prompted by local legislative mandates and public pressure (16). Our findings are consistent with those recently generated for foods purchased from 11 fast-food chains in New York City (18). The changes are an example of how reformulation had a positive effect on overall intake (19). The American Heart Association recommends trans fat intake be less than 1% of energy (20). The trans fat content of the large bundled meal that includes a cheeseburger represents 50% to 75% of the current recommendation, although the trans fat content of cheeseburgers comes from that naturally present in ruminant fat.

A noteworthy finding was that the energy, sodium, and saturated fat content of similarly labeled menu items differed considerably among the 3 fast-food chains. This has implications for counseling individuals on approaches to reduce intakes. Although the most straightforward approach is to provide dietary counseling on the basis of portion size (eg, always order the smallest size), findings of our study indicate that without information tailored to each food venue, the counseling is not likely to achieve the intended goal. To illustrate, an order of small French fries at Chain B provides 110 kcal and 320 mg sodium more than the same item at Chain A. It is unlikely that consumers are aware of the differences among chain restaurants. However, the implications of these data are striking. An extra 100 kcal per day without compensation translates to a 6 to 7 kg weight gain per year (21–23).

The data in this study were restricted to 3 fast-food chain restaurants; therefore, trends observed may not be generalizable to other venues. Of note, the 3 fast-food chain restaurants chosen account for approximately 34% of sales dollars of the top fast-food restaurants in the Untied States (14). Additionally, fast-food chain restaurant foods and beverages accounted for approximately 40% of total away-from-home energy intake in 2008 (24). Consumption of foods and beverages from fast-food restaurants is positively associated with body fatness and coronary heart disease mortality (25–28). Not captured in this study was the potential effect of recent “healthier” items offered by fast-food restaurants on the choice of the more frequently ordered items that were the focus of this study.

Most of the data used for this study were derived from the Wayback Machine website. When possible, these data were independently validated using current data from company websites. In all cases, the Wayback Machine website data were accurate. This website is unbiased because it is an independent website archival system. We cannot rule out the possibility that small variations in nutrient values from year to year may have resulted from analytical variability or shifts in analytical methods. The study was limited to 3 chain restaurants, 3 food items, 1 beverage, and 1 bundled meal. These items and this meal combination were chosen because they were most commonly ordered in the 3 chain restaurants (15). An alternate approach would have been to choose different restaurants on the basis of single items, for example, chicken sandwiches. Although trends for other food items or other types of fast-food items could be different, there are no data to suggest this to be the case. An unanswered question is whether, were a fast-food chain to change its portion sizes or reduce sodium content, consumers would compensate by modifying their order, switching to another chain, or altering another dietary component.

Our findings suggest that efforts to promote reductions in energy, sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat intakes need to be shifted from emphasizing portion size labels (eg, small, medium, large). When developing strategies that help consumers better control their energy intakes and intakes of other nutrients, additional factors — such as total caloric intake, frequency of eating occasions, number of items eaten at any occasion, specific menu choices, and limiting energy-containing beverages — should be addressed. People should be encouraged to take advantage of the point-of-purchase menu labeling provided at fast-food establishments and should consult websites that contain nutrition information.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the US Department of Agriculture under agreement nos. 58-1950-0-0014 and 1950-51000-072-02S with Tufts University. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Department of Agriculture. The authors thank Ashley Equi for her help with data acquisition.

Footnotes

The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions.

Suggested citation for this article: Urban LE, Roberts SB, Fierstein JL, Gary CE, Lichtenstein AH. Temporal Trends in Fast-Food Restaurant Energy, Sodium, Saturated Fat, and Trans Fat Content, United States, 1996–2013. Prev Chronic Dis 2014;11:140202. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd11.140202.

References

  • 1. US Department of Agriculture. Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2010, 7th edition. Washington (DC): US Department of Health and Human Services; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Murray CJL, Lopez AD. Measuring the global burden of disease. N Engl J Med 2013;369:448–57. 10.1056/NEJMra1201534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. US Burden of Disease Collaborators. The state of US health, 1990–2010: burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. JAMA 2013;310(6):591–608. 10.1001/jama.2013.13805 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Fitzgerald N, Morgan KT, Leachman Slawson D. Practice paper of the academy of nutrition and dietetics abstract: the role of nutrition in health promotion and chronic disease prevention. J Acad Nutr Diet 2013;113(7):983. 10.1016/j.jand.2013.05.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. The American Cancer Society 2010 Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. American Cancer Society guidelines on nutrition and physical activity for cancer prevention: reducing the risk of cancer with healthy food choices and physical activity. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62(1):30–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Eckel RH, Jakicic JM, Ard JD, Houston Miller N, Hubbard VS, Lee IM, et al. Guideline on lifestyle management to reduce cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63 ( 25 Pt B):2960–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM. Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011–2012. JAMA 2014;311(8):806–14. 10.1001/jama.2014.732 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Lin B, Frazao E, Guthrie J. Away-from-home foods increasingly important to quality of American diet. Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 749. Washington (DC): Economic Research Service; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 9. US Department of Agriculture. Away from home: percentages of selected nutrients contributed by foods eaten away from home, by gender and age, in the United States, 2009–2010. NHANES; 2009–2010. http://www.ars.usda.gov/ba/bhnrc/fsrg. Accessed December 17, 2012.
  • 10. Johnson CM, Angell SY, Lederer A, Dumanovsky T, Huang C, Bassett MT, et al. Sodium content of lunchtime fast food purchases at major US chains. Arch Intern Med 2010;170(8):732–4. 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.72 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Pereira MA, Kartashov AI, Ebbeling CB, Van Horn L, Slattery ML, Jacobs DR Jr, et al. Fast-food habits, weight gain, and insulin resistance (the CARDIA study): 15-year prospective analysis. Lancet 2005;365:36–42. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17663-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Bowman SA, Vinyard BT. Fast food consumption of US adults: impact on energy and nutrient intakes and overweight status. J Am Coll Nutr 2004;23(2):163–8. 10.1080/07315724.2004.10719357 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Young LR, Nestle M. Expanding portion sizes in the US marketplace: implications for nutrition counseling. J Am Diet Assoc 2003;103:231–4. 10.1053/jada.2003.50027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Oches S. The QSR 50. QSR; 2013. http://www.qsrmagazine.com/reports/qsr50-2013-top-50-chart. Accessed June 12, 2014.
  • 15. Harris JL, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD, Sarda V, Ustjanauskas A, Javadizadeh J, et al. Fast food F.A.C.T.S.: evaluating fast food nutrition and marketing to youth. New Haven (CT): Yale University Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Hensley S, Stensson A. High-volume restaurants going trans-fat free one unit at a time; 2012. http://www.restaurant.org/pressroom/pressrelease/print/index.cfm?ID=1607. Accessed July 25, 2012.
  • 17. Bauer KW, Hearst MO, Earnest AA, French SA, Oakes JM, Harnack LJ. Energy content of US fast-food restaurant offerings. Am J Prev Med 2012;43(5):490–7. 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.06.033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Angell SY, Cobb LK, Curtis CJ, Konty KJ, Silver LD. Change in trans fatty acid content of fast-food purchases associated with New York City’s restaurant regulation: a pre–post study. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:81–6. 10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Lichtenstein AH. New York City trans fat ban: improving the default option when purchasing foods prepared outside of the home. Ann Intern Med 2012;157(2):144–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Lichtenstein AH, Appel LJ, Brands M, Carnethon M, Daniels S, Franch HA, et al. Diet and lifestyle recommendations revision 2006: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Nutrition Committee. Circulation 2006;114(1):82–96. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.176158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Hall KD. What is the required energy deficit per unit weight loss? Int J Obes (Lond) 2008;32(3):573–6. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803720 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Katan MB, Ludwig DS. Extra calories cause weight gain — but how much? JAMA 2010;303(1):65–6. 10.1001/jama.2009.1912 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disorders. Body weight simulator; 2012. http://bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov/. Accessed December 17, 2012.
  • 24. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Daily intake of nutrients by food source: 2005–2008; 2012. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-consumption-and-nutrient-intakes.aspx. Accessed December 17, 2012.
  • 25. McCrory MA, Fuss PJ, Hays NP, Vinken AG, Greenberg AS, Roberts SB. Overeating in America: association between restaurant food consumption and body fatness in healthy adult men and women ages 19 to 80. Obes Res 1999;7(6):564–71. 10.1002/j.1550-8528.1999.tb00715.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Duffey KJ, Gordon-Larsen P, Jacobs DR Jr, Williams OD, Popkin BM. Differential associations of fast food and restaurant food consumption with 3-y change in body mass index: the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;85(1):201–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Mozaffarian D, Hao T, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Hu FB. Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. N Engl J Med 2011;364(25):2392–404. 10.1056/NEJMoa1014296 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Odegaard AO, Koh WP, Yuan J, Gross MD, Pereira MA. Western-style fast food intake and cardiometabolic risk in an Eastern country. Circulation 2012;126(2):182–8. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.084004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Preventing Chronic Disease are provided here courtesy of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

RESOURCES