Do Consumers Order More Calories in a Meal with a Diet or Regular Soft Drink? An Empirical Investigation Using Large-Scale Field Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diet carbonated soft drinks (CSDs) were introduced to help consumers lower caloric intake. However, critics suggest that these drinks can provide an excuse to consume more calories, a so-called “Big Mac and Diet Coke” mentality that is consistent with behavioral theories such as moral licensing (e.g., combining a healthy eating choice with an indulgent, less healthy one). Using individual-level food and drink consumer panel data from a major fast-food restaurant chain, the authors empirically examine meals with a regular CSD versus a diet CSD. Results after controlling for drink size and demographics show that consumers generally do not order higher total calories from a meal with a diet CSD; rather, the authors find significant reductions in calorie count, suggesting that within a single meal, diet CSDs can help consumers unwilling to stop drinking CSDs to reduce calories. So, despite popular beliefs to the contrary, policy makers can consider diet CSD availability as a “calorie-reduction” strategy to lower calorie consumption within a meal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".