To compare the nutritional quality of children’s combination meals offered at large US chain restaurants characterised by three versions – default (advertised), minimum (lower-energy) and maximum (higher-energy).

We identified default children’s meals (n 92) from online restaurant menus, then constructed minimum and maximum versions using realistic additions, substitutions and/or portion size changes for existing menu items. Nutrition data were obtained from the MenuStat database. Bootstrapped linear models assessed nutrition differences between meal versions and the extent to which meal components (main dish, side dish, beverage) drove differences across versions. For each version, we examined the proportion of meals meeting the Guidelines for Responsible Food Marketing to Children.

Twenty-six fast-food and fast-casual restaurants, in 2017.

None.

Nutrient values differed significantly across meal versions for energy content (default 2443 kJ (584 kcal), minimum 1674 kJ (400 kcal), maximum 3314 kJ (792 kcal)), total fat (23, 17, 33 g), saturated fat (8, 6, 11 g), Na (1046, 915, 1287 mg) and sugar (35, 14, 51 g). The substitution of lower-energy beverages resulted in the greatest reduction in energy content (default to minimum, −418 kJ (−100 kcal)) and sugar (−20 g); choosing lower-energy side dishes resulted in the greatest reduction in total fat (default to minimum, −4 g), saturated fat (−1·1 g) and Na (−69 mg). Only 3 % of meals met guidelines for all nutrients.

Realistic modifications to children’s combination meals using existing menu options can significantly alter a meal’s nutrient composition. Promoting lower-energy items as the default option, especially for beverages and side dishes, has a potential to reduce fat, saturated fat and/or sugar in children’s meals.

To understand price incentives to upsize combination meals at fast-food restaurants by comparing the calories (i.e. kilocalories; 1 kcal = 4·184 kJ) per dollar of default combination meals (as advertised on the menu) with a higher-calorie version (created using realistic consumer additions and portion-size changes).

Combination meals (lunch/dinner: n 258, breakfast: n 68, children’s: n 34) and their prices were identified from online menus; corresponding nutrition information for each menu item was obtained from a restaurant nutrition database (MenuStat). Linear models were used to examine the difference in total calories per dollar between default and higher-calorie combination meals, overall and by restaurant.

Ten large fast-food chain restaurants located in the fifteen most populous US cities in 2017–2018.

None.

There were significantly more calories per dollar in higher-calorie v. default combination meals for lunch/dinner (default: 577 kJ (138 kcal)/dollar, higher-calorie: 707 kJ (169 kcal)/dollar, difference: 130 kJ (31 kcal)/dollar, P < 0·001) and breakfast (default: 536 kJ (128 kcal)/dollar, higher-calorie: 607 kJ (145 kcal)/dollar, difference: 71 kJ (17 kcal)/dollar, P = 0·009). Results for children’s meals were in the same direction but were not statistically significant (default: 536 kJ (128 kcal)/dollar, higher-calorie: 741 kJ (177 kcal)/dollar, difference: 205 kJ (49 kcal)/dollar, P = 0·053). Across restaurants, the percentage change in calories per dollar for higher-calorie v. default combination meals ranged from 0·1 % (Dunkin’ Donuts) to 55·0 % (Subway).

Higher-calorie combination meals in fast-food restaurants offer significantly more calories per dollar compared with default combination meals, suggesting there is a strong financial incentive for consumers to ‘upsize’ their orders. Future research should test price incentives for lower-calorie options to promote healthier restaurant choices.