Well if we’re talking outside the US then the answer is “right now”.
the UK has 156 “Pret A Manger” stores doing (reasonably) healthy sandwiches and salads.
Plus Marks and Spencers and other less well known chains do similar menus.
These exist in the US - I have seen them in NY and DC. We also have Au Bon Pain and a number of similar types that offer attractive alternatives to typical fast food. But almost all of these also offer fatty salty options, which remain fairly popular.
Right. And it can be a lot cheaper than fast food. You can serve beans, rice and veggies to a family of 4 for around $1/person.
But given the alternative of spending $7/person for a greasy burger, fries and a big soft drink, most people aren’t going to go for beans and rice.
I remember reading a news story a few years back about a woman who went on a McDonald’s diet as a way to counter the movie “Super Size Me,” and actually lost weight.
She did it eating stuff like salads, small fries, hamburgers without cheese and water to wash it down.
I can’t find the story right, but if anyone else manages to locate it, please post.
So it is possible to eat healthy at these restaurants, but the problem is the vast majority of people who go to them don’t eat just a salad or plain hamburger with small fries.
This is true, but prepared foods in supermarkets seem to fill about half the shelf space. Canned soups, frozen pizzas, and microwavable food are extremely abundant and equally bad as fast food.
When I’m shopping I can’t help but glance in other people’s carts and I see a lot of “instant” meals being purchased.
Yeah, and cuts with lots of fat and where the fat is spread out so you can’t cut it out, are actually the “quality” ones.
I do! I go to Burger King and order a whopper jr., value fries, and a side salad. Total cost: $3. The dollar menu is really advancing the goal of portion control at fast food restaurants by miles.
I question whether this is generally true for canned soups - the nutrition labels for many of them seem to argue they are pretty good (albeit somewhat salty).
In an affluent society people put a high value on convenience. In many areas of the world, this would not be so - even relatively inexpensive western-style fast food would be absurdly expensive for much of the population.
To a certain degree it’s probably unavoidable: the effects of varying tastes on a public that does not go out of their way to eat a balanced diet. In other words, to a certain degree, as long as some foods are tastier and cheaper than others, those will be eaten more, and by definition, the foods that are not eaten will be “healthy” in that the average person would improve their health by eating more of them. In other words if fresh veggies were the utmost in gourmandizing to the average American, the cheapest ones would be spammed all over the place and still not provide a balanced diet, so the average American would improve their health by eating more hamburgers and fat.
Obviously this cannot be taken to extremes but I’m sure that the average American eats so little healthy food that if the situation were completely reversed, eating more at current fast food places would actually improve their health.
Haha, that’s actually so true. The processed meat that we glutton over is highly nutritious in many respects (namely, protein and minerals), and Africans who eat fresh, vitamin-rich fruit all day are wrecked by their own deficiencies.
Fair enough. I was looking at it from the perspective of a 2,500 calorie diet, for which 300 calories for dinner is pretty slim, necessitating ordering two. I don’t know how much they cost, but I’d guess the three to four dollar range. I don’t know about you, but to me the only real advantage McDonald’s has is being cheap, and would be a little leery spending $8 for the entree. Yes, I felt a little silly just typing that. If I was on a lower calorie diet, or took the ‘eat a bunch of smaller meals over the course of the day’ thing more seriously, getting one certainly is probably the best choice available. Maybe a salad and a snack wrap is a good order for me. Anyway, on with the thread.
Marketing.
Subway’s 6" Spicy Italian Sandwich
Calories: 520
Calories from Fat: 250
Total Fat: 28g
Sodium: 1830mg
This is by no means Subway’s least healthy 6" sandwich… it’s kind of in the middle of their range.
McDonald’s Quarter Pounder with Cheese
Calories: 510
Calories from Fat: 230
Total Fat: 26g
Sodium: 1190mg
But, Subway has done a beautiful job of making people believe it’s healthier than other fast food.
Storage is a huge factor here. If you have frozen patties and you don’t use up all of them today, just haul them out tomorrow and you haven’t lost any money. Fresh food is a lot tougher, as it goes bad quickly and costs you a lot more.
A convenience store with fresh fruit and veggies would have to turn it over every day or so, while a pack of combos can sit on the shelf for a long time. Fresh food is expensive in terms of turnover, transport, and storage, and I don’t see it replacing convenience foods that are indestructible and with a long shelf life without a major shift in the way we think about the value and importance of good food.
Yeah, but a quarter pounder isn’t a big mac. And a big mac isn’t a big mac meal. Both a 6" spicy italian and a single quarter pounder are a long way from a big mac meal. You see how it’s all relative?
And that my friend is the crux of the problem. The biggest fault with eating “healthy” is convenience and time.
It isn’t conducive to eating right when you have 45 mins to prepare and eat said food. It is far easier to pick something up in 5 minutes on your way home or out to eat lunch.
I don’t think listing ‘healthy alternatives’ is enough. Nor do I think education is enough.
Cost needs to collide in a very meaningful way to ‘fast convenient food’ in order to force people into eating healthy.
Not to mention that lack of proper exercise people get these days. It’s no big wonder why Americans (and probably worldwide) or growing more and more obese. Please save me the ‘Not *insert country here stint’
I was comparing sandwich to sandwich.
Comparing a Subway sandwich to a McDonald’s meal seems unfair - but, let’s throw in the Big Mac nutritional value.
Same link as above:
Big Mac
Calories: 540
Calories from fat: 260
Fat: 29g
Sodium: 1040mg
Only 10 more calories than the subway 6 inch sandwich and only one more gram of fat. There’s no way you can look at the numbers for both sandwiches and call one healthy and the other unhealthy.
Now if you’re saying that a Subway sandwich and water has fewer calories than a Big Mac, Large Fries, and a Coke - well… duh.
One could argue that a person going to Subway is likely to think Subway’s the “healthier” option, and is more likely to order the water than the average McDonald’s goer, but really that would just go back to your point about it being marketing.
First, I think we have to stop anal-izing and waging war against “healthy” and “unhealthy” foods. Quit dividing our plates and looking at food as the enemy. Literally, all food has some nutritious value and purpose, or let’s face it, we wouldn’t be eating it.
Second, stop taking every scientific study about food and nutrients as literal, let alone, even accurate. Food doesn’t exist in a vacuum- stop setting up factional, “scientific”, dichotimies. Americans need to start seeing food in naturalistic terms rather than as food to be eliminated and deprived.
Third, Hi Opal!
I would add that 2,500 calories a day is really high. A 5’ 10" man at 170 pounds (the high edge of normal) getting light exercise needs a little less than 2000 calories a day to maintain that weight. 2500 calories maintains a weight of about 265. That is well into the obese category.
I had an epiphany when I was rather young.
Cheap. Healthy. Quick. When it comes to eating you can do two of the three.