A friend and I were having a little discussion about junk food. He seems to think the food he gets from Subway is all fresh and healthy but I just don’t agree. I say that although it is healthier than McDonalds or Burger King it’s still a chain and probably uses the cheapest available meats and vegetables.
I tried looking for information online but I’m not an expert Googler. Could anyone help find some fun facts about the quality of Subway’s food?
Why not go to www.subway.com. There is a complete list of evertything they sell, with nutrutional information.
I’ll bet that Burger King’s website is at www.burgerking.com and McDonald’s might just be www.mcdonalds.com
I was kind of hoping for some dirty little facts, if there are any. Perhaps stuff that could be found in Fast Food Nation about McDonalds that would make you not want to eat there.
Straight up, they are about the same. You could argue that the risk is greater at McDonalds because beef must be cooked to a certain temp, or you risk e-coli poisoning.
Each offers choices that are decent. At subway, you could eat turkey breast on wheat bread. At Mcdonalds, you could eat a salad with grilled chicken.
It’s probably easier at McDoanlds to choose poorly, and walk out with a 2600 calorie meal.
There are no whacky stories such as there is no ‘smoking gun’ of evidence that shows Subway leaves it’s lunch meats out too long, or they add preservatives from the nostril of a dead pig, or that McDonalds uses the lard of dead penguins to cook their fries.
You are begging for ‘anecdotal evidence’ which almost begs for a placing of this thread in the IMHO forum.
Subway may taste better, but my own math using their website makes even the veggie sandwiches look pretty bad, once you add cheese and a little dressing. Add a sugary soda or a cookie and you’re probably looking almost as many calories as a burger and fries.
According to Fast Food Nation, Subway is also the worst of the chains in terms of how it treats franchisees, but I don’t remember any of the specifics.
If you get something healthy at Subway, you’re probably looking at a better lunch than you’ll get at a burger joint, but if you’re not careful, you can easily end up with something just as bad. If you load up on vegetables, and don’t add much else, to a lean sandwich, you’re doing okay, but you could still prepare something much healthier yourself.
Except that many people who order a veggie sandwich because it’s low in calories probably aren’t going to order a sugary drink and a cookie. And, they’d probably pick a vinegary dressing that is low-cal.
That’s just not a fair comparison. Adding cheese, mayonnaise, and Coke to the Subway meal but not to the McDonald’s meal? Here’s the figures for comparable-size sandwiches without cheese or mayonnaise:
6" Veggie delight: 166 grams, 230 Calories, 3 grams of fat
Quarter pounder: 171 grams, 430 Calories, 21 grams of fat
Point taken, but as a guy who eats a sizable amount, a twelve-inch veggie is more likely. I have to have cheese on it or it has no real substance - add some calories and fat there. And that’s assuming you get the Italian bread, right? What if you get whole wheat or honey-oat or whatever other novelty breads they have? Don’t forget, those add calories too. It’s incredibly easy to add up a lot of extra calories to your sandwich without really noticing (and the damn “sandwich artists” always add WAY too much dressing, even when I say “a tiny bit of Italian”).
Even discounting the Coke (since that’s the same at all fast food places) my count for a 12-inch veggie sandwich ended up HIGHER in calories than most of the meals at McDonalds - with largely starchy calories rather than fat calories, so you can pick your poison depending on the trendy diet du jour.
Note than I find a twelve inch sub and a cookie approximately as filling as a value meal at McDonalds or Burger King - a six-inch sub is like a light snack to me, so I don’t think that’s a reasonable comparison either.
I’m willing to be corrected, but according to my calculations, this is wrong. A 12-inch Veggie Delight sandwich with the most calorific bread (Honey Oat), the most calorific cheese (cheddar), and fat free Italian dressing (I didn’t see any other kind) is 720 Calories and 18g fat. With a chocolate chip cookie, that’s 930 Calories and 28g fat.
A Big Mac and super size fries at McDonald’s is 1200 Calories and 63g fat. I’m not claiming it’s the difference to end all differences, but I don’t see where you get that the Veggie sandwhich is higher than most McDonald’s meals.
As for whether they’re comparable in substance, the Subway meal is 441g (I don’t trust the figure for serving size of dressing, so I’m ignoring it) and the McDonald’s meal is 417g.
You guys are talking about calories and fat, which is good to know, but I was wondering about the quality of their food. Like we all know McDonald’s meat isn’t the greatest around, which is why they can have 99cent burgers.
Why do you think more expensive food is healthier? Don’t you know that food quality is key at McDonald’s? And “All of the beef, chicken and pork we provide are purchased from federally inspected facilities to ensure freshness, wholesomeness and peak quality when served to you.”?
Why does the beef from McDonald’s look so gray? Why do burgers from diners taste better if they use the same meat? I’m not saying they’re using beef from sick and old cows or anything, but there is definately a difference between a hamburger purchased from McDonald’s and one from your local diner. I imagine there is also a difference between Subway sandwiches and the ones you could get at any respectable deli.
Gee, I don’t know. According to Cecil (scroll down to HOLD ON THERE), McDonald’s beef is lower in fat than standard beef. Maybe that’s why you think it tastes worse.
And don’t forget that most of McD’s beef comes from breeding and dairy cows, which comes from much older bovines than the beef mince you buy at the store. I guess they overcook the meat until its grey in case of food poisoning - I prefer my burgers still pink in the middle.
I think you might be surprised by the answer to your question. In all likelyhood, McDonalds burgers are more healthy than those “diner burgers” you find so delicious. That’s always the way isn’t it? The more you like something, the worse it is for you.
What are some things you’d do differently to make it “much healthier”? I can’t think of anything they add that I wouldn’t, and vice versa. (But that might be just me.)
That’s usually the case. Are you comparing burger to burger? If so, then while they might be healthier, you’d need to eat more to get filled up. Well, it just seems like that to me anyway. I’ve never seen anyone order one burger from McDonald’s and get filled up. They usually order two, three, sometimes four. From personal experience I need three Whopper Jr’s (using Burger King example because I wouldn’t touch McDonald’s) to be satisfied, but when I go to a diner I’ll eat one burger and probably barely touch the side of fries because I’m so full. In that case, which meal is healthier?
Three Whopper Jrs? Why don’t you get full-sized Whoppers? 
It looks like, if a Whopper is 1/4 lb of beef, then a Whopper Jr. is about 1/8 lb. Three would be 3/8 lb, whereas I imagine that diner burger that fills you up is 1/2 lb. So, I would say they’re comparable.
I don’t get the bigger ones because I can get more food for the same price. I don’t remember the exact numbers but the prices were both around 3 dollars. With three Whopper Jrs I get three times as much bread, more meat, more lettuce, tomatoes, etc.
Three Whopper Jrs with cheese has 1320 calories, 78 grams of fat, 27 grams of saturated fat, 1.5 grams of trans fat, 165 milligrams of cholesterol, and 2370 milligrams of sodium. All we need are the values for a diner burger so we can compare but that would be difficult because wouldn’t they all be different?
I suppose. If it’s like the Hardee’s Six-Dollar Burger, then it has 1120 Calories, 73g fat, 150mg cholesterol, and 1870mg sodium (PDF cite).