The Truth About Subway.

Subway makes a good meal, but some are better for you than others. You have to be choosy. I never get a foot long; that's way too much food, and never get chips or coke to go with it. You can make the calories add up any way you want to by picking and choosing the parts of the meal. But all it takes is a little discrimination on your part. It's perfectly possible and even easy to get a good meal from fast food.

Originally posted by johnwilkesbooth
reply to post by Liquesence

 

I do only touch on calories, because that seems to be what other people care about.

I have a vast knowledge on food.

Take fat for example. Many people think that fat is bad for you. "Fat makes you fat." Terrible.
Fat is essential. It's what the cells use for energy for goodness sake.

So yes, Subway touts the fact that they have subs with less than 6 grams of fat. They don't specify what type of fat.

Do you really think that taking in 40 grams of carbs. from just the bread alone (comparable to the 45 grams in a Large Mountain Dew) is worse than 10 grams of saturated fat?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again....the bread is the worst part about Subway. 40 grams of carbs in just the bread alone (voices.yahoo.com...).

Eat more fat (sat. and monounsat. fats) and eat less carbs.

Finally i don't feel so bad about that can of lard above my stove.

33 years old, 6 foot tall, 180lbs... small ponch but only cause i don't eat all day then pig out from 6 to 10 till i pass out.

I met a 77 year old woman on the BC coast that since leaving Germany in 1940, only eats beef and drinks pepsi! she is as strong as an ox and could talk the ears off a squirrel.

You make some reasonable points, OP. However:


1- Anyone who thinks they're "eating healthy" by coupling their footlong with a bag of lays and a (non diet) coke are fooling themselves.... or are otherwise too uneducated to bother....

2- Yes, the foot-long version of some subs may clock in at slightly more calories than a big mac. However, IMO the footlong is more filling (especially if you stuff it with veggies) and people often, usually perhaps, order fries and maybe that same coke, along with their big mac. And how many calories and grams of fat in a large, or medium fry?

Personally, a big sub (again, loaded with veggies-- the way I tend to prefer mine) is more filling than a big mac, maybe even with the fries.

Also keep in mind that fat and calorie content are not the only considerations in good nutrition. A greasy patty of hamburger is usually not as healthy as many of the sub meats or toppings.


I agree that the healthiness may be hyped a bit-- but it's far from the worst stuff out there.

reply to post by johnwilkesbooth


Right. In terms of over all calories, Subway is about the same if you're eatting a full footlong. Which I'm betting a lot of us do.

The difference comes into the fact that there is significantly less fat than fast food since there's no "EVERYTHING IS FRIED". While fat isn't bad like some people believe, the amount you get in fast food typically is.

Then comes the nutrition options. You can get whole grain bread, or honey oat. Which honey oat contains ten grams of fiber. Do you want to guess what is one of the least nutrients we have in our typical american diet? Fiber.

You add in the amount of vegetables you can get. Which adds more vitamins, minerals, and fiber to the over all meal, and the difference between subway and carls. jr or burger king becomes massive in terms of overall nutrition. I get everything except olives.

Also, how many of you feel awful after eating fast food? (I do, I rarely eat it.) but don't get that same feeling from Subway. Although I dislike that their meats are all heavily processed, I still prefer the subways sandwich.

And many people don't eat burgers that are less than five hundred calories. They eat burgers that are more like 800, 900 and then they add in a medium or even large fry which can easily take the calorie intake to the entire days worth for a non-athletic adult. The worst you can add in on subway is a bag 200 calorie chips.

Originally posted by Leuan
What bothers me is when large people complain about not losing weight, yet have done zero research into the complexities of the metabolic and digestive systems.
They eat vegetables, but they're completely drained of nutrients.
They eat "slim" processed meats.
They drink diet soda..

I'm not talking about the people who have genuine medical complications and or hereditary complications)

I understand, it's the ingredients that are toxic to a human body, socially engineered into obese people's mouths.

There are diet-brainwashed zombies. The ones that speak food in calories and carbs to get past obstacles. A challenge: go to any piece of food you might eat, and cut out a piece that looks like one carb. Or one protein. Or one calorie. It doesn't practically exist to manage. The labels say a bunch, but wait until you get to the conspiracy theories about labels. Look at your food and call it real food terms please, not mythological names. Think about where your food-paranoia came from. I have an example: about the attitude about bread because it all started with one teenage girl frowning at a muffin and saying "do you know how many carbs there are in there?" Carb paranoia, led by people with eating disordered minds. Ohmygosh the carbs in the muffin are going to infect my butt! Stop it.

What bothers me is when slim people gripe about large people not losing weight. It's a pet peeve because many of the skinny people I've seen keep their weight low are in their college years and they achieve their bodies through illegal drugs which suppress their appetite and give inhuman amounts of energy, and binge drinking, which brings vomiting after imbibing, or by starving themselves to around 300 calories a day, or by being a member of a sports team where they burn off everything they eat. In other words: the skinny people complaining are disordered minds. Even the nutritionists, people who got into their profession because they had eating disorders and were paranoid about what food they ate. And most of the food-conscious complainers online are in a similar mess. They talk the talk but they don't walk the walk about diet-and-exercise, or they have never been in a condition of being obese, so they just don't have what it takes to be believed as an authority when they make posts about food and eating.

Maybe you could try looking into the argument presented by a Wheat Belly blog, as to why people are fat. It's about the ingredients in the food affecting the hormones in your body. Who's up for a GMO poison conspiracy theory?

reply to post by C-JEAN


My friend Brandon owns a farm. He was certified organic. You know what organic means? A pieces of paper and a certification. That's what he says.

He said the difference between a normal farm that actually grows crops the way they're supposed to and grows animals the same and an organic farm is a piece of paper.

reply to post by ThinkingCap


Basically, this was my point.

It's all crap, so if you're going to eat crap, eat the crap that makes you happy.

Don't eat crap you don't want just because it comes in a nicer wrapper with better commercials.

If you ever try a Firehouse Sub you will never eat at Subway again anyway. It is like night and day.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by johnwilkesbooth

 

It's not the calorie, but where the calorie comes from. Does it come from fat, simple carbs(sugars), complex carbs, etc... McDonald's is clearly much less healthy than Subway.

Obviously huh? Seeing how just the bread has 40 grams of carbohydrates (complex), that makes up literally 25% of the sandwiches calories.

McDonald's only has 28 grams in theirs. Out of 550 calories for the average item, that's 20%. An entire Big Mac has only 6 more grams of carbohydrates than just the BREAD of subway. There are an amazing 10 grams of saturated fat in it, only 1 gram of trans (yes, even 1 gram is bad but compared to carbs, it's nothing).

In fact, the only real bad thing about a Big Mac is the sodium which is 900mg. You can counteract the high-blood pressure from that by eating dark chocolate, drinking tea, and even drinking alcohol.

Any other arguments?

Ah...

Subway is fast food bro.

It's not actually food. The amount of preservatives among other things that go into their meets and vegetables make Subway no better than McDonald's at the end of the day.

I dunno about you, but when I bake bread it doesn't turn into a soft paste in my mouth when I make a sandwich out of it.

It comes as no surprise that the marketing they use is skewed in their favor and somewhat convoluted. McDonald's and other Fast Food chains do the exact same thing. Remember the Happy Meal fiasco for instance.

Besides, it's WAY cheaper to make your own food than it is to buy it pre-made.

~Tenth

reply to post by johnwilkesbooth

You didn't take into account portion size.

A 12 inch sub can be almost twice the size of a McDonalds portion so to equal the same amount of food you would have to eat 2 big macs putting the calorie count at 1,100 compared to the 740 for a 12" cold cut sub.

reply to post by schuyler


Okay, I'll pick and choose for you.

Subways lowest:


B.L.T.
320 Calories, 6''
640 Calories, 12''

9 grams of Fat
4 grams of Sat Fat
-----
44% good fat. 56% either unfavorable or bad fat.

43 grams of carbs.



McDonald's lowest:

Bbq Grilled Snack Wrap
70 Calories

8 grams of Fat
3.5 grams of Sat Fat
---
44% of good fat. 56% either unfavorable or bad fat.

27 grams of carbs.


---------------------

See? The same amount of fat, less carbs.

McDonald's wins. Want me to do the Biggest Meals of each business next?

For the main topic of this post I used the BLT (Subways lowest) against the Big Mac (one of McDonald's highest).

Biggest against biggest stacks up like this:

Chicken Bacon Ranch
570 Calories, 6'
1,140 Calories, 12''

28 grams Fat
10 grams Sat Fat
---
35% grams Good Fat. Which leaves 65% to be either unfavorable or bad fat.

47 Grams of Carbs.

1080mgs of Sodium

Against

McRib
500 Calories

26 grams Fat
10 grams Sat Fat
---
38% grams of Good Fat. Which leaves 62% to be either unfavorable or bad fat.

44 Grams of Carbs.

980mgs of Sodium.




Wow, literally on paper, everything about McDonalds is better than Subway.

reply to post by johnwilkesbooth


Comparing macronutrients like carbohydrates and fat is terribly deceitful on your part. You deliberately ignore the fact that a balanced diet will contain much higher levels of carbs (sugar and starch) than fat, some people even recommend a 3:1 ratio of carbs to fat.

In your post, you also advise people to eat more saturated and monounsaturated fats - these fats are awful. Dietary sat fats are associated with significant increases in plasma low density lipoproteins (or cholesterol) as well as numerous other health risks. I believe you meant to advise the consumption of more polyunsat fat while decreasing sat and monounsat consumption.

Interestingly, you also claim that cells use fat as energy, and the way you phrased it implies that you believe fat is the primary source of cellular energy within the body. It's not. You're wrong. Fat can be used as an extremely rich source of ATP in the cells, each triglyceride molecule providing about 10x as much ATP as each glucose molecule, but on the whole dietary sugars are much more prevalent as fuel sources than dietary fats in an average person on an average day.

Your entire thread is filled with misinformation and fatty propaganda.

reply to post by FirstCasualty


Lard is damn near 50% saturated fat, so yeah...it's pretty good.

Think of the cave men, they ate meat. They got their fat and protein from animals and carbs from those naturally occurring from berries and such.

It wasn't until we started agriculture that we grew short and fat.

Your wisdom teeth? De-evolution. You don't need the extra teeth for meat, so your jaw is smaller but you still have the same amount of teeth.

reply to post by johnwilkesbooth


Please stop misusing scientific words (edit: and concepts). I am physically cringing.

i was recently visiting some family and went adventuring around the neighborhood. i got hungry, saw a Subway and thought, "haven't been there in years...why not?" i walked in, took one look at the various options (they actually display this "food" like they're proud of it), turned around and walked out. i was mostly disgusted by the "meat" which was so clearly processed beyond recognition. and what the heck is that...chicken?...with some cold, gelatinous sauce?
i am by no means a calorie counter. i do however have a desire to eat wholesome, fresh food. i can forgive a little processing (Fritos!) but when something touted as fresh resembles something off of a factory conveyer belt, my appetite seems to vanish...POOF!

Originally posted by iwilliam
You make some reasonable points, OP. However:


1- Anyone who thinks they're "eating healthy" by coupling their footlong with a bag of lays and a (non diet) coke are fooling themselves.... or are otherwise too uneducated to bother....

2- Yes, the foot-long version of some subs may clock in at slightly more calories than a big mac. However, IMO the footlong is more filling (especially if you stuff it with veggies) and people often, usually perhaps, order fries and maybe that same coke, along with their big mac. And how many calories and grams of fat in a large, or medium fry?

Personally, a big sub (again, loaded with veggies-- the way I tend to prefer mine) is more filling than a big mac, maybe even with the fries.

Also keep in mind that fat and calorie content are not the only considerations in good nutrition. A greasy patty of hamburger is usually not as healthy as many of the sub meats or toppings.


I agree that the healthiness may be hyped a bit-- but it's far from the worst stuff out there.

1. I completely agree, but admit...there are oodles of those people out there.

2. In the example in the beginning I believe I used fries and a drink in it. The total calories for McDonalds was the whole meal.

3. Grease cannot be nutritionally measured, but the cooking oil they use is soybean oil which has only 1 gram of trans fat a serving and no carbohydrates.

So that "terrible grease" isn't all that bad for you at all

I mean, don't eat it every day but you guys act like McDonald's sewage plant.

reply to post by johnwilkesbooth


This is kind of weird. I mean who really cares about subway and if you are overweight and really want to drop some pounds, you should be able to figure this all out. I'd starve myself if I were overweight.

reply to post by tothetenthpower



You don't have to tell me that twice man.

I'm aware that Subway is fast food, but there are plenty of people that think that it is the healthiest alternative that there is.

"A Subway sandwich of turkey and cheese on nine-grain bread with fat-free honey mustard, peppers, and pickles contains more than 40 different additives, preservatives, and dyes. The pickles and peppers have yellow 5 and polysorbate 80, the bread has ten different additives including dough conditioners, DATEM, and sodium stearoyl lactylate, and the turkey contains ten additives as well."

That's straight from the Huffington Post.

Conspiracy or not, no one should be eating at Subway,