We already know that eating a double quarter pounder with cheese is bad for you. But we do it anyway. What does that tell you?

No, Subway customers are not representative of the population as a whole. We've been told for years (by Jared and a bunch of others) that Subway is good for you. Of course, they're not even telling you the whole truth: getting mayonnaise on your sandwich (which a lot of people do) ups the calorie count considerably. So does cheese. Never mind that I can name at least five sandwich chains that make better sandwiches than Subway does.

We eat fast food because it's fast, or because it's inexpensive (compared to a sit-down restaurant), or because it tastes good. Not because it's healthy. You could put up a sign stating that the Double Quarter Pounder contains 740 calories, 42 grams of fat, and 19 grams of saturated fat, and display it prominently above the entrance to McDonald's ... and some people would still order it.

Outta curosity, what sandwich chains are healthy? Or better yet, what fast food chains are healthy?

I myself have long been a fan of chains like Arby's and Panera, because certain sandwiches seem healthier than say McDonalds or Wendy's, but I'm not nuanced enough to know if what it seems is what it is.

"We" refers to Americans in general. I.e., the people who the government is supposedly doing this for. People who frequent fast food burger chains are likely doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with health.

"Sandwich chain" = restaurants that serve sub sandwiches, hoagies, whatever you want to call them, as opposed to burgers.

Since it is simple to find this information, I'll assume you - like most people - are just vaguely curious. And by that I mean not curious enough to really care about what you're eating. This is a perfect example of why putting the caloric count on items will not effect meaningful change.

As a public service, here's a breakdown of McDonalds vs. Panera. Skipping the drink, as a Coke is a Coke...

McDonalds:

Quarter Pounder w/Cheese - 540 calories, 29g fat.

Medium Fries - 380 calories, 20g fat.

Panera:

Frontega Chicken - 810 Calories, 34g fat

French Baguette* - 150 calories, .5g fat

*comes with the sandwich unless an alternative is requested, such as switching the Baguette for an apple.

Yasky: Ouch. In fairness, though, Panera's nutrition facts assume that you don't tell them to hold the mayo. Otherwise, you can't explain why this sandwich:

99% fat-free smoked turkey breast, leaf lettuce, tomatoes and red onions with mayonnaise, spicy mustard, salt and pepper, all served on your favorite sandwich bread

contains 470 calories and 17 grams of fat. Mayonnaise is the only thing in that description that contains anything remotely close to 17 grams of fat.

By the way, that underscores the brilliance of Subway's marketing campaign. By having all of their sandwiches as merely bread and meat -- and you then add whatever other stuff you want, lettuce, tomato, etc. -- they can legitimately claim that their sandwiches have that little fat. They then list condiments like cheese and mayonnaise separately. Compare that to Panera, which lists mayonnaise as an ingredient in most of their sandwiches and therefore has to list the sandwich's nutrition facts WITH mayonnaise already factored in, and it looks like you're getting a lot more fat than you are at Subway.

Of course, Subway doesn't tell you (maybe they do, but it's in the very fine print) that Jared got his sandwiches without any cheese or mayo... but that's not the way most people order their sandwich.

tdd - I assume a fair amount of those calories are from the bread itself - since a 2oz portion of 'pick-your-favorite' bread is aprox. 140 calories. And don't underestimate the cheese.

That said, the fact that Panera 'seems' more healthy is an important factor. Perhaps these are the types of establishments that will be most affected by the law. Going to McDonalds seems more a choice of convenience or cost-savings - at this point you can't really argue that you're ignorant of the health risks of eating there.

Panera is more a lifestyle choice. They market their offerings as fresh, fat-free, implicitly heathy choices. Homemade, if you will.

Do you think anyone will hesitate to eat a 800+ calorie sandwich when they see the actual number staring down at them? I think that is an interesting question; this law seems to know the answer, but I'm not sure I do.

After all, it's quite a tasty item.

tdd - Agreed.

And since I cannot decide whether to blame:

1. Mayo - the light and creamy purveyor of clogged arteries.

or

2. Marketing Dept. - insideous confuscators (made-up word) of the truth.

...I'll have to take personal responsibility for what I put in my maw.

That said, I just ate a Chicken Club from McAlister's, which, upon looking, has 1,234 calories and 64 g of fat - so apparently I'm not smart enough to look these things up beforehand either. Hypocrisy FTW!

That's a great point. When I wrote my original post, I was primarily thinking of the restaurants that most people already know are unhealthy (i.e., burger chains.) I wasn't thinking of the restaurants that seem healthy, but a review of the facts says they're actually about as bad -- just sneakier about it. The meat's probably healthier than a fried burger patty that, by the time it reaches you, seems to be mostly grease, but all the condiments are what jacks up the fat content.

Yes, there are plenty of calories in bread, but cutting back on saturated fats is probably a better idea than cutting back on complex carbs.

My guess is that many restaurants will just figure out ways to bend the rules -- which is basically what Subway is already doing. Subway can get away with saying the turkey breast sub only has six grams of fat because technically, the turkey sub is just bread and turkey -- though you can tell them to add anything you want to it at no extra charge.

Ouch! 1234 calories in a grilled chicken club? That can't all be coming from the grilled chicken.

On the other hand, eighteen ounces IS a pretty large sandwich.

there's a difference in knowing that something is generally bad for you- alcohol, ice cream, coke, fast food, tanning- and knowing how exactly it fits into your diet

survey after survey shows that people know hamburgers are bad for them, but they think a hamburger is maybe 300 or 400 calories, when it's actually 500 or 600 calories, and they think that a chicken or fish choice is going to be lower in calories, even though that's not really the case. it makes a difference to know how bad.

I don't see any reason to agree that there's a difference between knowing something is bad for you and knowing where it fits in your diet. If it is bad for you, why have it in your diet in the first place? Or have it on the peripheries at worst. After all 'guilt food' is just that - people cheat on diets and have a burger once in a while - regardless of whether it's healthy or not.

And Survey after survey shows what?

That entire premise sounds like a bad gameshow on the Food Network. Do the myriad surveys show whether the people taking them would have eaten the hamburger regardless of whether the caloric totals were 300 or 600? I have my suspicions to the answer...

However... I agree (your Fuddrucker's point in another post was compelling) that, at worst, restaurants should have their information readily available for public perusal. And no, buried on a web-site is not good enough. It should be available upon request at every location.

I still question 'how much' difference it will make - but it is bound to make 'some' difference. I think it's likely to make more difference in restaurants like Appleby's or Outback than in McDonalds or Burger King, but I have no real data to back that up.. it's just my opinion.