Quote:
Originally posted by Beebs:
I haven't actually looked, but I would be willing to bet the macronutrient (protein/carbs/fats) breakdown of the sub is a little more favorable, and I would also venture to say that the sub has less saturated fat.
|
You are correct with this point, but the difference to the non-body builder (where overall calories are more important than protein content) isn't nearly as drastic as the public believes. Here's a breakdown of 2
common meals, One from Subway (Percieved to be healthy) and one from McDonalds (Perceieved to be unhealthy).
Subway:
Footlong Chicken Bacon Ranch Sub and a 20 oz carbonated beverage:
1270 Calories
72g Protein
25g Fat
105g Carbohydrates
10g Saturated Fat
McDonalds:
Big Mac, Medium French Fry, 20oz Carbonated Beverage
1120 Calories
29g Protein
47g Fat
151g Carbohydrates
14g Saturated Fat
Bottom Line: Yes, the typical meal at subway is indeed more healthy than the McDonald's meal, but not even close to as much healthier than marketing campaigns have led the American Public to believe. When a meal contains 150 calories more than a Big Mac, Fries, and a Coke, yet is percieved as 'healthy' and people will eat it for weight loss, I'd say we have a problem.