Subway Fresh Fit Meals

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
I was watching TV last night and lo and behold there was a new Subway ad, with Jared of the Incredible Shrinking Waistline and a bunch of kids dressed up in sports uniforms.

Subway, via their vehicle, Jared, was pushing their new Fresh Fit Meal plan.

Smack dab in the middle of the table full of healthy options was an extra large cup of diet Coke, strategically placed so as to show the logo.

Did I miss something? Since when is Coke a fit option? I LOVE Coke, drink several cans a day, but I'm not fooling myself that Coke is healthy. And diet Coke is even worse -- it contains aspartame.

So my idle mind got to wondering. Is Coke trying to convince people it is a healthy option? Did they pay Subway a bucketful of money in order to have good product placement? Did they think people wouldn't notice?

I'm curious to see what others think of this, and if anyone else noticed this mis-placed product placement, or others along this line.

In reply to the OP - I'd like to point out what I noticed on the bottom of a 12-can "fridge pack" of Coca-cola. It said something to the effect of "Coke is refreshing or hydrating on a summer day." To me it said that they were trying to pose it as a viable alternative to drinking water when you're thirsty, and instead drink coke.

It really caught me off guard because you had to flip the case of coke upside down to read it, and after you've opened it, no one would probably ever see this little advert.

Originally posted by annestacey The 'processed' foods that are labeld as 'low in calories' are the ones that contain the chemicals. They may be low in calories, but the chemicals are designed to make you eat more. Here is an article:
Diet products contain chemicals that stimulate hunger, says health professor

We were discussing low calories in food or drinks, not the amounts you eat of them. Also, not everyone gets affected in the same manner by a ''hunger stimulating'' chemical.

Originally posted by annestacey
Diet Coke may be lower in calories but contains dangerous chemicals. There are plenty of healthy beverages to choose from without endangering yourself with synthetic chemicals that damage the brain.

Exactly, lower in calories, that's what this is about, not whether you die or your face melts off, but this (and as I said what I got from the FreshFit site) is meant to be in LOW CALORIES.

Originally posted by annestacey
Aspartame is a neurostimulant linked to stimulating appetite. You may not get fat directly from aspartame, but it will cause you to eat more food.

Not everyone gets equally affected by aspertame, thus it's just as possible that someone would eat almost nothing even though he or she is littered with ''hunger stimulating chemicals''.

Originally posted by annestacey
One sip of arsenic won't necessarily kill you but why would you want arsenic in your body? Why would anyone want any amount of dangerous chemicals in their body?

There's a difference between a bit of pure cyanide and food.
Now I don't want to hear any BS "it both kills you".

I for one would rather eat something I LIKE that contains good and bad stuff, and have a 0,0001% increased chance of poisoning (as in, getting the symptoms), rather than eat pure poison and have a 0,5% increased chance of poisoning, while it doesn't even taste nearly as good as a steak, for example. (or vegetable, or whatever you like to eat), or while it has 10 times worse symptoms (eg.: headache vs. death)


[edit on 3/6/07 by -0mega-]

Originally posted by -0mega-
But I for one would rather eat something I LIKE that contains good and bad stuff, and have a 0,0001% increased chance of poisoning (as in, getting the symptoms), rather than eat pure poison and have a 0,5% increased chance of poisoning, while it doesn't even taste nearly as good as a steak, for example. (or vegetable, or whatever you like to eat), or while it has 10 times worse symptoms (eg.: headache vs. death)
[edit on 3/6/07 by -0mega-]

One of the tactics of the food industry is to 'boost' the flavors of foods so that they taste better. They do this with aspartame, MSG and other chemicals that they call 'excitotoxins'. The whole purpose is to get your body accustomed to these more flavorful foods so that everything else then tastes bland so you will then prefer the chemical-based foods over the chemical-free foods.

When I first changed my diet to eliminate the chemicals, it was at first somewhat bland (especially organic salad dressings). But after I got used to them, I realized that they really do have nice flavors, I just had to readjust myself to them. Now whenever I eat standard salad dressings, they are too spicy and tangy (like sucking on a lemon) and so it's not enjoyable for me.

There are LOTS of foods that I used to love, but now they are too spicy and I don't enjoy them anymore because now I can taste the poisons in them. If I want something spicy, I eat organic tortilla chips and organic salsa. I can easily tell that the spicy flavor is natural and chemical-free.

Another thing that you may not be taking into account is that even though you're getting a small amount of chemicals in the food, you're also getting chemicals in personal care products and household products and many other things that you come into contact with everyday. Everything you use that is not organic contains chemicals and the accumulation of all of these products builds up what's called a "body burden".

Here is some very interesting information about this in an interview between Mike Adams and Randall Fitzgerald, who is the author of the book called "The Hundred Year Lie":

The lies told by chemical, food and drug companies
Mike: Let me play the skeptic with you for a second here. As consumers in the Western world, we are being continually assured by food corporations, petrochemical companies, drug companies and even government regulatory bodies like the FDA, that all of these chemicals are perfectly safe. There are even allowable limits of many of these chemicals, which the EPA says are perfectly safe. Why should a consumer believe that he or she needs to read your book if all of these chemicals are advertised as being safe for us?

Fitzgerald: There are two big -- and by big I mean monumental -- problems with the argument and the perspective taken by federal regulatory agencies and by the manufacturers of foods and medicines. The argument is that trace levels of these chemicals do no harm to human health. What that argument ignores is the cumulative effect of hundreds, if not thousands, of these chemicals entering and then mixing within the human body. This is known as the "body burden." We each carry a "body burden" of these synthetic chemicals.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, starting in 1999, began testing the blood of thousands of Americans to determine what synthetic chemicals are being carried in their blood, their body fat and their body organs. The results of these tests -- more than 10,000 people have been tested so far -- is that every single person tested was found to carry hundreds of these synthetic chemicals. The problem here is that our bodies do not recognize these synthetic chemicals, most of which have been invented, patented and produced since World War II. Our livers, which are the main detoxifying organs of our bodies, do not recognize these synthetic chemicals, and as a result, do not metabolize them. Instead, the chemicals are either pushed off into the far reaches of the liver, to be stored, or sent into body fat and body organs to be stored. As these toxins accumulate, they begin to interact with each other. This is where the problem -- that regulatory agencies and manufactures want to overlook -- becomes a health disaster for us.

That is the problem of synergies; the synergistic reactions of two or more chemicals in the body. When they interact, it is much more powerful than any one individual chemical can do on its own. It may be true -- manufacturers and regulatory agencies insist that it is true -- that these chemicals, in trace amounts on their own, may be harmless to human health. I have a question about that, but I don't really deal with that in-depth in the book. Instead I look at what happens when all of these chemicals accumulate in the human body and they interact with each other to create toxic synergies. This, I believe, is the key to the explosion in human illness and disease levels that we have seen since World War II.

Source: Interview with Randall Fitzgerald, author of The Hundred-Year Lie, on the prevalence of toxic chemicals

Originally posted by -0mega-
Also, not everyone gets affected in the same manner by a ''hunger stimulating'' chemical.

This may be true. Everyone's body is different. If you don't mind chemicals in your body, then that's completely your choice. But everyone deserves to have that choice which is why I provide this information.

my father-in-law owns a Subway in Hammond, IN. from what i remember about previous conversations with him, subway is pretty much required to show coke products in their commercials because of contractual obligation because as far as i know, subway can only sell coke (never pepsi) so they must show coke when they show a combo meal in a commercial.

but yeah, coke, diet coke, sprite, whatever soda is NOT healthy. go with the water!

woo hoo thanks Lexicon!!!!

How can your father-in-law own a subway?

Isn't subway a worldwide corporation?

You mean, he's the manager of this one?

Originally posted by selfless
How can your father-in-law own a subway?

By purchasing a franchise.
www.subway.com...

Other "chain" restaurants and businesses offer the same. There are 4-5 McDonalds here locally, and all of them are privately owned franchises.

Hope this helps.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by selfless
How can your father-in-law own a subway?

By purchasing a franchise.
www.subway.com...

Other "chain" restaurants and businesses offer the same. There are 4-5 McDonalds here locally, and all of them are privately owned franchises.

Hope this helps.

what he said, privately owned franchise. sorry

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by selfless
How can your father-in-law own a subway?

By purchasing a franchise.
www.subway.com...

Other "chain" restaurants and businesses offer the same. There are 4-5 McDonalds here locally, and all of them are privately owned franchises.

Hope this helps.

Ok yeah but... he doesn't own subway, just the building right?

My point is, he can't own subway because it's a corporation.

He doesn't own the corporation, no, but he does legally own the franchise.

It's sort of like corporate feudalism: you have the individual restaurants (owned by the knights and lords) and they pay fealty to the corporate master (the king) in the form of a franchise fee and adherence to the rules of the organization.

ive lost 65lbs. from 240 to 165... from 34%bf to 8%bf and increased muscle mass while at it.


i eat whole foods and meat... so im no vegitarian... nothing wrong with it though.


my specific diet... developed by a west coast professional body builder and nutritionist is tuned for the most efficient maximum fat loss and muscle maintenance as possible.... which is really rare and hard to do (for someone like me who is an endomorph-mesomorph body frame) without professional understanding or help.unfortunaltely when one looses wieght one also has to sacrifice muscle. on my diet muscle mass is gained... not by a lot like in a bulking program b/c lets face it you cant gain muscle mass like in a bulking program while cutting... so im either maintaining it or gaining a little... give or take.


i enjoy me some diet pepsi max and or diet coke plus but mainly drink a lot of water.

i agree with some others on here. the current american diet they shove down our throats is horrible. if we just educate ourselves into whats going into our food and what our body needs to be healthy we will realize that a lot of this fast food junk does our body a disservice.








[edit on 2-7-2007 by krossfyter]

Originally posted by annestacey

This is a huge scam that is being perpetrated on the American people and instead of doing something about it, they're just bickering about whose fault it is. So while you're busy placing blame on the wrong people, we're still getting sicker and the pharma, food and medical industries are getting richer and more powerful.

This is where Problem-Reaction-Solution comes into play.

Create the problem - The criminal elite inundates the food and drug supply with toxic crap (including aspartame, trans fats, and high-fructose corn syrup). And who has praises aspartame and trans fats in the past? The so-called "food police" at the Orwellian doublespeak-named Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Rockefeller front group (check out their funders...they are funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Family Fund, the two biggest funders of the New World Order crime syndicate).

Cause a reaction - Have the so-called "food police" reveal what's really in the foods and drugs. Get the people hopping mad while at the same time set up some controlled opposition who tries to convince the people that these toxins are good for them and nutritious. The "controlled opposition" I speak of is the Center for Consumer Freedom, a front group for Big Food, Big Tobacco, and Big Alcohol.......most of whom are corporate members of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is funded by the Rockefellers, who funds CSPI.

Offer the solution - Right now the CFR-affiliated Democrat presidential candidates are saying if elected, you will be forced to have healthcare coverage and insurance coverage. This is nothing but the pre-packaged solution offered by the global elite. The major healthcare providers and insurance providers are ALL affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations.

The American health crisis is a CFR inside job. They murder people through toxic foods and drugs, and then they parade around as the saviors who promise to protect the people as long as they relinquish their liberties through Codex Alimentarius and Healthy People 2010.

the fact is that the average american has no clue what constitutes a healthy nutritional diet. we are taught that good foods come from men in white coats wearing labs, that is should come out of cans and boxes. That dairy and wheat products are good for you. The fact of the matter is this, look at every animal in the world, and you will see they live off of two things, meat and vegetables. Therefore we, as animals should also live off of predominantly meat and veggies. However, the standard american diet (S.A.D.) is composed of massive amounts of processed refined carbs, sugars, and chemicals. Things you can not digest and that have disruptive influences systemically. We have been told for decades that two of your main caloric sources should be wheats and dairys, yet now they are finding that most asthma and allergies can be traced to childhood consumption of these two products.
I promise you this. If you restrict your diet to fresh meats and veggies (no processed food, no chemicals) in equal portions, you can eat ALL YOU WANT and you will lose weight until your body comes to its normal range. Try it for two weeks, you have nothing to lose, just grilled meats and raw or grilled veggies.

Originally posted by runetang
Coke ownz Subway if im not mistaken. All fast food companies are owned by soft drink companies, they are fronts for the cola industry. You can usually tell by what brand they serve, coke or pepsi.

Actually, although fast food restaurants do have contracts with soft drink companies (and some may share parent companies), it is regional preference that determines whether coke or pepsi products will be served. For example, in the south Coke is more popular. When I was in Las Vegas last March, I would have killed for a Coke, but all I could find was Pepsi. I had to drive down the strip to a freestanding McDonald's to get a Coke. The McDonalds attached to my hotel served Pepsi, though. Just an example.