It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Truth About Subway.

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+1 more 
posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 09:40 AM
Many people believe that subway is healthy for you. With Subway being #2 on the list of 500 Top Global Franchises[1] and being voted one of the fastest growing franchises with almost 40,000 businesses in 100 countries[2], it isn't too hard to see why.

That being said, is it really as healthy as claimed or is this all just hype? Lets dive in, shall we?

To move on, you'll need to click this link.

What you're looking at now is the nutritional information for Subway, that much is clear. What isn't clear is what most people overlook, that the calorie count for these subs are for the 6'' subs and not the 12'' ones.

With around 68% of Americans counting their calories[3], seeing numbers as low as 320 for a Sub as great as the B.L.T. would no doubt make them believe this is the healthy(er) choice.....but are they right?

Now on to THIS link:

Isn't that just like the "artery-clogging fast food" restaurant to have a Double Cheeseburger for 440 calories? It's not too hard to see why people are choosing Subway, but many forget the key....their nutrition information is for the 6''.

I don't know about you, but what I get when I go there is a "Footlong" (which may or may not be a full 12 inches
), therefore you have to double the calories. That'd make a B.L.T. a whopping 640 calories, hell that's almost a full 100 calories over the Big Mac (which sits at a pretty 550).

That's just for the main course though, why not try sides?

Our final meal for Subway will be:
12'' B.L.T.-- 640 cal.
Lays Classic Chips -- 240 cal.[4]
Medium Coke-- 191 cal.[5]

Total that up and it'll leave us with 1,071 calories. THAT'S HEALTHY?

How about the terrible McDonalds:

Big Mac-- 550 cal.
Medium Fries-- 380 cal.[6]
Medium Coke-- 210 cal.[7]

Total that up and you'll find 1,140 calories.

One could argue that instead of getting a Big Mac you could get a McDouble (which is relatively similar) and save 160 calories.

Doing that would not only put you below Subway but also below the 1,000 calorie mark, however most would find that argument very biased and I won't do it.

The point of this topic was to introduce the fact that many people skip out on their favorite foods from McDonalds just because they aren't healthy, when in reality the "healthier choice" is a mere 70 calories behind it.

In summary, it's not about how "healthy" a place might be, if you dine in moderation the consequences will be minimal.

Getting to know what you really need to eat to become healthier should be top priority. For those concerned, you can read my old thread about nutrition, or read up.

After all, it's YOUR body and you only have one shot at it.

-G'day all.

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 09:44 AM
I'd rather eat a big-ass sandwich with "healthy" "real" meat then the purple slime..

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 09:47 AM
Oh Ronald you tricky old clown.
You ain't foolin' no-one.
Doubt if this 'fresh' thread gets 'supersized'

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Mouline
I'd rather eat a big-ass sandwich with "healthy" "real" meat then the purple slime..

But is it healthier?

"The sad truth is that grain consumption, especially in the the forms found today, are a blatant departure from the way humans have eaten for almost our entire history. The ability to grow and process grains more easily allowed more people to afford grain products like flour, a “luxury” previously reserved for the wealthy. The important thing to remember here is that just because humans seem to have no immediate negative effects from grains, doesn’t mean our bodies can handle them or that we can function optimally while consuming them."

"Healthy" "real" meat too huh?

I've worked at one, for 10 months, it's not as you'd expect. That is why I'm making this, because people just need to know that it isn't honestly so much healthier that you'd need to go out of your way to get it.

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 09:54 AM
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)

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 09:54 AM
Gimme a deer steak any day!

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 09:55 AM
reply to post by HumansEh

That's fine, so long as I get even one person to change their opinion, I'll feel as if I've done justice.

P.S., I'm not trying to make ANY fast food sound great, it's really not the best food for anyone at all, but what I'm saying is, if you're going to eat it you might as well eat what you want rather than have "healthy" alternatives.

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 09:59 AM
reply to post by johnwilkesbooth

Have you ever eaten a double/triple cheeseburger from McDonalds?

Was the sandwich wrapper slightly wet & somewhat transparent?
or was it completely dry?

If it is dry, then your McBurger will not have much flavor.
The greasy ones are the best.

My Subway wrapper has never been saturated with grease.
The flavor in a Subway comes from the meats, cheeses, vegetables, condiment, etc.

Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Subway is 'good for you', but it is better for you than most other fast food joints.

Do your statistics account for 'wrapper grease'?

edit on 2/16/13 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:00 AM
Calories dont really mean very much.

I can consume 10,000 calories a day If I choose, just as long as I remember and balance that with a proportionate amount of exercise and nutrient intake.

Also i'm pretty sure, lettuce, olives, gherkins, pepper, onions, tomato and jalapenos are healthier for me than a bacon double cheese burger. But then im no nutritionist, just a hunch I kinda have. Bread is the killer though, bread is bad.
edit on 16-2-2013 by Tuttle because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:01 AM
Whenever I eat food that was not built from the ground up in my own kitchen I understand that it is bad for me 99 percent of the time.
That said, sometimes I just feel like having a greaseball gnasty hamburger for the taste.
All of these calorie counting measurements are generally for a child size portion as well.
I'm fat and old, I don't need no stinkin portion advisory, I go overboard.
I go to the buffet and the manager says to me, "You been here fo hour"!

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by Leuan

Indeed sir, indeed. They believe that all they need to do to lose weight is to get their caloric output higher than their input, therefore creating a deficit in calories and making you HAVE to lose weight.


You need to learn more about how fats work, which ones are good (saturated fats and monounsaturated fats) and what ones are terrible (trans fats and polyunsaturated fats).

You need to know that lowering cholesterol actually leads to HIGHER risks of heart attacks, not lower.

Cholesterol is ESSENTIAL for your body, so essential that if you don't take in enough your body will make it's own.

People need to learn.

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:01 AM

Originally posted by TFCJay
Gimme a deer steak any day!

Ohh ya! Deer is very healthy compared to the factory farmed crap that is in most supermarkets.
Think of this alone: how many chickens are farmed and slaughterd just for chicken wings?
Every time you see them in the supermarket, they get smaller, with the demand.
Do they even stand up anymore? The cages are getting smaller too
Are they going to evolve back into hens by sitting so much and just crapping through the wires?
edit on 16-2-2013 by Leuan because: spling

edit on 16-2-2013 by Leuan because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:06 AM
give me a toasted "subway" pastrami with provalone cheese anytime...ehmm...makes my mouth water every time i think about it.

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:09 AM
reply to post by BrokenCircles

Sir, did you read my post.

The point was clearly posted towards the end. It wasn't to tell you that McDonald's is equally or even more healthier than Subway; the point was that if you're going to eat fast food you might as well eat what you would like, because it doesn't make too much of a difference.

As you said, you like Subway. I actually prefer Burger King. I am I and you are you.

There's no reason to change your favorite places due to this research, just your way of thinking.

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:11 AM
You can't just eat subway and automatically have made a healthy choice. You need to pick one of the good breads, avoid cheese, mayo, chips, SODA, and stick with a six inch.

Although a McDs burger may have equal or less calories, it also contains horrible stuff like trans-fats, high sodium and whatever pink slime is made up of.

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:11 AM
reply to post by Tuttle

Exactly, calories don't mean too much.

Bacon and vegetables are both healthy in their own way, but I won't get in to that. The point was to show you that it doesn't really matter what fast food you eat, there is no "healthy". Both restaurants do things that are unhealthy and therefore there is no "healthy" alternative other than good old fashioned home cooking.

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:12 AM

Originally posted by jimmyx
give me a toasted "subway" pastrami with provalone cheese anytime...ehmm...makes my mouth water every time i think about it.

I've never seen pastrami in the Subways near me. Sounds nice. The Subway turbo toaster rocks.

The point the OP is making is based on the false idea that people actually think Subway is good for them. I doubt many people really think it is truly healthy, they just think it is better than most other fast food choices.

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:12 AM
reply to post by TFCJay

I know what you mean

I have a stash of deer jerky in my house. Steaks, jerky, hell even the hearts are good and deer are plentiful in Pennsylvania (where I live).

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:13 AM
reply to post by johnwilkesbooth

Sorry Mr. Booth, I was being flippant, no offence to you or your thread, it is very simple though - moderation.
Calorie counting is only relevant if you are incapable of stopping eating at six inches, if you sit on your arse all day it's not rocket science to realise that you are storing unused calories by stuffing your face.

People just want to have it both ways.
Low calorie footlongs.
Choose one or the other.
A friend of mine summed up weight management very well in one sentence.
"Less cake, more walking"

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:14 AM
It all depends on what you buy. I know that I could choose a healthier bread ( but it's still bread ), and I never get salt added, only pepper, and I get as many veggies that will fit on a sub - 6 inch. If I have one of the chicken subs, I still add as many veggies that will fit.

I dont like pop anymore, there are other options.

Then I finish with a couple of chocolate cookies.

--but the sub was still way healthier than McDonalds.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in