Healthiest and unhealthiest restaurants in the US

Doomsday

Tech Junkie
Wow! No McDonalds, KFC, Burger King or Hardees! :D
Hardees opened recently but its just one restaurant and its an hour and a half long drive! They opened waay up in the north part of the city!
I cant wait for Burger King to come here! Must have the Triple Whopper! :D

PS: My cousins in US say there r waaay better places to eat there than McDonalds, KFC, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Dominos or Hardees or any of these worldwide franchises!
 

marfig

No ROM battery
Best burger I ate in my life was on a deli in Port Pirie, Australia. No franchises or that crap.

The thing probably had a whole cow inside. It also definitely removed 1 or 2 years from my life expectancy. But I'll die a happy man.

EDIT: Also did awesome kebabs.
 

Tharic-Nar

Senior Editor
Staff member
Moderator
Going by the statistics of their 'best' meal... and of the disclosed nutritional numbers. I would put Subway nowhere near the top. Trying to get them to give up any nutritional information is hard enough, but they tend not to disclose flavour enhancers or even all the ingredients used in the preparation of their so-called 'fresh' chicken, ham, etc. Any franchise that can fill up the floor of a building with an alluring smell is doing something odd...

And since when was Subway a restaurant?

Yes, I'm VERY skeptical of any health related statistics related to franchises... food in general. And don't get me started on 'Low fat' and 'No added sugar'... the chemicals they use as substitutions are worse than having the damn base ingredient...

[/rant]
 
Last edited:

eunoia

Partition Master
Yes, I'm VERY skeptical of any health related statistics related to franchises... food in general.
[/rant]

+1

Jeebus, don't believe everything you read on the interwebs. It's technically possible to have something reasonably safe at Subway, but nobody ever does, like a veggie sandwich with no salt, butter or mayo. "Healthy" is part of their marketing plan, but let's get serious, it's a way to sell you a sandwich (with chips and soda) for $7.

This is like calling McDonald's the healthiest "restaurant" if they had a bowl of oatmeal on the menu. Nah, even then they'd find a way to lace the food with inexpensive unhealthy oils.

Red Lobster? Cholesterol bombs before the butter. We're not reading the same same nutrition book.

Getting the sense that these are the same people that put pizza as a vegetable. Just don't eat franchise food at all, it's all deadly poison. The accountants are writing the menus.
 

TheCrimsonStar

Tech Monkey
"Healthy" is part of their marketing plan, but let's get serious, it's a way to sell you a sandwich (with chips and soda) for $7.

This is like calling McDonald's the healthiest "restaurant" if they had a bowl of oatmeal on the menu.

75% of the subs by themselves are $7 for a footlong. haha. And as for McD's, I work there and they DO sell oatmeal :p

They also started this thing for "healthier" happy meals. What does that mean? It means that all happy meals now come with a fry 1/3 the size of a small fry, plus a pack of apple slices, and they discontinued the caramel dip. Oh yeah, LET'S TAKE ALL OUR KIDS THERE NOW! :rolleyes:
 

RainMotorsports

Partition Master
And as for McD's, I work there and they DO sell oatmeal :p:

Well...

In an enlightening and entertaining opinion piece, New York Times food columnist Mark Bittman points out all the ways in which the McDonald’s version of the most wholesome of foods (“Real oatmeal contains no ingredients; rather, it is an ingredient.”) is nothing more than a bowlful of expensive junk food. Remarkably, McDonald’s oatmeal contains more sugar than a Snickers bar and only 10 fewer calories than an Egg McMuffin.
 

Tharic-Nar

Senior Editor
Staff member
Moderator
Hidden ingredients, love them. "But I thought all ingredients had to be declared?" - Actually... no, they don't. I recently bought a loaf of brioche (I have a soft spot for it, can't help it), looking on the back for ingredients, there wasn't anything out of the ordinary until I read the allergy advice. Milk, gluten, wheat, egg, the usual suspects, but then the curveball, Soya. Nowhere on the ingredient listing did it mention anything to do with Soya, so how come it's there as an allergy warning? It's hidden inside other ingredients of course!

Also, people have become fixated on calories as part of balancing diets and such. The great holy number everyone goes by. Need 2000 of them to stay healthy, doesn't matter that 1500 are from sugar and 500 fat, I'm getting my 2000 a day! Protein? Bah, only body builders need that! - All 3; fat, carb and protein are calories. The problem is that the declared values on the back of labels are 'best case' and not strictly accurate to the batch.

And this 2000 a day thing needs to stop too. It's a guideline based on activity. Here's something interesting... back in the good old medieval times of hard labour, plowing fields manually, etc. A lot of people were malnourished - on a staggering diet of 5000 calories or more (good old beer and grains).

So, new system; if you're getting fat - eat less or work more... or both! Problem solved...


Damn-it, ranting again...
 

JMMDTG

Obliviot
We eat at home to control what we eat and what we put into what we eat. When we do eat out we make smart choices about what we're ordering. It's not like we don't eat junk sometimes but it's not often.
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
This probably explains why I liked that red cabbage salmon something or other at the Cheesecake Factory so much. Every bite was bliss. :D Been ages since I've gone back though, was a temporary dish.

And since when was Subway a restaurant?

That's a good point... they're more like convenience stores in the south. People rob them as much as convenience stores these days. :rolleyes:
 
Top