Sign up
Fork
The New York Times wrote:
The nation’s largest restaurant chains have made a big deal in recent years about introducing smaller portion sizes. McDonald’s eliminated the Supersize menu, while T.G.I. Friday’s and others have introduced small-plate items. Yet the restaurants have also been doing something else, with less fanfare: continuing to add dishes so rich that a single meal often contains a full day’s worth of calories.

Here, we show you what roughly 2,000 calories looks like at some large chains. (Depending on age and gender, most adults should eat between 1,600 and 2,400 calories a day.) Researchers have long understood that people are more likely to finish what’s on their plate than to stop eating because they’ve consumed a given amount of food.

What 2,000 Calories Looks Like

Daaaaamn, son.

I've known this for a while since counting calories for a while a couple of years ago, but seeing it all laid out like that just reinforces it further.

Thought that some of you might find it interesting.

As you’ll see below, it’s not so hard to eat bountifully and stay under 2,000 calories. It’s just hard to do so at most restaurants.

Oh so true.
Darkshaunz
Never really realized that just one meal outside could contain all those calories. Even stuff like Subway, which I thought was meant to be a "cleaner" alternative.

It's kind of crazy when you think about it. Then again, I suppose that is the trade-off for convenient access to food, without the mess of prepping, cooking and clearning up.
Hunterbob
Wow, so probably wont eat at the Cheesecake Factory then. I've already punished my body enough through my late teens and 20's, I could do with not having a heart attack.
Spoon
I can't really see myself even being able to consume that much stuff in one sitting. Lots of those looked like a whole lot of food or at least a few very filling items.

The slice of cake looked like the most likely possible to finish thing, but even then I don't really even like cake that much and would probably nope out of the richness after a few bites.

I don't think there's anything particularly revelatory about the fact that you can order a lot of food from restaurant chains.
Hanlol
Mostly none of this really surprises me. I've have gone up and down with weight all my life, ranging from 58kgs to 105kgs and although calorie counting can be bad if you don't take into account nutrition, it's a pretty solid way to decide if something is worth it or not.

The only one that surprised me was the Cheesecake Factory one. If I'm being good, that's literally double my daily calorie intake.

People should never be under the impression that just because it's labelled as 'healthy' that it actually is. Subway is an amazing example of that. I think their healthiest sandwich is around 600 calories, which may seem pretty good, but it doesn't include sauce, cheese or any 'extras'. It's just a 6 inch ham sandwich.

Also I love that all of these people only had one drink.
Spoon
Hanlol wrote:
Subway is an amazing example of that. I think their healthiest sandwich is around 600 calories, which may seem pretty good, but it doesn't include sauce, cheese or any 'extras'. It's just a 6 inch ham sandwich.

I'm not sure if this is accurate. I just tried it here and a 6" ham sub on white bread with cheddar cheese, salads and chipotle southwest sauce was only 430 calories.

Without the cheese and sauce it's only 270
Fork
Spoon wrote:
Hanlol wrote:
Subway is an amazing example of that. I think their healthiest sandwich is around 600 calories, which may seem pretty good, but it doesn't include sauce, cheese or any 'extras'. It's just a 6 inch ham sandwich.

I'm not sure if this is accurate. I just tried it here and a 6" ham sub on white bread with cheddar cheese, salads and chipotle southwest sauce was only 430 calories.

Without the cheese and sauce it's only 270

If it was a boring ham sandwich, a normal sized human might need a 12" to be full which brings it up to around 600.
Clownshoes
That egg and cheese flatbread looks alright. And for a non product shot the maccas chicken sandwich seems to be holding up well. Otherwise a lot of that shit looks generally unappetising. I want to try the mozzarella sticks from olivegarden though, I've heard good things.

Cakes are bullshit in comparison to fruit flans. Fuck cake.
Hanlol
Spoon wrote:
Hanlol wrote:
Subway is an amazing example of that. I think their healthiest sandwich is around 600 calories, which may seem pretty good, but it doesn't include sauce, cheese or any 'extras'. It's just a 6 inch ham sandwich.

I'm not sure if this is accurate. I just tried it here and a 6" ham sub on white bread with cheddar cheese, salads and chipotle southwest sauce was only 430 calories.

Without the cheese and sauce it's only 270


That is a very good point, I was honestly estimating from last time I went to Subway which was years ago. Regardless 430 is still a whole bunch. Who ever has a sandwich without at least cheese OR sauce, unless the meat is better than ham?

My point is, Subway is only healthy if you get the least amount of everything you can. "Healthy" food chains get away with pretending they are healthy when really they're not. They're just really good at marketing to people who think that if they go there, they can write that meal off as part of their normal diet.
Fork
Hanlol wrote:
My point is, Subway is only healthy if you get the least amount of everything you can. "Healthy" food chains get away with pretending they are healthy when really they're not. They're just really good at marketing to people who think that if they go there, they can write that meal off as part of their normal diet.

Especially shit marketed as natural .

Arsenic is natural.
Post Reply