Compelling and memorable visuals. And it's hard for me to come to the defence of McDonald's, etc., on this account, but Subway really stretches the boundaries of deception.
Here's the issue: they compare grease used in cooking things like fries to the fat that's in a small sub, and then show hamburgers on a grill as where it ends up. What?
Look, hamburgers are junk food, but the fat in a burger has little to do with a fast food restaurant's waste oil. And deep fried foods, when cooked hot enough, do not absorb a great deal of it (otherwise, they'd have to refill their fryers continuously).
My point here is not that McDonald's or Burger King deserves defence. It's that Subway is fast food too.
Sure, you can get a 6" ham on whole wheat without cheese, mayo, or any topping but veggies (6g of fat). You can also order a salad at McDonald's. Big whoop.
But what do you get at Subway? A 12" meatball marinara (44g fat)? Spicy Italian (56g)? ...Tuna (60g)?
I had to do math here, BTW, because Subway only gives nutritional values for half subs. How's that for misleading?
Meanwhile, the dreaded Big Mac has 29g of fat. In other words, less fat than a 6" Subway tuna sub. (Large fries add another 27.)
|More fat than a Big Mac and large fries. (via Flikr)|
Everyone should eat better. And I'd often far rather eat a sandwich than a burger. But Subway should stop overplaying its hand and admit that it, too, is making people fat.