If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Subway
It seems Subway has both the highest and lowest fat and calorie
sandwiches in the fast-food industry. The 6" veggie has 230 cal and 3 gm. of fat, while the 12" meatball with cheese has 1120 cal. and 22 gms. of fat. You can also get that double meat and double cheese if you want to add another 900 calories. I don't think Jared ate too many meatball sandwiches on his diet. The company calls their bread "wheat bread", which is kind of a useless and misleading description, since it is not whole wheat and all of their bread is made from wheat even though they call it honey- oat, Italian (which is plain old white bread), etc. I also strongly question their serving sizes, since they are not consisent. I think the "standard" bread size is a huge factor, with some Subways serving much larger bread. If you consider the 6" veggie has 230 cal, you can assume the bread should have about 200 calories, but that is two standard slices of sandwich bread, not the huge, thick, large thing my Subway serves. I think there are at least 300 calories in the bread alone, plus they really load up the sandwiches with lots of veggies, not just a few. I'm not complaining now, but the numbers do not mesh. I was in S. Padre a few months ago and stopped at the Subway there, and ordered my veggie on wheat bread. What I got there was something roughly half the size of the sandwich I get at home. That is what got me thinking about the calories and serving sizes. I'm thinking the S. Padre Subway sand. was closer to the 230 cal, with my home Subway serving something about 350 cal. There is no standardization from one franchise to the next in Subway. Not a problem, unless you try to count calories, fat, carbs etc. accurately. Then the numbers are possibly way off. dkw |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Subway
On Mar 13, 4:32*pm, " wrote:
It seems Subway has both the highest and lowest fat and calorie sandwiches in the fast-food industry. The 6" veggie has 230 cal and 3 gm. of fat, while the 12" meatball with cheese has 1120 cal. and 22 gms. of fat. You can also get that double meat and double cheese if you want to add another 900 calories. I don't think Jared ate too many meatball sandwiches on his diet. The company calls their bread "wheat bread", which is kind of a useless and misleading description, since it is not whole wheat and all of their bread is made from wheat even though they call it honey- oat, Italian (which is plain old white bread), etc. I also strongly question their serving sizes, since they are not consisent. I think the "standard" bread size is a huge factor, with some Subways serving much larger bread. If you consider the 6" veggie has 230 cal, you can assume the bread should have about 200 calories, but that is two standard slices of sandwich bread, not the huge, thick, large thing my Subway serves. I think there are at least 300 calories in the bread alone, plus they really load up the sandwiches with lots of veggies, not just a few. I'm not complaining now, but the numbers do not mesh. I was in S. Padre a few months ago and stopped at the Subway there, and ordered my veggie on wheat bread. What I got there was something roughly half the size of the sandwich I get at home. That is what got me thinking about the calories and serving sizes. I'm thinking the S. Padre Subway sand. was closer to the 230 cal, with my home Subway serving something about 350 cal. There is no standardization from one franchise to the next in Subway. Not a problem, unless you try to count calories, fat, carbs etc. accurately. Then the numbers are possibly way off. dkw You could easily figure out almost exactly what the caloric value of that sub is. Just standardize your diet around the value subway advertises, and make that the only uncertain food you eat. In a few days time, you could have a pretty good guess just by monitoring your weight. You can't really blame subway for the differences between branches, though. They have to purchase those ingredients, and the supply industry has no real reason to standardize (nor should they). On my campus, there's a little sub shop run by the food contractor, Sodexho. They have nutritional information for these subs online. Obviously that may of may not hold true for this one branch. However, I find that even with the variation in who makes my sandwich when I eat there (almost every day), my caloric intake (fairly regular across the rest of my diet) deviates above and below the advertised value equally, averaging to that value. I would guess their nutritional information is an average across many variations of the sandwich. All that said, if you can't tell that your meatball sub every day isn't that good for you, and that you should opt for the 6" instead, you can't really play the blame game with the franchise. It does make you wonder, though. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Subway
On Mar 13, 4:44*pm, James G wrote:
On Mar 13, 4:32*pm, " wrote: It seems Subway has both the highest and lowest fat and calorie sandwiches in the fast-food industry. The 6" veggie has 230 cal and 3 gm. of fat, while the 12" meatball with cheese has 1120 cal. and 22 gms. of fat. You can also get that double meat and double cheese if you want to add another 900 calories. I don't think Jared ate too many meatball sandwiches on his diet. The company calls their bread "wheat bread", which is kind of a useless and misleading description, since it is not whole wheat and all of their bread is made from wheat even though they call it honey- oat, Italian (which is plain old white bread), etc. I also strongly question their serving sizes, since they are not consisent. I think the "standard" bread size is a huge factor, with some Subways serving much larger bread. If you consider the 6" veggie has 230 cal, you can assume the bread should have about 200 calories, but that is two standard slices of sandwich bread, not the huge, thick, large thing my Subway serves. I think there are at least 300 calories in the bread alone, plus they really load up the sandwiches with lots of veggies, not just a few. I'm not complaining now, but the numbers do not mesh. I was in S. Padre a few months ago and stopped at the Subway there, and ordered my veggie on wheat bread. What I got there was something roughly half the size of the sandwich I get at home. That is what got me thinking about the calories and serving sizes. I'm thinking the S. Padre Subway sand. was closer to the 230 cal, with my home Subway serving something about 350 cal. There is no standardization from one franchise to the next in Subway. Not a problem, unless you try to count calories, fat, carbs etc. accurately. Then the numbers are possibly way off. dkw You could easily figure out almost exactly what the caloric value of that sub is. *Just standardize your diet around the value subway advertises, and make that the only uncertain food you eat. *In a few days time, you could have a pretty good guess just by monitoring your weight. You can't really blame subway for the differences between branches, though. *They have to purchase those ingredients, and the supply industry has no real reason to standardize (nor should they). On my campus, there's a little sub shop run by the food contractor, Sodexho. *They have nutritional information for these subs online. Obviously that may of may not hold true for this one branch. *However, I find that even with the variation in who makes my sandwich when I eat there (almost every day), my caloric intake (fairly regular across the rest of my diet) deviates above and below the advertised value equally, averaging to that value. I would guess their nutritional information is an average across many variations of the sandwich. All that said, if you can't tell that your meatball sub every day isn't that good for you, and that you should opt for the 6" instead, you can't really play the blame game with the franchise. It does make you wonder, though.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Apparently, they get their bread from different sources. It comes frozen, and they let it rise, then bake it fresh daily. Some franchises have one central factory that sends out all the product...like a container of croutons from McDonalds which are exactly the same in Texas or New York. The patties are almost exactly the same as well. You don't get one that starts out 5 oz. and another that starts out as 6 oz. If they are supposed to be 6 oz., they will be exactly that. Apparently, the Subway central office subcontracts with several bakeries to provide the bread, since the difference between the two breads I mentioned was dramatic. The meats and cheeses at Subway seem pretty standardized in terms of size though. It is just the bread, and of course the veggie portions they use that is different. With veggies, this would make very little difference, since they are very low cal to begin with. With condiments like ranch dressing and the amount of bread, it would be significant. I still love Subway and go there almost every day too. dkw |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Subway
"James G" wrote in message ... On Mar 13, 4:32 pm, " wrote: snip I also strongly question their serving sizes, since they are not consisent. I think the "standard" bread size is a huge factor, with some Subways serving much larger bread. If you consider the 6" veggie has 230 cal, you can assume the bread should have about 200 calories, but that is two standard slices of sandwich bread, not the huge, thick, large thing my Subway serves. I think there are at least 300 calories in the bread alone, plus they really load up the sandwiches with lots of veggies, not just a few. I'm not complaining now, but the numbers do not mesh. Buy one, take it home and disassemble. Weigh the components. Compare the weight of the sandwich to the nutrition info. Calculate your caloric values from the measured weights. That will tell the tale, quicker than using your body as a crude calorimeter. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Subway
On Mar 14, 12:34 am, "Del Cecchi"
wrote: "James G" wrote in message ... On Mar 13, 4:32 pm, " wrote: snip I also strongly question their serving sizes, since they are not consisent. I think the "standard" bread size is a huge factor, with some Subways serving much larger bread. If you consider the 6" veggie has 230 cal, you can assume the bread should have about 200 calories, but that is two standard slices of sandwich bread, not the huge, thick, large thing my Subway serves. I think there are at least 300 calories in the bread alone, plus they really load up the sandwiches with lots of veggies, not just a few. I'm not complaining now, but the numbers do not mesh. Buy one, take it home and disassemble. Weigh the components. Compare the weight of the sandwich to the nutrition info. Calculate your caloric values from the measured weights. That will tell the tale, quicker than using your body as a crude calorimeter. That assumes the sandwich is made to the same proportions as the ideal sandwich, which is unlikely. Hell, it even assumes you're getting the same sandwich every single time you go there. Also unlikely. If you're going to be a stickler about it, burn the damn stuff and measure the heat, and never eat anything because you keep burning your food to figure out what's in it. Some of the food-co./govt conspiracy theories are really quite ridiculous; I find the nutritional information usually lives up to exactly what it's regulated as: a good approximation of what you're eating. Given variations in metabolism, daily activity, and the quantity of food you're actually eating, this approximation is well- smoothed to the point that you're basically taking in what it says you are. There are exceptions, sure, but that's why dieting is a constant cycle of experimentation, observation, and adjustment. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Subway
On Mar 13, 10:00*pm, James G wrote:
On Mar 14, 12:34 am, "Del Cecchi" wrote: "James G" wrote in message ... On Mar 13, 4:32 pm, " wrote: snip I also strongly question their serving sizes, since they are not consisent. I think the "standard" bread size is a huge factor, with some Subways serving much larger bread. If you consider the 6" veggie has 230 cal, you can assume the bread should have about 200 calories, but that is two standard slices of sandwich bread, not the huge, thick, large thing my Subway serves. I think there are at least 300 calories in the bread alone, plus they really load up the sandwiches with lots of veggies, not just a few. I'm not complaining now, but the numbers do not mesh. Buy one, take it home and disassemble. *Weigh the components. Compare the weight of the sandwich to the nutrition info. Calculate your caloric values from the measured weights. That will tell the tale, quicker than using your body as a crude calorimeter. That assumes the sandwich is made to the same proportions as the ideal sandwich, which is unlikely. *Hell, it even assumes you're getting the same sandwich every single time you go there. *Also unlikely. If you're going to be a stickler about it, burn the damn stuff and measure the heat, and never eat anything because you keep burning your food to figure out what's in it. Some of the food-co./govt conspiracy theories are really quite ridiculous; I find the nutritional information usually lives up to exactly what it's regulated as: a good approximation of what you're eating. *Given variations in metabolism, daily activity, and the quantity of food you're actually eating, this approximation is well- smoothed to the point that you're basically taking in what it says you are. There are exceptions, sure, but that's why dieting is a constant cycle of experimentation, observation, and adjustment.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I figure I've lost the extra calories...the difference between the stated and actual calories, just fretting, losing sleep, contemplating and typing messages about the subject. This is a good thing. Everyone needs purpose in their life according to Freud. Mine is counting calories and Subway helps provide an opportunity and challenge for me. That's why I eat my daily veggie delight with a smug attitude. If you have followed this message board, you will see that food labels are not in fact very consistent in some cases. Take lentils. A quarter cup of dry green lentils can be labeled as anything from 50 cal. to 120 cal. I even saw 130 cal. once. How? Lentils and beans are very high fiber. Some people include all fiber as caloric, some only add the soluble fiber, and some add no fiber to the total calories. The fiber is listed as part of the total carbs, and some packagers subtract the fiber, some don't, some subtract a part of it, and apparently some don't really know how much fiber is even in their lentils. Another example. Is 1% fat milk really "low fat?" There are 22 cal. from fat in a cup of 1% milk which has 110 calories. 22/110=20% fat, which is not low. Sure it's lower than higher fat milk mixtures, but not low fat. The 1% sure sounds low, but that is based on a liquid measurement where you are counting the water in the milk as food. The proper way to look at all food is the calories from the portion of fat, carb, fiber, protein, etc. you are interested in divided by the calories in the portion. Suddenly foods like green beans are seen as very high fiber and high protein...higher protein than a Big Mac by far. I really don't think too many people understand this about food labels. It isn't so much misleading as as lack of understanding about the labeling conventions. dkw |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Subway
On Mar 13, 9:34*pm, "Del Cecchi"
wrote: "James G" wrote in message ... On Mar 13, 4:32 pm, " wrote: snip I also strongly question their serving sizes, since they are not consisent. I think the "standard" bread size is a huge factor, with some Subways serving much larger bread. If you consider the 6" veggie has 230 cal, you can assume the bread should have about 200 calories, but that is two standard slices of sandwich bread, not the huge, thick, large thing my Subway serves. I think there are at least 300 calories in the bread alone, plus they really load up the sandwiches with lots of veggies, not just a few. I'm not complaining now, but the numbers do not mesh. Buy one, take it home and disassemble. *Weigh the components. Compare the weight of the sandwich to the nutrition info. Calculate your caloric values from the measured weights. That will tell the tale, quicker than using your body as a crude calorimeter. True. Visually, I know that their bread is somewhere between 3 and 4 times the size of 2 slices of standard sandwich bread, so that is a rough estimate which will have to do since they don't measure or weigh their ingredients when they make the sandwich, and although I am a tad compulsive, I am not so compulsive that I want to dissect the sandwich daily and weigh each component, or take a scales with me under my arm to Subway. Besides, maybe my scales would be off...but that's another subject. I just count the Subway Veggie Delight at my Subway as having 400 cal. rather than the stated 230, and that is probably pretty darn close. I do drink diet soda along with that....COLD diet soda, which according to some experts actually has negative calories because your body has to burn extra calories to maintain your core temp. Now, if I could figure a way to drink about 40 gallons of the stuff at a sitting, I could count the calories in the Sub as 230. dkw |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Subway
"James G" wrote in message ... On Mar 14, 12:34 am, "Del Cecchi" wrote: "James G" wrote in message ... On Mar 13, 4:32 pm, " wrote: snip I also strongly question their serving sizes, since they are not consisent. I think the "standard" bread size is a huge factor, with some Subways serving much larger bread. If you consider the 6" veggie has 230 cal, you can assume the bread should have about 200 calories, but that is two standard slices of sandwich bread, not the huge, thick, large thing my Subway serves. I think there are at least 300 calories in the bread alone, plus they really load up the sandwiches with lots of veggies, not just a few. I'm not complaining now, but the numbers do not mesh. Buy one, take it home and disassemble. Weigh the components. Compare the weight of the sandwich to the nutrition info. Calculate your caloric values from the measured weights. That will tell the tale, quicker than using your body as a crude calorimeter. That assumes the sandwich is made to the same proportions as the ideal sandwich, which is unlikely. Hell, it even assumes you're getting the same sandwich every single time you go there. Also unlikely. If you're going to be a stickler about it, burn the damn stuff and measure the heat, and never eat anything because you keep burning your food to figure out what's in it. Some of the food-co./govt conspiracy theories are really quite ridiculous; I find the nutritional information usually lives up to exactly what it's regulated as: a good approximation of what you're eating. Given variations in metabolism, daily activity, and the quantity of food you're actually eating, this approximation is well- smoothed to the point that you're basically taking in what it says you are. There are exceptions, sure, but that's why dieting is a constant cycle of experimentation, observation, and adjustment. weigh the bread, weigh the fillings. add it up. loved that song. add it up, that is. most of the calories in a veggie sub are in the bread anyway. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Subway | bob | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | January 21st, 2004 08:44 PM |
Subway | cablguy | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 6 | January 21st, 2004 01:05 AM |
Subway | cablguy | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | January 20th, 2004 12:50 AM |
THANK YOU SUBWAY! Any others? HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!! | Amber | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 8 | January 7th, 2004 03:57 AM |
Subway Again | kahout | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | January 3rd, 2004 10:36 PM |