Food Nannies: Subway not ‘healthier’ than McDonald’s

This is junk science because…

… no food is “healthier” than any other food. There is, in fact, no such thing as “healthy” or “unhealthy” food. Different foods have different nutrition profiles, the “healthfulness” of which depend on the contexts of lifestyle and genetics. Diets may be healthier (and not on a universal basis) — but not food. All foods (and restaurants) can be part of a healthy diet.

The media release is below.


For adolescents, Subway food may not be much healthier than McDonald’s, UCLA study finds

Subway may promote itself as the “healthy” fast food restaurant, but it might not be a much healthier alternative than McDonald’s for adolescents, according to new UCLA research.

In a study published May 6 in the Journal of Adolescent Health, the researchers found that adolescents who purchased Subway meals consumed nearly as many calories as they did at McDonald’s. Meals from both restaurants are likely to contribute toward overeating and obesity, according to the researchers.

“Every day, millions of people eat at McDonald’s and Subway, the two largest fast food chains in the world,” said Dr. Lenard Lesser, who led the research while a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholar in the department of family medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. “With childhood obesity at record levels, we need to know the health impact of kids’ choices at restaurants.”

The researchers recruited 97 adolescents ages 12 to 21 to purchase meals at McDonald’s and Subway restaurants at a shopping mall in Carson, Calif. The participants went to each restaurant on different weekdays between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m., and paid for the meals with their own money. Researchers used the participants’ cash register receipts to record what each customer ate and estimated calorie counts from information on the chains’ websites.

The researchers found that the participants bought meals containing an average of 1,038 calories at McDonald’s and an average of 955 calories at Subway.

“We found that there was no statistically significant difference between the two restaurants, and that participants ate too many calories at both,” said Lesser, who is now a researcher at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute.

The Institute of Medicine recommends that school lunches not exceed 850 calories. An adolescent should consume an average of about 2,400 calories in a day.

Among the researchers’ other findings:

The sandwiches purchased by participants contained an average of 784 calories at Subway versus 572 calories at McDonald’s.
Participants purchased sugary drinks averaging 61 calories at Subway, and 151 calories at McDonald’s.
Customers in the study purchased side items such as french fries and potato chips that added an average of 35 calories at Subway compared with 201 calories at McDonald’s.
Participants consumed 102 grams of carbohydrates at Subway; 128 grams at McDonald’s.
The meals contained an average of 36 grams of sugar at Subway; 54 grams at McDonald’s.
Meals contained an average of 41 grams of protein at subway; 32 grams at McDonald’s.
Sodium intake averaged 2,149 mg at Subway; 1,829 mg at McDonald’s.
“The nutrient profile at Subway was slightly healthier, but the food still contained three times the amount of salt that the Institute of Medicine recommends,” Lesser said.

The authors suggested that the higher sodium content of the Subway meals likely came from the restaurant’s processed meats. Processed meats in general are associated with obesity, cardiovascular disease and cancer.

The researchers noted some weaknesses in the study. They did not track the subjects’ meals for the rest of the day, so it was unclear whether participants ate less at other times of the day to compensate for the excess calories. Also, participants were from a single suburb of Los Angeles and most were of Asian descent or of mixed race and ethnicity, so their purchase patterns may not be applicable to other populations.

Lesser recommends that McDonald’s customers eliminate sugary drinks and french fries from their meals. “And if you go to Subway, opt for smaller subs, and ask for less meat and double the amount of veggies,” he said.


8 thoughts on “Food Nannies: Subway not ‘healthier’ than McDonald’s”

  1. Hmmm. If all that matters is the number of calories, I wonder how far most of us would get on a diet of Twinkies and soda? Probably not very far…..

  2. Good point, the variation is quite extreme on Subway sandwiches. Furthermore, both of the restaurants have soda fountains with free refills, where you can get water or coke multiple times. The difference in sugar is entirely attributable to the fact that McDonalds has 32 ounce large cups while Subway has 20 ounce.

  3. Their test data is screwy too. You can’t tell from the register receipt what veggies people got on their sandwich. Or what condiments-mustard, mayo, oil, vinegar. So they POSTULATED to fit their narrative. Who’d’a thunk?

  4. You’re right, of course, but calories are number one. Fats and proteins also have things that are good for us in addition to calories. Our bodies can metabolize fats, proteins and carbs to substitute for one another to some degree but we need all of them.

  5. “Calories are the basic thing we need from food, for heaven’s sake.”

    More to it than that. We specifically need some fat and protein.

  6. This month’s Reader’s Digest acknowledges that a standard diet now exceeds RDAs for virtually all identified trace elements like vitamins and minerals. A “healthy” diet exceeds the RDAs even more with no known health benefits. Supplements appear to be pointless except for individuals with known deficiencies.
    Which brings me back to the “empty calorie” canard. Calories are the basic thing we need from food, for heaven’s sake. And vitamin-dense, mineral-dense foods are no healthier once you get an optimal level. (We’re still fuzzy on what optimal levels of trace elements are.)

  7. You get it! This is the first time I have ever seen this obvious and logical position on food stated publicly: “There is, in fact, no such thing as “healthy” or “unhealthy” food.” That’s it! McDonald’s isn’t bad and fast food isn’t bad it is all old wives tales. I can remember (before there was a McDonalds) when it was common thought that pizza was junkfood and caused everything from tooth decay to childhood illnesses. “Junkfood” is in the eye of the beholder. If they prefer a more traditional food then anything and everything else is “junkfood” and by extension must be bad for you. And of course the confusion is made worse because some people have allergies and reactions to certain foods thus reinforcing the “junkfood” claim.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.