Recommended Posts

If you watched the London Olympics last summer, you saw a parade of top athletes touting the nutritional qualities of their favorite eatery: Subway. Watching Apolo Ohno or Robert Griffin III bite into a veggie footlong with avocado or hearing that Subway is ?the official training restaurant of athletes everywhere,? you might get the idea that the food served at the chain isn?t that bad for you?that it?s even healthy.

Think again.

Researchers from the University of California Los Angeles found that despite claims to the contrary, Subway is just as unhealthy as the oft-reviled golden arches of McDonald?s?which long had the most locations in the country of any fast-food chain until Subway surpassed it in 2011.

?Every day, millions of people eat at McDonald?s and Subway, the two largest fast food chains in the world,? 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?said in the UCLA statement. ?With childhood obesity at record levels, we need to know the health impact of kids? choices at restaurants.?

Lesser, who is now a researcher at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, did so by recruiting 97 adolescents, ages 12 to 21, to purchase meals at McDonald?s and Subway restaurants at a shopping mall in Carson, CA. The young people consumed an average of 1,038 calories at McDonald?s. They consumed an average of 955 calories at Subway?a statistically insignificant difference from McDonald?s. The Institute of Medicine recommends that students consume no more than 850 calories in school lunches.

While total calories were slightly lower at Subway, the average calories per sandwich purchased and sodium content were both higher at Subway. The Subway sandwiches contained an average of 784 calories, versus 572 at McDonald?s. The sodium content at both restaurants was three times higher than the IOM recommended daily dose: 2,149 mg at Subway versus 1,829 mg at McDonald?s.

While the results may surprise the average consumer, they did not catch nutritionist Lisa R. Young off guard. At fast-food restaurants commonly thought to be healthier, Young says customers may even eat worse than they would at a chain thought to be less healthy?a phenomenon known as the ?health halo.? Because diners assume they?re eating healthier overall, they may not pay close enough attention to the nutritional content of what they?re ordering. And at the end of the day, Subway and McDonald?s are still fast food.

?I do not recommend fast food if you want to eat healthy,? says Young, author of The Portion Teller?s Diet. ?With a few exceptions, fast food is still fast food?high in fat and calories.?

source

If you watched the London Olympics last summer, you saw a parade of top athletes touting the nutritional qualities of their favorite eatery:

No... No I did not. The BBC coverage did not contain adverts ;)

This study has a HUGE flaw which they kind of hint at. At subway you can make your sub a lot healthier. I usually get only vinegar on my sub which has 0 calories . I also pick the one with the least amount of calories listed to start with.

They basically wrote down the calories of what people were ordering. Based on this they say subway is just as bad. Also by the looks of it the fries were not counted in their calories counting for mcdonalds.

Subway you have the choice to eat healthy or unhealthy.

This review shows that consumers choice to eat unhealthy at Subway.

  • Like 2

True the caloric difference might be insignificant. But what about the fat content, cholesterol, oil? There are many, many other things that make food healthy or unhealthy. Did this "study" even bother to look at the other stuff?

  • Like 2

Calories are not really a problem unless they come from fructose, so it'd be interesting to know where these calories come from in Subway sandwiches vs a typical McDonald meal. If people order a large soft drink with their Subway sandwich then it's not really the sandwich that's the problem. ;)

I'm more worried about the sodium content, 2000+mg is an astounding amount, how do they manage to put that much? Extra salt? BBQ sauce?

As long as you do enough exercise to burn up the calories you don't need for normal respiration then the 'healthy' argument falls flat on it's face.

If you eat 5,000 calories (equal to 1lb of calorie mass) but, however do enough exercise (as a man 2,500, woman 3,000) to burn off the excess

then eat 5 big macs and a bucket of French fried if they equate to 2,500 (man) 3,000 (woman) respectively to calorific value.

Subway differs to the competition in that it offers customers what they want. That means it can be very healthy (e.g. a 6" low fat sub with low fat sauce) or very unhealthy (e.g. a 12" meatball sub with cheese and mayo). It really is up to the individual. The one area I would say criticism is due is the constant push to upsell larger subs and meal deals, which is little different to the "supersize" scandal that hit McDonald's.

You probably expect the people in the study that eat the unhealthy stuff to also eat unhealthy anyway so, just a normal day. they should of got ppl who were health freaks to unhealthy eaters to do the study and find out what they would have and what group ordered what. whether they chose to reduce what was on there sandwich or increase it etc

Looks like you guys covered it all pretty well. Not much more left to say. :laugh: Next thing you know they are going to come out with a revolutionary study that says that your salad is less healthy than McDonalds because they tested a salad loaded with fried chicken, bacon, cheese and salad dressing.

People that come out with assinine "studies" like this are just an insult to those of us with enough brain to comprehend these things without having to have someone tell us.

It's the same as any sandwich shop vs burger place. For example, just 30 minutes ago I walked to the cafeteria here at work. I thought for a second whether I wanted a burger or a sub. I could have gotten a small burger and nothing else, or a 12" sub filled with meat and cheese and mayonaise, and the sub would have been worse for me. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that out. (I picked a 6" turkey sandwich with just mustard btw, I will NOT pass on cheese though :p)

The bottom line is, there is almost nothing at McDonalds which is "healthy", whereas there is a huge variety of options at Subway. What you decide is up to you!

Next thing you know they are going to come out with a revolutionary study that says that your salad is less healthy than McDonalds because they tested a salad loaded with fried chicken, bacon, cheese and salad dressing.

Or they can just take an unusually large serving of salad and determine it has more calorie content. :laugh:

cholesterol in food doesn't affect cholesterol in blood. high cholesterol in the body is mostly hereditary. high fructose corn syrup is not worse for you than any other sugar or carb for that matter. it gets a bad rap because its cheap and added to everything,and people overconsume. saturated fat is not bad for you and doesn't cause heart disease. its never been proven. its actually detrimental to cut it out. people on high saturated fat diets lose weight all the time and have really nice blood profiles.high sodium is also not a problem if you drink enough fluids and are active. the groups that say a 2000mg limit you shouldn't exceed is so dumb and can be dangerous if you are very active because not enough sodium will cause dehydration and your kidneys will take a hit.

what the problem is is over consumption of food that's not helped by the fact that its really easy to buy very high calorie,great tasting foods for so cheap. also not being active and not getting the proper circulation does way more damage. that's the problem,not this BS singling out of certain macronutrients and foods. mcdonalds is not your problem. subway isn't your problem. you are the problem. buying 2 bigmacs and a large fries and a drink the size of your head is.Buying a burger,a small or medium fries,and a medium drink,depending on your needs isn't that bad. We've seen people on low fat diets,high fat diets,low carb diets,high carb diets, low protein diets,high protein diets ALL lose weight,have awesome blood profiles and healthy as they have ever been.

... that Subway is ?the official training restaurant of athletes everywhere,? you might get the idea that the food served at the chain isn?t that bad for you?that it?s even healthy.

Think again.

lol of course that stuff is not healthy. none of that kind of food is. it might be healthy from a todays definition of the average. but it is far away from being really healthy.

6 months ago I started to begin eating healthy from an educated point of view. I can tell you that there is a HUGE difference of eating healthy from a marketing point of view compared to non industralized food.

heck i even made my own bred this weekend. where I live people eat lots of bred. we even have a bred culture. real bread, not that sandwich bread stuff. but even that quality bread sucks compared to when you make your own.

all food that is some way or another alleviated from its pure form is losing quality.

but tbh - i dont blame anyone. browsing the super market i realized how difficult it is to eat healthy. 80-90% of all you find in the super market is pure junk. it is sad really... i had to learn first to differentiate between "good" and "bad" food.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Pretty nice tool, thanks
    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      454
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!