297549 Mon Jun 21 12:06:41 -0700 2004 65 27 General Chowhounding Topics 0 1642414 Over the weekend there was a thread on the "not about food" board regarding Subway. Rather than talking about quality of food however, the thread focused on the order in which the "sandwich artists" are instructed to assemble the layers of fixins', which seems to me a bit like arguing over whether apple juice or orange juice is a better choice to put in your gas tank. I was astonished to see how many people replied saying that they liked Subway, with several thoughtful threads about the benefits of putting salad dressing on a sandwich at the beginning or the end of the sandwich construction. But none of the people making these throughtful arguments addressed the main issue which is that despite their claims that Subway is all about freshness ("eat fresh!"), their meats are presliced and their "fresh" bread is brown-n-serve and filled with a list of chemical ingredients a paragraph long. Look it up on their website. Also, not a single person addressed the bizarre smell that hits you upon walking into every Subway shop... (If they're baking fresh bread all day, shouldn't it smell like a bakery?) What is that weird funk? It certainly doesn't smell like food. I'm not lying or even exaggerating on any of this. I just don't understand how people can ignore such blatant sensory evidence about the dubiousness of the food. I am just curious to know if people who like Subway even think about these things, or is it simply a matter of convenience and availability? Mr. Taster Link: http://www.chowhound.com/boards/notfood/messages/41519.html Mon Jun 21 12:06:41 -0700 2004 0 Mr. Taster 1 1642416 Subway is about a 3 on a 10 scale as far as food goes, and certainly doesn't merit discussion on chowhound (IMO). However, my morning commute used to require me to pass by Subway (in a skyway indoors). I, too, can't stand the smell of their bread, but at 7am it's about the most disgusting thing I could think to experience, aside from a nose full of cigarette smoke. Maybe a good thread would be about foods that taste way different from their smell. The bread's not disgusting but the smell sure is. Mon Jun 21 12:42:52 -0700 2004 1642414 0 D 2 1642434 I was talking to some family members yesterday who sometimes eat at subway. It appears that people on weight watchers and other diets tend to feel comfortable eating at chains with standardized items, and for whom calorie counts/food composition is computed and published. This information availability, I guess, is an advantage of chains over independents for people who are trying to stick with a strict regime without any slippage. Mon Jun 21 13:44:47 -0700 2004 1642416 0 jen kalb 3 1642437 Like Jared? Mon Jun 21 13:47:21 -0700 2004 1642434 0 T-4-2 4 1642443 say again? Mon Jun 21 14:15:23 -0700 2004 1642437 0 jen kalb 5 1642447 You know, Jared, the guy on those Subway commercials. He used to be really obese, then started eating nothing but Subway subs for a whole year and lost tons of weight. Link: http://subway.com/subwayroot/MenuNutrition/Jared/index.aspx Mon Jun 21 14:24:22 -0700 2004 1642443 0 T-4-2 3 1642451 I think you hit the nail on the head--the marketing campaign focused on the low calorie/fat options are largely responsible for Subway's recent success. And I think people who are calorie counting or going to Weight Watchers have a very easy time selecting meals there. But I agree that the smell is just awful and the food basically flavorless. I live in NYC, so everyday consider myself lucky for the many options available to me. I can't understand it when coworkers go to the Subway three blocks away, passing several better inexpensive options along the way... Mon Jun 21 14:34:30 -0700 2004 1642434 0 NancyH 4 1642459 They go to Subway because the TV tells them to. That is also "why people drink Coke," as another thread explored...the fact that the chains offer the exact nutritional breakdown is just the icing on the cake, so to speak. Mon Jun 21 15:05:40 -0700 2004 1642451 0 neighbor 5 1642471 Personally, I think that is silly. Not all people are sheep. I drink coke seldomly these days, usually drinking water instead with 1-2 cups of coffee to get me through the day. However, a good fountain coke served in a glass with shaved ice can be the best drink in the world every now and then. You can like something if others do too, it's ok. Similarly, some people really might like Subway, regardless of what the TV tells them to do. People do have different tastes, as chowhound has shown countless times. Personally, this TV makes people do it theory is pure bunk in my opinion. Mon Jun 21 15:59:36 -0700 2004 1642459 0 Dax 6 1642478 Please hear me out... It is not bunk... TV commercials play on basic human psychology. It's a survival mechanism. We as humans are drawn to things that are familiar-- faces we recognize, neighborhoods we grew up in, etc. In our modern age, corporations have found ways to get us to "trust" them, as we would a longtime friend. They do this by creating logos and jingles that we see so often on TV-- we share the funny ones with our friends, thereby creating a circle of "trust" of sorts with the company. Eventually we see the logo and commercials so much that the become so familiar, we actually begin to trust them. Like it or not, television advertising makes Subway's logo and jingle familiar and friendly to us. Subway is no longer a stranger... so we begin to trust it. Suddenly Joe's Neighborhood Deli has become the stranger, even though they use real bakery bread and slice the meats themselves, unlike Subway. The vast majority of people do not think about things like "where does Subway's bread come from" because they equate Subway's "fresh" bread with real bakery bread you would get... when in fact it is an entirely different monster!! Just smell that Subway shop smell and I challenge you to tell me that it smells like bread to you. It doesn't even smell like food!! There are many people in suits with psychology degrees that are paid large amounts of money to figure out ways to get people to consume their products. And playing with human trust through teleivison advertising is a big part of it. It ain't bunk. Mr. Taster Mon Jun 21 16:31:31 -0700 2004 1642471 0 Mr. Taster 7 1642487 It's bunk telling me only advertising makes coke taste good to me. Similarly, there are likely some people that don't even own a tv or read newspapers that will like a subway sandwich. Sure advertising influences people - just think of your favorite restaurants that get pimped out on Chowhound. So just because hounds say it's good, or not good, (ie advertise) that means you cannot make an individual decision based on your own tastes and not make that opinion necessarily based entirely on advertising? That's bunk to me. I can make up my own mind and it doesn't have anything to do with advertising necessarily. For example, growing up and living in Georgia I hadn't had much experience with Asian ethnic places but have had lots more experience here in Boston eating at different places. I tried things on a whim, some I liked, some I didn't. Where does the advertising fit in there? Just people something is advertised or not, it doesn't mean it always has to impact whether you prefer the product or not. Some people make up their own minds regardless of advertising. Sure, some are influenced by it (parents taking kids to Mickey D's because they were taken there by their parents) but just because I was inundated with Mickey D commercials as a kid doesn't mean I like their fries because of their advertising. I like them because they are deliciously crispy vehicles for delivering salt and ketchup. Are there other places that make them better, chain or not? Sure. Doesn't mean I like McD's fries only because of commercials. I'm not luvin' it because some PhD working for McD's tells me to like them; I just happen to like their preparation and taste. By your theory, there is nothing in this world that can be liked based on taste, smell or any other sense without the interference of marketing? Personal experience or taste is no longer viable? That's quite a depressing theory and not one that I espouse. Mon Jun 21 17:37:17 -0700 2004 1642478 0 Dax 8 1642496 You are touching on a great debate-- What works for the individual does not necessarily work for the masses. Any time you are dealing with the individual, Personal Choice is king. When it is just you and I, we can choose to go left or to go right. Any time you are dealing with the group, this is when the Trends emerge. Sure, each individual *could* go left, but most choose to go right. It is people *AS GROUPS* that the psychology of advertising plays to. Subway doesn't really care about the individual that has a complaint-- they look at the masses and change their strategy on broad trends. I'm not saying that advertising is the *only* reason that *YOU* drink coke. (please note emphasis!) What I AM saying, however, is that advertising is a *major* reason that *people* drink Coke. At first sight this may sound contradictory, but there is a distinction between the two. As for your comment about products being popular simply because they taste good, have you ever wondered why milk, beer, wine, coffee, tea, orange juice, etc. are as widely popular as Coca-Cola? Now consider, how big do you think the advertising budgets for milk, coffee, tea, beer, wine etc. industries are, compared to Coca-Cola's advertising budget? All are similarly delicious drinks, but Coca Cola wins in terms of sales, hands down. Mr. Taster Mon Jun 21 18:18:00 -0700 2004 1642487 0 Mr. Taster 9 1642514 Forgot to put the "Not" towards the end of my last posting! (see below) Mr. Taster --------------------------- As for your comment about products being popular simply because they taste good, have you ever wondered why milk, beer, wine, coffee, tea, orange juice, etc. are **NOT** as widely popular as Coca-Cola? Now consider, how big do you think the advertising budgets for milk, coffee, tea, beer, wine etc. industries are, compared to Coca-Cola's advertising budget? All are similarly delicious drinks, but Coca Cola wins in terms of sales, hands down. Mon Jun 21 21:18:50 -0700 2004 1642496 0 Mr. Taster 10 1642521 Knock it off Mr. Taster ! Everything is relative . Don't give me this TV advertising crap . People eat what they like , if they don't know any better , their best may well be lower than your best . As a construction worker with some well refined tastes , I frequently have to eat fast food junk that I would just as soon never see again . ( Some poor fools actually like Arby's ) Subway does not smell like a good bakery , but as fast food goes , a Subway club with scary bacon and vinegar and oil is not the worst sandwich I have eaten . And they ARE consistently average . My career and my personal tastes expose me to the full spectrum of culinary experiences , and while I give Subway about a two and a half , I've had WAY worse . Mon Jun 21 23:09:35 -0700 2004 1642514 0 GoalieJeff 11 1642528 I agree GoalieJeff, I'm moving from a food-mecca in the Midwest to the far-flung suburbs (population 4,000). Subway is the ONLY alternative to cooking at home. Television definitely won't be motivating my choices. While Subway is not spectacular, I'll appreciate my Sub club sandwich a lot while I try and figure out which box contains my well-used (and treasured) cookware and what's available at the only local grocery store. Subway's not too bad as far as foodstuff goes. I'm thankful McDonald's isn't my only option, though I do love those fries. Food snobbery has no place in my life. I'm well past my 20's, when *horrors* a restaurant that held a whiff of bleach had me running away. Now I know that someone has at least bothered to try and disinfect the place. Sometimes convenience trumps all, especially if a person has to travel a lot for their job or has a child with a busy school/T-ball/etc. schedule. We make it a point to sit down to a home-cooked meal five nights a week. Cooking is one of my joys. Subway, and all convenience food, has its place. I'm not about to beat up big corporations. It's capitalism at work that fuels our economy. If people want to be stupid, sit around the tube and eat fast food every night, that's a bigger issue than we can address at Chowhound. It's called personal responsibility. Tue Jun 22 00:08:35 -0700 2004 1642521 0 Suzie 12 1642531 The 'convenience trumps all' factor has been the reason McDonalds and fast food joints have become so successful... in the book "Fast Food Nation" they mention that McDonalds constantly strives for greater effiency at the cost of basically all other virtues of the food (nutrition, quality, etc.) An older co-worker of mine told me that the reason people in the 1950's (the era of the fast food boom) were so crazy about things like Minute Rice, Wonder Bread and McDonalds is because this was a generation who had known War, Depression and another War. They were damn well ready for some conveniences. And there was this trust in science and technology, that the government's processing of foods was good for you. Remember those 1950's school films... "Better Health Through Science" and all of that. People trusted that processed food was better. Now we're starting to find out that processed foods are making people fat and unhealthy... whereas people used to eat meat, veggies and husky whole grain breads, now people eat cheap meat, wonder bread (or equivalent) and coca cola in quantities unheard of in previous generations. Think about it, in the 1950's if you wanted a the equivalent of a modern day "super size" meal, you would have had to have bought 3-4 burgers, fries and cokes!! I don't have kids, but I can understand how that adds a whole new dimension to the equation. When you drive past a McDonalds playplace and the kids start yelling MOM MOM MOM CAN WE STOP STOP STOP, it puts pressure on the parents. Of course the parents can always say no. But why do you think McDonalds puts those brightly colored playplaces so obviously in front? It's so the kids will say MOM MOM MOM CAN WE STOP STOP STOP. McDonalds doesn't do ANYTHING that they feel will make them lose money. Some brilliant person in McDonalds realized that a child can be a surrogate salesman to the parent. That is the dubiousness of advertising working it's magic. Now if a parent educates themselves to know what is up, and they buy (or choose not to buy) McDonalds on their own terms, then that is great. But the facts are that McDonalds COUNTS on the fact that the vast majority of people will not be thinking about this. They are counting on the ignorance of the consumer to sell more burgers. And that to me is a crime. You can say "personal responsibility" all you want, but to ignore that there are other complicated factors at play is to be in denial. The reason that advertising executives are paid the big bucks is that it WORKS. Again, McDonalds is a capitalist business. The reason they do *ANYTHING* is because it brings in dollars. That playplace is not there just to make your kids happy. Mr. Taster Tue Jun 22 01:48:27 -0700 2004 1642528 0 Mr. Taster 13 1642544 Mr. Taster, I wasn't alive in the 50's so I cannot comment on that portion of your post. You seem to assume that most people have the intelligence of the lowest common denominator. Turn on any TV, radio or read the newspaper. People are told constantly that a regular diet of fast food contributes to an unhealthy lifestyle. That's where personal responsibilty comes into play. To assume that I am ignorant enough to think that McDonald's has a Playplace just for the enjoyment of my child is ludicrous. I think you are pushing a political agenda here and this is not the place for it. Tue Jun 22 09:17:33 -0700 2004 1642531 0 Suzie 14 1642558 I'm not saying that you are ignorant. I'm saying that there is a very large segment of the population which has other things to be concerned about before they even begin to think about the effect that advertising and fast food has on their minds and wallets. This has nothing to do with stupidity. We are at our most susceptible when we're not paying attention, not just for advertising but for all things in life. It is human nature. I carpool with a guy whose brother was killed in gang violence over drugs. This guy left his life and family to get away from that situation. His dad was a drug dealer. He had a pretty messed up life, and while he was there he had 2 kids out of wedlock which is is supporting. Now he has remarried another woman, has 3 kids and another on the way, with a job paying perhaps $33,000 a year. He has straightened out his life in many ways in getting away from the gangs and drug influence of his friends and family, but his current situation is hardly the American ideal. This guy is not in a situation to really deliberate the finer points of whether McDonalds is a healthy or quality alternative. He takes his kids there because it is cheap and available. It is not the same "choice" that I have when I can choose to go to Whole Foods and pay $15 for a grass fed, hormone free steak. He doesn't have that option. Personal responsibility is merely one factor in this debate, of which there are dozens and dozens of elements at play. To say that "personal responsibility" trumps all is to stick your head in the sand! Mr. Taster Tue Jun 22 10:36:05 -0700 2004 1642544 0 Mr. Taster 15 1642559 Dude, You are unbelievably negative, cynical, and "holier-than-thou". I'm not questioning your intelligence, but you are so biased I really have a hard time swallowing your hypotheses. Tue Jun 22 10:52:11 -0700 2004 1642558 0 AlanH™ 16 1642578 AlanH, I totally understand. But in a way, you've sort of made my point re: advertising. I'll explain what I mean... As stated previously, McDonalds or Subway advertising (for example) are most effective when we are not thinking that the ultimate goal is to persuade us to do something. For example, what if McDonald's commercials were purely informational (i.e. "Buy our hamburgers. They taste good and only cost 59 cents.") Is this effective advertising? We don't see commercials like this because this form of advertising is not effective. Human psychology for the most part rejects direct orders from untrusted sources, or even many trusted ones. It is much more effective to make someone laugh, or give them something familiar because the message slips in, like the spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. I am a stranger to you, and am offering a direct message, so therefore I understand your rejection of what I am saying. The fact that you question my ideas is good. But I am not the one who is trying to take money from you by selling you low-quality foods by calling them "fresh"! Should your criticism not extend to those people as well? That is the factor that I simply don't understand in all of this. Mr. Taster Tue Jun 22 12:05:47 -0700 2004 1642559 0 Mr. Taster 17 1642596 I'm sure you did very well in your sociology classes, but your wrath is misdirected, and way over the top. Personally, I hate Subway, and never eat there, but nobody that I know who does bases it on their advertising. As for the first part of your theory. I disagree-- lots of advertising is value based, it is not all about good humor. Not all of it is, but don't forget, ads are created by people, it's their job. TV ads in particular are displayed in an primarily entertainment-oriented medium, so what else would you expect? But again, you automatically assume "corporate America" is the villan, and find it convenient to make blanket incorrect assumptions. I'm really done with this discussion. It's really tired, and nobody's going to stop drinking Coke or eating at Subway simply because YOU are hell-bent to stop them. Tue Jun 22 13:25:05 -0700 2004 1642578 0 AlanH™ 18 1642618 I have nothing very impressive to add to this dialogue except to say that I very much appreciate when the respondents managed to kindly and thoughtfully discuss and challenge each other's views. I do agree that, in general, that corporate foods (Subway, MacDonalds, Coke) are generally of negligible or negative nutritional value. I'm very careful to steer myself and my family clear of them. I also think that, as someone back there mentioned, when you have a hugely busy (overworked/underpaid) life and several kids to support and little spare time, it's tough to make applesauce and buy organic baby carrots and pack the numerous little bags and containers of nutritious food that I bring with me when I'm out and about. It's a problem. Americans, in general work too many hours and watch lots of tv. That makes it difficult to prepare food. So many people want to eat that with which they are familiar. That's one of the reasons they opt for Subway and Coke and so on. And it's one of the reasons that small scale, higher quality, fresher -- and therefore more expensive -- food is getting harder and harder to find in so much of America. It's a conundrum. Americans will have to change their demands and producers will have to change their products if we are, as a nation, to improve the way we eat and our health. Saying that is neither righteous, nor prescriptive, just a statement of belief. I wish people fed themselves and their families better. I'll continue to feed myself and my family well (not perfectly, mind you!) and to try to encourage people within my sphere of influence to do the same. Tue Jun 22 15:37:11 -0700 2004 1642596 0 missliss 13 1642570 I am curious if you have read another book other than “Fast Food Nation.” Since before I went to medical school, I have been hearing about how America’s diet is killing us, but the facts just do not support this. As a whole our average life expectancy is rising to levels that could not have even been imagined in the 1950’s. My current position is working as an attending physician in an intercity trauma center, I see the worst that society has to offer, but when I compare it to what I have seen while traveling around the world, I truly believe that it is better to be poor in America than Rich in most of the other countries of the world. You may like the way that food is grown and delivered in Malawi, but I can tell you that I will take Minute Rice and McDonalds over an infant mortality rate of 20% (thankfully down from 40%) and a life expectancy of 37 years. Is there a problem with obesity in the United States? Sure there is, but even if McDonald’s and all of their clones closed-up tomorrow it would still be a problem. When you have a country as wealthy and prosperous as ours people have the ability to make choices, and some are going to make the wrong choices in life, and seem to be pretty damned belligerent about it. My experience dealing with obese people is no different than my experience dealing with any other habitual condition, be that alcoholism, drug dependency, or unfortunately battered spouses. You can tell them all day long that they have to change their life style, but until they really want to, they won’t. And the cause of them deciding to make the change usually comes because of a severe condition, or accident, and all too often it comes too late. As an example, I recently had a woman who was in her late 30’s and was tipping the scales at close to 500 pounds. She was symptomatic of an MI, and tests showed that indeed she was having one. We were able to stabilize her and scheduled her to have a double bi-pass (lucky for her it was only a double). When I was talking to her about her life style, I told her she had to loose weight, or she was going to die. She said that she doesn’t understand why she gains so much weight, she never eats fast food. I delved further into her diet and found out that she loves to eat soul food, and when I mentioned the aspects of soul food that might be causing her obesity she refused to even consider giving them-up. As far as I know she is still alive, but I would not be surprised if she lives more than a few more years. And for all of the vilification that people like to heap on McDonalds, I can say this much for them, they sure do a hell of a lot more for children than Whole Foods or Trader Joes has done. Just go to any Children’s Hospital or find a Ronald McDonald House and see what their charitable work does. I know, you probably think that it is just a big corporate ploy to get sick children to eat more Happy Meals. Tue Jun 22 11:28:40 -0700 2004 1642531 0 ZipperT 14 1642591 "I know, you probably think that it is just a big corporate ploy to get sick children to eat more Happy Meals." At the very least, it's a tactic to make people (including the healthy) feel better about a company that's getting so much bad press on other fronts, including the treatment of its workers. I feel the same way about McDonald's self-promoted charity work as I do about the feel-good Philip Morris TV ads. I won't argue that they're not doing good work, but I question their motives. Don't forget that every time you think about Ronald McDonald House, you're thinking about McDonald's. It's another form of advertising. Tue Jun 22 13:02:51 -0700 2004 1642570 0 Grace 14 1642593 You raise a very interesting point re: American longevity. I very much respect the work that you do. But here's the clincher in all of this... the people who are dying today (i.e. the World War II generation) did not grow up in the era of fast food. They were already adults when it hit the mainstream. Therefore the longevity statistics that we have now do not reflect the lifetime consumers of fast food who grew up in the 1970's and 1980's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it safe to say that they (for the most part) are the ones who have the obesity problem, not the old folks? As for your argument comparing the US to third world countries, many people do it and it is an unfair comparison. (It's like saying you don't like spaghetti because it doesn't taste like prunes) To make a legitimate comparison as to the state of American health versus other countries, we must compare the US with countries that are in our league economically, have a viable food distribution network, etc. Therefore we must compare the US situation with other first world, western countries. To say that America is in a better state than Zimbabwe is obvious. But to say that we are in better health than Germany, for example, is a much more complex and worthwhile argument to make. I'm not pegging the entire burden on fast food... it's **not** just fast food, but the American lifestyle. In Europe, people don't drive everywhere. They walk and take public transport, and yes, they eat less fast food, but the lifestlye is designed as such so that it naturally keeps people in better shape (whereas we need to go out of our way to buy gym memberships, they get daily excercise without it.) If you go to a city like New York where people walk everywhere, similarly you find very few obese people by comparison. But go your average Midwest suburban Wal-Mart (I went to school in Missouri) and it's quite a revelation as to the state of the weight of the country. Mr. Taster Tue Jun 22 13:19:12 -0700 2004 1642570 0 Mr. Taster 15 1642607 Anticipated life expectancy has risen above that of the WWII generation. Factors like obesity, and accidents are taken into consideration when these numbers are calculated. Could they be wrong? Sure, they could be wrong. The only reason why we look at these numbers is as a benchmark to see how we are doing. And frankly we are doing very well. I have visited hospitals around the world, and many in Europe. While most of the doctors are competent, the facilities where they work are pathetic. Little or no advanced imaging is available, drugs that may be free for the patient, but are rationed, or just not available. The one European country that I visited with comparable medical facilities to what we have in the United States is Switzerland. I will spare you from the description of a Sub-Saharan African hospital. You were wondering if there were obese people of the WWII generation, yes there were, and for the most part they have died. I have witnessed obese people in Europe, Africa and Asia as well. And it really makes me chuckle about no obese people in New York, my first job after my residency was in New York, trust me, there are plenty of morbidly obese people in Gotham. Tue Jun 22 14:39:47 -0700 2004 1642593 0 ZipperT 16 1642613 I have family in New York and Missouri. I have flown from one extreme to the other within a period of 24 hours, and when you have that sort of side-by-side perspective, it is truly shocking to see the regional differences in body shape. You could walk around Manhattan all day, seeing hundreds if not thousands of people, and yet only see just a handful of morbidly obese people. But go to Missouri (which incidentally has a much smaller total population) and morbidly obese people are *extremely* common... like I said, Wal-Mart is a mecca. I am not exaggerating on this at all. It is blatant and frighteningly obvious. Also, no doubt that there were obese people of the WWII generation. My point was that there is a much higher concentration of obesity in our current generation than there was in the WWII generation, and that younger population grew up during the era of convenience (i.e. minute rice, wonder bread, mcdonalds, etc.) It is the lifetime consumption of those products, coupled with a sedentary automobile-bound lifestyle that is the cause of the obesity epidemic in the US. People (generally) take the path of least resistance. If we lived in a culture that integrated a significant amount of walking into every day life (like New York or in European cities) then America would be a lot fitter and less obese... even with the proliferation of fast and processed foods. But it is the deadly combination of sedentary life and inexpensive, low quality foods that is the cause of the obesity epidemic in the US. Mr. Taster P.S. I would love to hear your perspective on the state of medical facilities around the world (as a diabetic with international career aspirations, this holds a great deal of interest for me) but alas, this is the wrong board to discuss that. Tue Jun 22 15:22:15 -0700 2004 1642607 0 Mr. Taster 16 1642616 Life expectancy is lower in the US than all other "first world" countries, at least by a few years. Link: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html Tue Jun 22 15:31:00 -0700 2004 1642607 0 rudeboy 17 1642624 As I said life expectancy rate is simply a bench mark and is a statistical and not an empirical look at data. Tue Jun 22 16:18:09 -0700 2004 1642616 0 ZipperT 18 1642628 Well, yes, it's a statistic. But it is empirical statistic, as it is based on collected data (i.e., the actual age at time of death). Unless there is some calculation for it in a hypothetical sense that I don't know about? Tue Jun 22 16:33:27 -0700 2004 1642624 0 rudeboy 15 1642634 Statistics in Europe (especially in the UK and Italy) are now pointing towards rapidly growing numbers of overweight, obese and morbidly obese people. As in the US, more people are living more sedentary lifestyles and eating unhealthy food. Tue Jun 22 17:09:14 -0700 2004 1642593 0 deibu 13 1642764 My boy is two and a half . He is a pretty bright kid , as two year olds go . But by no stretch of the imagination can he come close to being able to read . However , due to TV advertising and older kids , he shouts out " Burger King " and " Taco Bell " and " McDonalds " and the like whenever we drive by one . On the plus side , a few weeks ago as we were driving home from somewhere , he informed me that he wanted to go to eat at a restaraunt . As there was a Taco Bell just down the road ( convenient , no ? ) , I asked him if he wanted to go there . He said no and gravely informed me that quote , " Taco Bell is not a real restaraunt , daddy . " So there is some hope after all . Wed Jun 23 22:14:53 -0700 2004 1642531 0 GoalieJeff 12 1642598 Suzie, I understand why and how people end up eating at chain fast food places. Often we have no real choice. Sometimes zooming down a freeway, we all have to stop to eat quickly and then it's Subway, Taco Bell, McDs, etc. But I can remember before fast food joints were the only choices. When I was young, my home town had real burger joints--some just as fast as McDonalds, some with french fries even better, some with a lot wider choice of items, all with better burgers. What happened? Places like McDonalds opened in the town and one by one the independent, better, homestyle burger joints died. Now the burger choices in that town are the same as in darn near every other town of that size in the country. It's the same with that convenient Subway in your suburb. Because it is there, because it is promoted by advertising, because it is that friendly place that Jared lost weight going to, no independent sandwich shop that might offer tastier, healthier, and fresher food could survive in your town. Thus places like Subway and McDonalds deprive us all of real choices and real variety and deprive us of hundreds of thousands of independent restaurants. Tue Jun 22 13:39:34 -0700 2004 1642528 0 e.d. 13 1642599 Well said... I had not even stopped to consider how the proliferation of national fast food has in fact limited our choices to a handfull of fast food places, especially when we're traveling, a time when all people tend to compromise on their dining selections :-) Mr. Taster Tue Jun 22 13:47:00 -0700 2004 1642598 0 Mr. Taster 13 1642652 very very well said. thank you. Tue Jun 22 19:38:06 -0700 2004 1642598 0 steakandeggs 11 1642530 Hi GoalieJeff I'm not saying that Subway is made with turpentine or anything. You're right, it is consistently average. I ate Subway in college a lot (about 8-9 years ago... egad), mostly because it was convenient and I could charge it to my student ID :-) But as I've grown older, I see now the questionable nature of corporations that produce processed foods. What started as a hamburger on a bun has now been transformed into a meat patty made literally from hundreds of different cows, and buns made from a list of chemicals unrecognizable to grown adults. I just want to know at what point was it necessary for a sandwich roll to contain "acetylated tartaric acid esters of mono-and diglycerides"?) That is my real frustration with Subway. That amidst an advertising campaign touting "fresh veggies!!" and "fresh bread!!" and "eat fresh!!"... what they're really serving is bizarro food... and somehow people actually buy into it. Here's an idea... Why can't Subway actually just **!!make fresh bread!!** with flour, water and yeast? Leave out the "sodium stearoyl-2-lactylate" Then their claims of "fresh baked bread" would actually be honest! (And their restaurants would smell a LOT better!!) Just food for thought. Mr. Taster Tue Jun 22 01:25:52 -0700 2004 1642521 0 Mr. Taster 12 1642763 I hear you . Wed Jun 23 22:01:53 -0700 2004 1642530 0 GoalieJeff 10 1642566 A. I'd like to see you provide some figures to back up your claims. How do you know that more $ are spent on Coke ads than beer in general, let alone coffee, tea, milk, etc. B. All the non-Coke beverages you mentioned generally require refigeration or boiling water. I don't know about you, but if I'm hiking in the mountains for example, I'm more likely to bring a can of Coke than a carton of milk. Mmmm, sour milk. Tue Jun 22 11:05:20 -0700 2004 1642514 0 AlanH™ 11 1642632 Keep in mind that the Coca-cola budget is for **television** ads only (as opposed to the full ad budget which would include print, radio, tv, internet). Also this is from an article dated Aug 2000 From http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HWW/is_32_3/ai_66672342 Coca-Cola spent more than $500 million on television advertising last year, Jones says. He predicts that by January, the company's online advertising spending will approach 5 percent of its total advertising budget, up from less than one-half of 1 percent today. That would amount to more than $25 million for Internet advertising, based solely on the television figure. -------------- These statistics refer to TOTAL ad budgets (print, radio, tv, etc.) for ALL liquor. Divide by 3 to average sales for individual beverages (wine, beer, liquor) From http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,1777,00.html Recent advertising expenditures in the United States for beer, wine, and liquor combined ($1.6 billion) totaled over 10 times the amount spent on milk ads ($137.7 million). ----------------- Mr. Taster Tue Jun 22 16:49:18 -0700 2004 1642566 0 Mr. Taster 11 1642641 P.S. If I'm hiking in the mountains, I'm bringing a bottle of water or a camelback! Mr. Taster Tue Jun 22 17:36:15 -0700 2004 1642566 0 Mr. Taster 10 1642575 Mr. Taster, your arguments seem unbelievably naive. There's advertising, and there's consumer demand. How likely is it that it's a one-way street *either* way? I've seen people claim that the only reason restaurants serve huge portions, for example, or that you can only get Budweiser in certain bars, is that that's what the customer wants. That seems just as silly to me as the type of claim you're making. If it makes you sleep better at night to believe that everyone who doesn't denounce Coke or Subway is some kind of brainwashed loser, be my guest. But the fact that people are not joining you in deploring these things up and down this board does not seem to me to indicate anything except that it's a very tired old discussion. Tue Jun 22 11:41:38 -0700 2004 1642514 0 bibi rose 9 1642631 I agree that advertising has a big influence on the success of major mass marketers. But do most people drink a lot of Coke? Or eat regularly at McDonald's? I think not. Most of us may not be influenced by most advertising, whether we buy the advertised products or not, but that is not what is important to the advertisers. These companies can still attain immense success if the each successive advertising campaign is only effective in motivating a small part of the population to regularly buy the product. Anyone who has paid attention to advertising would notice that a lot of clever advertising messages have little to do with the item being promoted. Instead, it is intended to seduce the consumer into associating a product or service or brand name with some pleasantly desirable idea or experience. Consider just two advertising campaigns that achieved legendary success. The classic Pepsi Generation ad campaigns were extremely effective in boosting sales just by associating Pepsi with the image of a youthful, energetic lifestyle. One of McDonald's most successful advertising campaigns had nothing to do with the food. But the idea that "You deserve a break today" was a powerful message when aimed at working parents. Tue Jun 22 16:40:13 -0700 2004 1642496 0 Sam D. 9 1642770 I like water . Wed Jun 23 23:02:22 -0700 2004 1642496 0 GoalieJeff 8 1642586 I didn't say the TV makes Coke taste good. I said the TV makes you buy it. Big difference. Dax took the time to explain it cogently. I'm just a smartass. Tue Jun 22 12:35:59 -0700 2004 1642487 0 neighbor 5 1642503 The Coke thread certainly did not lead to any conclusions along the lines that people drink Coke because they are told to. Quite a few people who posted to that thread talked about liking Coke. I have not noticed any particular smell associated with Subway, so I've no idea what you're talking about. Is it a smell of food going bad, or of something cooking, or what? I used to get a sandwich at Subway now and then, because it was one of a very few places convenient to my office at the time. I think that's a big factor in many cases. A lot of workplaces have only a small handful of takeout options near them and you don't have to like them an awful lot to wind up using them once in a while. I think very few people on a board like this are really unaware of the fact that you can get much better elsewhere. Mon Jun 21 18:58:35 -0700 2004 1642459 0 bibi rose 6 1642505 I think the smell Mr Taster is talking about is mainly bleach mixed in with the other random smells of the sandwich ingredients sitting in open cold prep. I stay away from Subway because of that smell and refuse to eat it even if someone brings some by because of the tasteless soggy mouthfeel of the bread. Mon Jun 21 19:09:47 -0700 2004 1642503 0 Jenny 7 1642507 The smell permeates all the Subway stores (or most), and it's hard to describe. Part of it may be bleach. It's not caused by rotten food, but it's not a good fresh smell either, maybe of veggies past their prime. It doesn't make me want to eat there. Mon Jun 21 19:23:05 -0700 2004 1642505 0 AndieCat 8 1642509 The "Subway odor" is not easily identifiable. It could be bleach, but doesn't particularly smell like it. Just a weird, chemical smell. The real point to be made, however, is this: **Subway Restaurants Do Not Smell Like Food!** Nor do they smell like fresh baked bread, which they promote in their advertisements like crazy. They should at least complete pump some artificial "bread baking" odors into the ventilation system to complete the illusion that they're making "fresh" food! Mr. Taster Mon Jun 21 19:46:59 -0700 2004 1642507 0 Mr. Taster 9 1642513 To me it smells like bread dough that's gone sour--the yeast action has been allowed to go on for to long, or the yeast has died and fermented, or something. The bread tastes okay, though. Mon Jun 21 21:13:06 -0700 2004 1642509 0 Colleen 9 1642527 ....GAaaaACK! Tue Jun 22 00:03:41 -0700 2004 1642509 0 peg 9 1642664 To me, Subway has a strong odor of green bell peppers. Anyway I never eat there, if I want a sandwich I go to a Vietnamese place. Tue Jun 22 23:19:53 -0700 2004 1642509 0 naka 6 1642585 I love Coke and I drink it all the time for that very reason. But I truly believe that people make a vast majority of consumer choices, be they food or politicians, based on instructions the yget from the TV. I didn't read the whole Coke thread and didn't mean to imply this was its conclusion. It was just my answer to the question. Oh, and I loathe Subway bread. Tue Jun 22 12:28:46 -0700 2004 1642503 0 neighbor 3 1642517 That is exactly why I wound up at Subway when I was visiting out of town friends and family last weekend. When I told my friends I was on a diet, they said, "Let's just go to Subway". And since seeing them was more important to me than where we went, that's what we did. I stayed on my diet and we had a good visit. P.S. The turkey and ham wrap is pretty dreadful. I have no idea what that "Atkins-friendly" tortilla thing is made of, but I don't think it's flour. Mon Jun 21 21:49:00 -0700 2004 1642434 0 Zorra 1 1642421 I ate at Subway because my other options were McDonald's and a Bar and Grill. Both of those options were too high-fat for me. I don't drive to work, I ride a bike/take public transportation, so I try to eat within walking distance of work. I used to get lunch from a catering truck: 5 oz of teriyaki chicken, 1.5-2 cups of steamed broccoli/carrots/cabbage. The catering truck people quit after 15 years. My work moved, but there is a Subway close to my new work location. The smell from both locations reminds me of a pizza parlor. It could be, that every day at 11:00, (I almost always go to lunch at 11:00) Subway is cooking their cheese topped bread. I used to (and a couple of co-workers did too) feel/think I was eating healthy at Subway vs. McDonalds. I often eat fast food when traveling by car. I don't like to eat big meals because of lack of restrooms and falling asleep when driving. Subway is often a choice, but so far, the only interest I had in Subway when traveling is their prices vs. the Subway I used to patronize. In conclusion, I don't think Subway is great food, it was convenient, and it was the best I could do. I consider Subway sandwiches to be fuel vs. a meal. Mon Jun 21 13:00:58 -0700 2004 1642414 0 Alan408 2 1642511 I don't understand this rationale for eating less than tasty food. It's so easy to pack a lunch to take with you to work (often requiring no more foresight than ordering or making a little bit more for dinner the night before and throwing it into a Tupperware container) that it seems to me that the only reason to eat food you don't truly enjoy is that you have to tag along with others for social/professional reasons or, as you noted, you're traveling (although it's also not difficult, depending on how long the trip is, to pack a cooler, or non-perishable snacks, or just seek out good eats as many Chowhounds do in advance of a road trip by consulting the regional boards). Mon Jun 21 20:25:03 -0700 2004 1642421 0 Grace 3 1642587 I would agree with most of these points. I bring my lunch almost every day, and I've only eaten fast food 3 or 4 times in the last five years. But every one of those times I was traveling, and if I traveled more, I might eat fast food more. Let's face it - sometimes you don't want to carry anything else with you, so you eat at the airport, or you leave directly from work on a trip and can't supply yourself with a packed lunch, or don't want to drive an extra hour to go to a Chowhound-recommended restaurant instead of the place off the highway. Generally, in those circumstances, I look for the local pizza joint and hope I get lucky. But if not, I probably would choose Subway over McD - at least there's a chance I would encounter a vegetable, and I can avoid deep-frying. Tue Jun 22 12:38:51 -0700 2004 1642511 0 curiousbaker 4 1642589 Oh, absolutely, traveling is different. I think my post acknowledged that (although it also acknowledged that if you're diligent and care enough about tasty chow, you can get it while you're traveling). Granted, I'm one who always keeps a few Clif bars in her purse in case fast food is the only other option, so maybe my distaste for fast food is a little extreme... Tue Jun 22 12:56:25 -0700 2004 1642587 0 Grace 3 1642769 No , it's not all that easy to simply pack a tasty lunch to take to work . For some people this is an easy and cheap option , but for the rest of us overworked and underpaid and short about 15 hours a week people , it just isn't a viable option to devote the shopping and prep time , extra money at the farmers market , grocery store , deli/meat market , bakery and so forth . You actually think that the big corporate chains don't spend millions to ensure that it's a little cheaper and a lot easier to just pop into Subway for a sandwich than make it yourself ? In an ideal world , I'd come home and cook myself lunch every day , and be home at 3:30 or 4:00 to start dinner . Sadly I do not live in this ideal world , my boy is two , my wife and I work at least 45 hours every week , and buying lunch out is a fact . Convenience matters . I don't really crave McDonalds save one or two times a year , and like I said earlier , Subway is merely adequate . Like another post said , it's fuel , not food . Believe me if I could somehow eat , I dunno , say seared toro tuna and steamed asparagus with fresh butter every day , I would . Maybe wild strawberries on the side ? Mmm . Anyway , fast food is a byproduct of our collective culture . It took dramatic changes in the 40's and 50's ( and earlier - refridgeration , running water , highways , etc. ) to get us to this culinary point . It will take similar dramatic changes to swing us back to the eating habits that had served us fairly well for centuries . Personally , I believe that the changes are sadly irreversible . Once something becomes cheap and widely available , we generally don't like to give it up . It usually takes a disaster or widespread famine . Let's hope it doesn't come to all that to make us ease up on fast food . We are the New Rome . If you know anything about history , you should be worried . Wed Jun 23 22:52:50 -0700 2004 1642511 0 GoalieJeff 4 1642789 You eat something for dinner, right? All you have to do is pack up the leftovers. Or throw together a slab of cheese, some crackers and fruit. How long does it take to make a sandwich? I'm not talking about tuna with fresh asparagus and wild strawberries. If all you want to do is raise the bar above Subway, it doesn't take much effort. I don't have a family, but I do work at least 12 hours a weekday (and sometimes more on the weekends), and I still manage to pack both breakfast and lunch to take into work. And I'm no Martha Stewart. Before I go to bed I take five minutes to put some muelsi and milk in a Thermos and put some soup in a Tupperware container. (Sorry for all these trademarks.) That's it. It takes less time out of my day than the trip to Subway would, and it's less expensive than a Subway sandwich. I'm a chowhound, and taste matters to me. Food is more than fuel. Subway is not adequate, and anyway, I don't want adequate. Thu Jun 24 09:23:23 -0700 2004 1642769 0 Grace 5 1642810 Amen, Grace! I have the same basic arguement about "convenience" cooking. For better or worse, I refuse to buy food "kits" or frozen meals or heat and serve anything. However, my sister-in-law's family subsists on that stuff. It always amazes me that if she or her husband were willing to invest 10-15 more minutes tops, they could sit down to a homecooked meal that's far less nutritionally bankrupt and less expensive. Even if they wanted to replicate their favorite meal - Chicken Voila, stratight from the freezer section - it would be so much better for them nutritionally. Excellent point on your post. Thu Jun 24 11:43:13 -0700 2004 1642789 0 MkeLaurie 1 1642430 Also, they have somehow managed to drain every last bit of flavor out of all of their vegetables. Truly perplexing. Mon Jun 21 13:31:00 -0700 2004 1642414 0 BGrey 2 1642444 Mass produced vegetables always sacrifice flavor for taste and quality. That's why Farmers Markets always produce produce that tastes so much better vs. the supermarket, whose only concern is, for example, big shiny apples that look good in a pile... but that taste bland like styrofoam, with the texture of soft rotting wood. How strange is it that flavor isn't what sells supermarket food? Mr. Taster Mon Jun 21 14:16:11 -0700 2004 1642430 0 Mr. Taster 3 1642679 Humans have an odd habit of buying food with their eyes, rather than with nose or mouth. As for Subway, I too, have been seriously disappointed with the lack of flavor in their sandwiches. I seem to remember that Subway had much better taste, freshness and quality back when the chain first opened, or maybe my tastebuds just grew up. Wed Jun 23 09:30:15 -0700 2004 1642444 0 sixozpatty 1 1642440 I have always wondered what the awful smell is, I guess it has something to do with the bread. The last time I ate at subway I because violently ill & have not returned in over a year. That "subway smell" makes me more nauseous now than ever. It blows my mind that subway continues to proliferate, they keep opening up new shops in my neighborhood. On every other block there is either a subway or quiznos. Mon Jun 21 14:07:09 -0700 2004 1642414 0 Jason B. 1 1642469 I couldn't agree with you more. What is up with that smell? I absolutely love sandwiches and as a single person, I eat out a lot. There's a Subway just a few blocks from where I live and I can't remember the last time I was in there. I've tried most of the cold sandwich combinations and they all taste the same. How can that be? I'm afraid to try the hot sandwiches. Mon Jun 21 15:54:36 -0700 2004 1642414 0 Scagnetti 2 1642477 I've tried a few of the hot sandwiches--not worth the bother or the expense. The ones with cold cuts are okay, but as you say, they all taste the same. Mon Jun 21 16:30:21 -0700 2004 1642469 0 Colleen