HOME > Chowhound > Greater Boston Area >


b.not.so.good: b.good corrects its nutritional information

Just wanted to point out that b.good has adjusted some of the nutritional information on its website.

Many items have stayed the same, such as the hamburgers, four out of five of which are still under 500 calories. But some items, notably the turkey burgers and the sides, have changed quite a bit. A Carolina BBQ turkey burger, for example, is now listed as having 477 calories and 13g of fat; that's more calories than a McDonald's quarter pounder, and more fat than a McDonald's cheeseburger. For those counting calories, perhaps the most upsetting of all are the fries, which have leapt to 285 calories per order, more than a small fries at McDonald's (admittedly b.good's are vastly lower in fat).

As someone who leads a secret double life of health nut by day, chowhound by night, I liked b.good as a lunchtime compromise, a reasonably satisfying way to save up my daily calorie allotment for a delicious dinner. I viewed it as the food equivalent of a Diet Coke, something that was modeled after the real thing, didn't taste quite as good, but wasn't a bad way of fooling my brain into accepting a lower-calorie choice. But if a b.good turkey burger and fries are going to clock in at nearly 800 calories and cost nearly twice as much as a fast food combo, what's the point?

I never viewed b.good as a legitimate chow destination, but after the nutritional revision, I'm having trouble viewing it as much of anything other than another overpriced, unsatisfying lunch option in the Back Bay.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. Do you know if changed recipes account for the changed nutritional information, or was the old info just wrong and you've been eating more than you thought all along?

    5 Replies
    1. re: DavisSquare

      Nearly positive it's the latter. I ate there last week and everything tasted the same as always.

      1. re: DavisSquare

        their initial information posted was based on estimates. Once they finally got the cash to send it out for real data they discovered that some items (most notably the fries) have more calories while other items have less calories.

        1. re: DavisSquare

          They recently had everything on the menu tested more thoroughly at a lab for nutritional content. It was in their newsletter (I think). I still like it, at least it's not full o' chemicals.

            1. re: tamerlanenj

              wellll... I know they grind their own meat, so I guess I'm just making the assumption that they're not injecting it full of stuff before they do so. I'll take it over ABP any day.

        2. I always suspected. I was never impressed by their "nutritious" claims anyhow, as I said many many times.

          4 Replies
          1. re: tamerlanenj

            It's a simple fact of life.... fries are never good for you and never low in calories.

            1. re: heWho

              Well, that depends on what your are looking for. In a balanced diet there really aren't bad food except straight sugar. Potatoes are high in many nutrients such as niacin. Everything in moderation.

              1. re: Girl Friday

                I'm with you, girl. That said, I never really liked their fries because they tasted so healthy. If you're going to have a fry, go for the deep fried, salted variety not some reduced fat alternative. Life is short so live a little!

            2. Who cares, their food is gross anyway. I have tried to eat there four or five times and always left a bunch of food on my plate and left feeling very unsatisfied. Too much spice in stuff, and not enough deliciousness. So now it apparently tastes crappy plus it's not even good for you. Now I have no reason to go there. Thanks for the info :)

              1. Kudos for the report.

                1. I never liked their burgers. They taste really watery -- almost like they're steamed -- to me. I don't understand why it's always so crowded. Across the street from the Cambridge b.good's is Flat Patty's. Their burger is really tasty but not always consistent. Good special sauce.

                  1. At least they post nutritional info, which is a good thing. Other than fast food chains it would be great if all restaurants post the info. It's tough to eat out without this info while on a certain diet. I don't mind if there's high carbs or even a bit of fat in the diet, as long as I have the info to tally into my daily allotment and can thus plan appropriately for my other meals throughout the day.

                    3 Replies
                    1. re: Pcjr

                      I have to disagree that all restaurants should have to post this information. I, too, like it when chains post the data, but I would not want to burden independent restaurants with having to figure this information out for every dish. And sometimes you just don't want to know. For example, I know full well that foie gras isn't good for me. I don't want the raw data staring me in the face when I'm considering whether or not to order some. Sometimes we dine out precisely so that we can taste something comforting and, in many cases, less-than-healthy. Having the information there all the time would totally destroy the experience.

                      1. re: Pcjr

                        It's an interesting topic of conversation but there is no way small, independently owned restaurants could afford to analyze and record the nutritional information of every dish that they server. I shudder to think of how that would slow down the creativity particularly at places that change their menu's daily. I also assume the cost is substantial.

                        1. re: Pcjr

                          I like that they serve reasonably sized burgers (many restaurants seem to offer only 8 oz. burgers). The real diet trap is the shakes - even made with frozen yogurt they're very high in calories.

                          It's very hard for non-chain restaurants (especially the ones with frequently-changing menus) to come up with accurate calorie info. Sometimes you just have to guesstimate.

                          New York requires all chain restaurants over a certain size to have calorie info on their menus. Most of the time, it's completely useless because they can give you a range (for example, Au Bon Pain in New York provided a calorie range for the soup section of the menu - guessing which soup is 300 calories and which soup is 600 is left as an exercise for the reader). I was tracking my calorie intake pretty carefully at the time, and I found it much less helpful than the info that's available online.

                        2. Hi folks,

                          Please pardon the interruption, but we'd ask that you keep this discussion focused on chow in the Boston area, rather than chow in other areas or nutrition in general.

                          If you'd like to have a discussion on nutrition or nutritional information, you'd be welcome to do so over on the General Chowhounding Topics or Not About Food boards, depending on the topic.

                          Thanks! And as you were.