HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >

so "Men's Health" magazine picks the 10 Best and Worst Restaurants.

Firegoat Oct 16, 2011 08:31 AM

And emails them to me. Guess which one is number one as the best?
Grade: A
Congrats to Subway for being the first chain to ever receive an A on the Eat This, Not That! Restaurant Report Card. This year, Subway announced a limited-time plan to carry avocado, and all the heart-healthy fats found within, in every one of its 24,200 U.S. stores. According to the company, roughly half the stores decided to keep it on the menu once the short-term offer was over. That's huge, but not nearly as huge as the chain’s other initiative. This year, Subway cut sodium by 15 percent in its regular sandwiches and 28 percent in its Fresh Fit sandwiches. If Subway weren't already America's healthiest restaurant chain, it certainly is now

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. Firegoat RE: Firegoat Oct 16, 2011 08:32 AM

    and the runner up?
    Grade: A-
    Red Lobster is a nutritional superstar compared to the other sit-down restaurant chains. The daily cast of rotating fish is the centerpiece of a menu long on low-calorie, high-protein entrees and reasonable sides. The chain might even earn an A next year if it manages to put down the salt shaker.

    1. Terrie H. RE: Firegoat Oct 16, 2011 08:38 AM

      Just a guess, but advertising dollars greatly influenced this article.

      3 Replies
      1. re: Terrie H.
        Firegoat RE: Terrie H. Oct 16, 2011 08:47 AM

        one has to wonder......

        1. re: Terrie H.
          viperlush RE: Terrie H. Oct 18, 2011 10:15 AM

          It's from that book series "Eat this, Not that!". By best they mean healthiest option. Focuses mainly on fast food, chains, and food court options.


          1. re: Terrie H.
            paulj RE: Terrie H. Oct 20, 2011 10:23 AM

            Yes, advertising for other Rodale publications.

          2. Firegoat RE: Firegoat Oct 16, 2011 08:53 AM

            See them all here

            1. C. Hamster RE: Firegoat Oct 18, 2011 07:23 AM

              Good Lord ...

              1. s
                Shazam RE: Firegoat Oct 18, 2011 08:15 AM

                The list is for people that concerned about calorie intake.

                1. Kat RE: Firegoat Oct 18, 2011 04:33 PM


                  1. goodhealthgourmet RE: Firegoat Oct 18, 2011 05:27 PM

                    just to clarify for those who missed the "Eat This, Not That" connection, this list ranks the restaurants based on the *nutritional content* and healthfulness of their menu offerings...it's got nothing to do with taste or Chow-worthiness ;)

                    6 Replies
                    1. re: goodhealthgourmet
                      mattstolz RE: goodhealthgourmet Oct 18, 2011 07:52 PM

                      wait.... you mean subway isnt the most chow-worthy resto in the country???

                      1. re: mattstolz
                        goodhealthgourmet RE: mattstolz Oct 19, 2011 06:07 AM

                        shocking, i know :) i think it's fair to assume that most of us have, at some point, misinterpreted a post when we've only glanced at the title and given the thread a cursory read...so before we ended up with a bunch of incredulous Chowhounds ranting about how ridiculous the whole thing is, figured i'd set the record straight.

                      2. re: goodhealthgourmet
                        chowser RE: goodhealthgourmet Oct 19, 2011 04:22 PM

                        This list might be better suited for the "Not about Food" board, along with anything by Hungry Girl.;-)

                        1. re: chowser
                          goodhealthgourmet RE: chowser Oct 19, 2011 05:30 PM

                          hahaha! just wait, one of these days Hungry Girl will publish a "cookbook" with 101 recipes that use Fiber One and Fat Free Cool Whip...and Amazon will offer a bundle discount if you purchase it with one of the Eat This, Not That books ;)

                          1. re: goodhealthgourmet
                            HillJ RE: goodhealthgourmet Oct 19, 2011 05:34 PM


                            this title already rounds out the A-bundle....ugh.

                            1. re: goodhealthgourmet
                              rockandroller1 RE: goodhealthgourmet Oct 20, 2011 10:54 AM


                        2. m
                          mahalan RE: Firegoat Oct 19, 2011 06:16 AM

                          And we'd want to take restaurant recommendations from a 26 year old with a journalism degree, why?

                          2 Replies
                          1. re: mahalan
                            mattstolz RE: mahalan Oct 19, 2011 06:52 AM

                            depends on your goals. that 26 year old with a journalism degree probably maintains a 6 pack and 300lb+ bench year round, but it is very unlikely that he eats as well as most of us CHers do.

                            the trick is to get it where you can have the best of both worlds ;)

                            1. re: mahalan
                              paulj RE: mahalan Oct 20, 2011 10:19 AM

                              Are you talking about the author of the Mens Health article, or the book that was the source? The book is a Rodale publication. Rodale has been publishing magazines like Prevention for years. There is recent thread about a study they released about the superiority of organic farming (surprise, surprise!).

                              Men's Health is also a Rodale publication (there's also a Women's Health).

                            2. f
                              FEF RE: Firegoat Oct 20, 2011 02:52 PM

                              I think they divided their ratings into healthy and perhaps popular. I did see on Yahoo! a restaurant list that showed The Cheesecake Factory as the most popular restaurant in the US. But they always give them low marks for healthy options.

                              The online version of Men's Health did post a very interesting article on soy:


                              1. EWSflash RE: Firegoat Oct 20, 2011 08:59 PM

                                This whole post is kind of depressing, especially in terms of where to go in the future...

                                9 Replies
                                1. re: EWSflash
                                  paulj RE: EWSflash Oct 20, 2011 09:08 PM


                                  1. re: paulj
                                    EWSflash RE: paulj Oct 22, 2011 12:47 PM

                                    I guess because I don't think of Subway as the kind of place that they'd list in Eat This Not That. But if Jarod lost all that weight eating at Subway and they're putting heart-healthy fats in their menu, good for them.

                                    1. re: EWSflash
                                      paulj RE: EWSflash Oct 22, 2011 01:07 PM

                                      Are there better candidates if the restrictions are:
                                      - limit fat, especially saturated kinds
                                      - limit salt
                                      - low cal, high protein items (is this truly healthier?)
                                      - accessible to 60% of Americans
                                      - (optional - fast)

                                      other 'good' ones are Red Lobster, Chickafil (grilled chicken), starbucks (bistro boxes)

                                      1. re: paulj
                                        chowser RE: paulj Oct 22, 2011 01:27 PM

                                        If it must be accessible to 60% of Americans then it must be a chain. There are quite a few great local restaurants in my area that fit your criteria but are not accessible to most of the country. If that's the case, then the list is the best and worst chains in America.

                                        1. re: chowser
                                          mattstolz RE: chowser Oct 22, 2011 01:39 PM

                                          i think since mens health is a nationally circulated (and popular) magazine, it would be very hard to justify them using only locally-available (or at least not widely available) foods in these lists. hard to suggest to millions of readers around the country that (for example) the Seattle fish market is the only place to eat fish.

                                          1. re: mattstolz
                                            chowser RE: mattstolz Oct 22, 2011 01:46 PM

                                            All magazines do lists like that, though--when they list "best" restaurants, they don't mean accessible to all. When Food & Wine has a best restaurant list, I'm not expecting chains only. The least they could do is mention that looking for non-chains is an option for best food choice.

                                            1. re: chowser
                                              mattstolz RE: chowser Oct 22, 2011 06:01 PM

                                              Food and Wine knows its readers will travel for the best restaurant that they are talking about though, because the people are specifically reading food and wine to read about food. very rarely is a Men's Health reader there specifically for the food.

                                              for the common health nut, food is viewed as either 1) a major hurdle, evil, tempting thing to be avoided if possible 2) essential fuel not to be enjoyed. hence i think the fact that theyre talking specifically about chains is very appropriate for the mens health reader. especially because chances are if a MH reader is actually gonna travel for food, that meal is more than likely going to be a "cheat meal" and they will not be sticking to a diet anyways.

                                              not saying i support these restos are the best healthy restos in the country, or even the best healthy CHAINS in the country, but i do think it is appropriate given the audience.

                                              1. re: mattstolz
                                                chowser RE: mattstolz Oct 23, 2011 11:02 AM

                                                " i do think it is appropriate given the audience."

                                                Probably. Even the workouts and health tips in it are dumbed down to the audience. It's still a step up from the Hungry Girl type hints given in most womens "health and fitness" magazines.

                                                Maybe it should be titled "If you must fill your stomach, don't care about the taste and only have chains to choose from, this is where you should go." Far more accurate than "Best and Worst Restaurants in the US."

                                                1. re: chowser
                                                  mattstolz RE: chowser Oct 23, 2011 05:49 PM

                                                  ha! so true @ that whole post.

                                                  especially from the point of view of a competitive bodybuilder... their tips are so dumbed down to make it easy for beginners that its just sad

                                2. a
                                  acgold7 RE: Firegoat Oct 23, 2011 12:33 PM

                                  Men's Health Magazine talking about restaurants is like Paula Deen talking about Health Clubs. This magazine exists solely to promote the other Rodale Press magazines.

                                  Show Hidden Posts