Not good for low-carb/keto eaters. Soy has carbs, chicken doesn't.
There has been some discussion regarding subway and carbs in the chicken, because their nutrition shows far fewer than some app trackers do. If it's 50%, that's a serious level of carbs, and makes Subway not an option.
I also wonder where the DNA ends up when the soy protein is extracted. DNA is naturally bound to proteins, amnd I don't know if that bond is broken in the extraction process. If it isn't, the concentration of DNA in soy protein would be much higher than in soy beans, so there is a real possibility that 1% soy protein in the patty equates to 50% soy DNA in the whole DNA.
That also means the title overstates the case. It can only confidently make a statement about the fraction of chicken DNA, and adding the weasel word "may" to an unsound conclusion makes it unscientific in my opinion.
Subway has nutritional information on line. They claim that a regular chicken sandwich has 45g carbs so if that's false advertising I think their customers could have solid grounds for a class-action lawsuit.
Me too. But as for Subway, I find so little actual meat (and/or cheese) in any of their sandwiches, I never go there even though I'm bombarded with coupons from them.
I order the burger as is, because I don't want to annoy the waiter or the cook, or me. I also don't eat the lettuce or the pickle, if they happen to come with. I'm not going to go down the list of what I will or won't accept for a burger and a 30 minute relationship.
That you are incredibly wasteful if you throw away 50% of the calories you buy. Go to a place that sells a naked burger without lettuce if that's what you want.
It's not trying again if you keep changing the point.
Is your problem that I used calories as a way to measure the value of the food?
Should I have used price? That's not valid in my opinion. Wasting a spoonful of expensive caviar is not as bad as wasting 10 kg of rice. And I have no problem people wasting their money.
I just don't get your point. Is there a way to look at this situation (deliberately ordering something you know your gonna throw away to not inconvenient the staff) and not consider it wasteful?
PS: If your salad's calories is 90% from oil, you're using too much oil.
> Is there a way to look at this situation (deliberately ordering something you know your gonna throw away to not inconvenient the staff) and not consider it wasteful?
Obviously, the OP who explained that they do it that way doesn't see it as wasteful. Neither do I.
The cost of a hamburger is about 1/3 cost of ingredients and 2/3 everything else, including labor to serve it to you. Of the ingredients, it's the beef, then the tomato, lettuce, etc, and the bun is basically free.
Most restaurants that serve hamburgers have an ordering system that is streamlined for the kind of burgers people order. By the way, a burger is a kind of sandwich and by definition includes the bun. Try ordering a burger with no bun at a McDonald's and see how much extra time it takes, and what kind of looks you get from the people serving you and the people in line behind you.
If you think that throwing away 100 calories and $0.05 worth of bread is wasteful, it's only because you're ignoring the time and energy of the people that are being saved.
I think nutritional waste is worse than wasting money, you obviously think the opposite. I also think it's worse to order something to throw it away deliberately.
I guess the old saying "agree to disagree" applies.
If you set a dollar bill on fire that's wasting money.
If you throw away a dollar's worth of rice, for no reason, that's about the same.
However, there are plenty of ways to donate the dollar and not so many ways to usefully donate the rice, so yes, wasting the money is worse, but that's not really what I am getting at here.
What we're talking about is whether you will inconvenience others to save some trivial amount of food. My position is that saving a hamburger bun is not worth making someone's day worse who works in a hamburger shop. The money is just one way of measuring it.
>>> If you set a dollar bill on fire that's wasting money.
As I said, I don't care about wasting money. Do so as you wish.
>>> If you throw away a dollar's worth of rice, for no reason, that's about the same.
Yeah, economically speaking. But you are literally wasting more food in this case, and for no good reason other than people literally having to do their job.
>>> However, there are plenty of ways to donate the dollar and not so many ways to usefully donate the rice
You are not donating anything in this conversation! It's not like he's donating the bun to anyone. You are comparing wasting a bun vs wasting rice. It's still a waste, and one is worse than the other, for the same price. You don't feel that wasting 100g of kobe beef is less worse than wasting 100 kg of generic beef?
>>> My position is that saving a hamburger bun is not worth making someone's day worse who works in a hamburger shop.
They literally have to do less work.
Finally, what is your point?!?! That is ok to waste food intentionally? Seriously?! Even if it's a trivial amount in money, you realise it adds up, right? It's a real problem, and it's not a financial problem. Are you just being a contrarian for no good reason? Is "agree to disagree" not good enough for you?
That's not true. You'll go out of ketosis if you eat a sandwich. Especially one as huge as a Subway roll. A six inch has 37 grams of carbs in the bread alone, and most low carbers stick to under 20 per day.
Most food labeling in the US is done this way. Gross measures (total volume, weight, etc) are in imperial while the nutrition facts are in metric. So milk will say, serving size 12 Oz, protein XX g.
> Most food labeling in the US is done this way. Gross measures (total volume, weight, etc) are in imperial while the nutrition facts are in metric. So milk will say, serving size 12 Oz, protein XX g.
Both net contents and serving size include metric measures.
"Food labels printed must show the net contents in both metric (grams, kilograms, milliliters, liters) and U.S. Customary System (ounces, pounds, fluid ounces) terms." [0]
"The serving size is expressed as a common household measure followed by the equivalent metric quantity in parenthesis." [1]
Except the metric serving sizes are very inconvenient unless you like to do long division in your head.
For example, I have two yogurts, one has 18g carbs per 170g serving, the other has 34 g per 227g serving. Quick, how much more carbs would I have if I ate the same amount?
It's a lot easier to tell if you know one is 6oz and the other is 8oz, or if the servings were designed in metric sizes (e.g. 150g and 200g).
Quick, how much of that tub of yoghurt is a serving? Are you supposed to eat the whole packet of crisps at once or just some of them because it's a "family pack"? The per-serving information is extremely crude and only good for a rough glance. If you want to be more precise, use the per-100g values or whatever they use in the US.
Actually they're very useful if you're weighing your food with a scale. A good food scale lets you work in both metric and imperial units, and usually provides mass in grams.
Most people in the US measure food in ounces, but carbs are almost always listed in grams. It's common enough that I didn't even think about it when I wrote it.
I'm on a diet at the moment, tracking everything I eat. Someone who asked me how the diet was going told me last weekend "rodents eat grams. Humans eat ounces." I was left utterly speechless.
Some products just has it by tradition, even in the most metric parts of the world like Scandinavia we still do wheel sizes and screen sizes in inches. It's a bit weird but I assume everyone buys camera lenses in mm too out of tradition.
I was really surprised when I went to Australia and found tv's sold with centimeter diagonals.
Oz weights on steaks is not used outside North America though I'm quite sure.
Interesting. In UAE, it's 6/12 even though the country is 100% metric. Actually, it's not weird at all in my experience, because: 1) you get used to it, and 2) you can "see" the sub in front of you, so it doesn't need any conversion or anything.
'As part of the settlement, Subway agreed to institute practices for at least four years to ensure its bread is at least 12 inches long. The judge approved $520,000 in attorney fees and $500 for each of the 10 individuals who were representatives of the class, but no monetary claims were awarded to potential members of the class.
"It was difficult to prove monetary damages, because everybody ate the evidence," said Thomas Zimmerman, who was co-lead attorney for the class. Zimmerman said the attorney fees are being split among 10 law firms.'
I think that's fair in a case like this. The lawyers are the ones who got Subway to change their practices. The 10 individuals wouldn't have been anyone who was specially hurt compared to the millions of other customers, just whoever bothered to spend the time signing up.
I sure wouldn't. His science is a joke. Note that none of the "ten steps" quotes a single reference. (Frankly, I stopped reading at "digestive cancers")
Subway prides themselves on having low or no fat in sandwiches as a great way to lose weight. The catch is that the carbs are there. ie, bread. Sneaky.
Yea I switched to a keto diet a few years back and it's made a world of difference. Bread is really terrible for you, especially in the quantities we eat in the western world.
A subway sandwich is terrible for you with its bread to filling ratio, and now we see their chicken salads may not be as healthy as we thought as well.
I can't deny that the awful bread has the majority of the market in Britain -- [0] has a very good overview -- but traditional English bread exists and should be much more appealing to you, for example these [1]. Naturally, it's closer to French than Germany style -- historically, there's much more French influence on at least English food.
Most American bread is awful, but I disagree that a really open crumb is an abomination. A very crusty, tangy open-crumbed sourdough is practically heaven.
That said, I'd love to find a decent schwarzbrot near Belmont..
To give American grocery store sliced white bread some texture, just toast it!
Still, essentially American bread is just bread, that is, made almost entirely just from flour, water, yeast, and salt. Maybe the main difference is that with machines the dough is kneaded a lot and, then, permitted to rise (have the yeast grow) a lot. Commonly can also get wheat bread that has some whole wheat flour and typically is not quite so soft on the inside.
One reason for white flour instead of whole wheat flour is that white flour keeps and whole wheat flour, with the wheat germ and its oil, will go rancid. IIRC early on, white flour was considered a luxury item because it was easier and cheaper just to grind whole wheat. Recently there are claims that whole wheat is better nutritionally, e.g., has more fiber, whatever the heck that is, is less of a shock to blood sugar, and has some nutrients missing from white flour.
Carbs are like Lego blocks. The singular blocks are called "sugars" and include things such as fructose (fruit sugar) and blood sugar.
When fructose or glucose enter the digestive system, they are readily processed and enter the bloodstream as glucose. Here, cells take up as much glucose as they can, which can turn into a problem if decades-long oversaturation continues unabated. The only way cells can block glucose from entering is by becoming resistant to a key that unlocks the entryway, insulin. Thus, diabetes develops.
In any case, carbs can become extremely long chains, forming things such as chitin, the sturdy outer carapace of insects. If you ever failed to squash a cockroach, now you know why.
A type of these complex sugars aka polysaccharids is called "fiber". Again, this includes things such as cellulose, which you can see if you tear apart a piece of paper, or lignine, which are the strands seen when you break a branch off of a tree.
We can't fully digest this fiber, but there are herbivores and especially ruminants who can. For example, cows have a special digestive system consisting of several stomachs, where they chew some plants, digest them, chew them again, digest some more and so on.
Now for why that's important for humans. In our digestive system, the dietary fiber becomes partially digested, turning into a soft gel that travels down our 30-foot digestive tract and helps push things along. To date, the entirety of our medicine hasn't created a medication that cleans the digestive system with same efficiency as dietary fiber. Cats and dogs have a relatively simple digestive tract; they can live off of turned salami but we can't.
Also, dietary fiber swells up, giving you a feeling of fullness and slowing down the rate of absorption of sugars. You see, now the digestion actually has to work to extract food, which reduces the onslaught of sugar into the bloodstream.
The problem is that dietary fiber makes the food harder to cook, chew and digest. And boy, do food companies hate that. Dietary fiber reduces the throughput of customers. Why would a fast food company want you to eat a hamburger for 30 minutes? They want you chewing that badboy in 2 minutes, out the door and then back right away, since food without dietary fiber does not satiate. Do you see the situation?
Yup, in a convenience store can see lots of evidence of the five main food groups -- sugar, fat, caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine! :-) Can see a lot of the first three at fast food restaurants! Or at a donut shop, 24 x 7, can see sugar, caffeine, and fat.
So, right: Late at night, a dozen glazed donuts and a gallon of strong coffee with a lot of sugar and real cream will keep one awake a few more hours!
That case of pig out gives a lot of instant energy that will likely pay for later: Get fat; develop some insulin immunity; raise blood pressure. So, the body pumps out too much insulin; the blood sugar is all burned off; and now the insulin has the blood sugar too low; the person feels weak or sleepy and returns for some more coffee and donuts!
Better to get off that addiction to fat, sugar, and caffeine. Maybe wheat bread is better for this than the usual US white bread.
Thanks for the clear definition, description, and use of fiber.
Gee, for all the insults I've done to my 30' feet of intestines over the years, I just got back the results of a blood test of my stool sample: "Normal". So, apparently so far I've avoided colon cancer! Supposedly the fiber and its actions can help avoid colon cancer.
>When fructose or glucose enter the digestive system, they are readily processed and enter the bloodstream as glucose. Here, cells take up as much glucose as they can
An excellent reason to have as much muscle as possibile so all these delicious carbs go into making your muscles look nice and full. Mmmm I love carbs. I also hate it when people try and make carbs look evil, it's so necessary for me. My daily maintenance calories is 2700. Anything less than that and I'm losing weight. Without carbs I'd look flat and have to eat that all from solid food :(
Unless you have little muscle. Then you should probably avoid carbs.
Carbs do have a purpose, of course. They are just a source of energy and by themselves completely neutral. There are only two problems with them: the way we eat them and the way our body uses them.
In nature, carbs are never found isolated. They always come with dietary fiber and in varying degrees of complexity. But in processed food, carbs are artificially designed to be as simple as possible.
From bread and pastry to candy and fruit, the food we eat has been scientifically engineered to contain the lowest common denominator. Food companies see nothing wrong with this: they want every Fig Newton to be the exact same, but this ultimately means depriving us of variety of tastes and nutrients that naturally should exist in food. This hurts us in the long run tremendously.
Even the fruit we eat and which is arguably the source of healthiest carbs we can find has no resemblance to what is found in nature. Bananas are a fine example of this.
The variety of bananas commercially available in the world has been reduced to a single variety: Cavendish. From Ecuador to Estonia, you can walk into any store and find the exact same bananas, right down to shape, size and color.
If you open those bananas up and take a bite, you will notice they have no seeds. How do they reproduce then? They don't: they are sterile, genetically engineered clones of one another. There are enormous banana plantations all around the world, and they are all growing the exact same clone of the exact same plant.
Have you ever heard of a term "banana republic" and chuckled a bit? The term has a grave history, as it denotes a country where the banana cartel (such a thing does exist) established a puppet government and shifted the entire economy towards a single commodity: bananas. But, as it turns out, this is completely unsustainable in the long run.
The problem with growing genetic clones of any plant on a global scale is that an ecosystem is only as healthy as it is diverse. Once you create uniformity for the sake of marketability, the entire structure is vulnerable to a single agent of catastrophic failure. In this case, the culprit has a perfectly fitting ominous name: Fusarium oxysporum aka Tropical Race 4.
The description of this fungus reads like the description of the Terminator: it is indestructible, has no mercy and never stops. When this fungus that's been honing its banana-slaying skills for millennia reaches the sterile, cloned Cavendish plantations, the effect is utterly devastating. Every single plant gets infected, wilts and then the fungus lies in wait in the soil for decades, rendering it toxic to bananas. For now, the majority of banana plantations are safe while customers remain blissfully unaware of the entire fracas.
Now to consider carbs as a source of energy. Carbs are like rocket fuel for the body. But, if they are taken into the body but aren't actually used, they start causing problems.
I do want to point out the abundance of fat in the modern diet. It is needed in minute quantities in our diet, and yet we're swimming in it. Ideal diet for a bodybuilder or an athlete would have 50% carbs, 45% protein and 5% or less fat.
This is almost right, but still manages to be dangerously wrong.
Frustose and glucose are very different, one never gets converted to the other. All cells can and will take up and metabolize glucose, but only the liver can import and metabolize fructose. Metabolically, fructose does not behave like a carbohydrate, but like alcohol.
Insulin affects mostly fat, muscle and liver cells. They react by storing the excess glucose, which they do harmlessly. Excess glucose does not cause insulin tolerance; fructose seems to do that, thought I don't remember the whole mechanism.
Neither chitin nor lignin are carbohydrates, lignin isn't even chemically related. Even ruminants can't digest lignin, only a few funghi can do that.
At any rate, the bottom line is that frustose is a problem, glucose isn't, and lumping both under "carbs" confuses matters. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM for lots of details. (But don't take Dr. Lustig's words at face value---check other sources. Most of it is uncontroversial.)
I appreciate your input on the matter. You know as well as I do the complexity of dietary matters. You also know that there is a worrying dearth of first-hand information regarding diet. We mostly rely on aggregate studies that lump individuals together and try to answer extremely complex questions. What we find raises new questions without answering the old ones.
Now, as soon as you mentioned "fructose" and "alcohol" in the same sentence, I thought about a Youtube video I watched a while back. In that video, an energetic professor had a rapid-fire exposition of how fructose is toxic and affects the liver like alcohol, how cholesterol indicates risk of heart disease and that people are in danger because they have no idea what they're eating or how it affects them.
I scroll down through your comment and see a familiar name "Dr. Lustig". Hey, that's the name of the guy in the video I watched! Isn't that a coincidence? Don't you find it disconcerting that we both use a singular source of information, simply because there is no other?
I'm not saying Dr. Lustig is lying; I actually trust what he's saying, I think he has good intentions but our knowledge of diet is so limited, he's like a guy looking through a pinhole and trying to convey to us the wondrous sights he sees.
Now, that brings me back to my original comment. I've been a professional writer for 4 years now. I quickly discovered what I call "Writer's dilemma". In theory, there is a perfect piece for every occasion, the only problem is it takes an infinite amount of time to write it. So, I have to decide on where to cut corners.
No matter what I write, someone will disagree with it. No matter how I write it, there will be those who don't understand what I said. In that case, I can only make a bona fide effort to convey the information while making a good story. But simply quoting someone else doesn't make a good story. In fact, it's called plagiarism and can result in my client's AdSense account getting suspended.
Also, chitin is a derivative of glucose. I checked that in 5 seconds on Wikipedia, it's the very first sentence. So, in trying to correct me, you also got at least one of your facts wrong. But I wrote a good story.
Typically it has a significant amount of sugar (like, considerably more sugar than salt, 1 gram or more per slice).
Also lots of dough conditioners which are added for various reasons.
I know I've eaten commercial bread with enough lactylate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactylate) in it to give me some pretty awful gastrointestinal symptoms. My test wasn't blinded, but the effect was dramatic enough. At the moment I don't recall if it was Sodium stearoyl lactylate or Calcium stearoyl lactylate.
Fiber is simple, it's any carbohydrate that humans can't digest.
> Typically it has a significant amount of sugar (like, considerably more sugar than salt, 1 gram or more per slice).
Contrary to graycat's ingredient list, sugar is a key ingredient of nearly every leavened bread recipe. About 40g/loaf is the typical amount (about three tablespoons). I would be very surprised if you could find a bread recipe that doesn't have about that much sugar, unless it is specifically trying to work around sugar.
Are we discussing added sugar? Traditional English bread doesn't include much sugar, if any. (By "traditional", I mean the bread my mum made by hand at home, or purchased from the local bakery. Most supermarkets don't sell it.) Modern recipes add sugar to increase shelf life.
I bake bread at home (in Britain, using a standard recipe). I use a single teaspoon of sugar to feed the yeast before mixing it in; so most is consumed by the yeast.
The biggest taste difference is if you forget the salt, and then varying the type of flour e,g. mixing in rye, spelt or other types and changing butter for olive oil, adding seeds etc.
Adding multiple tablespoons of sugar sounds quite disgusting; it has plenty of taste without. A warm freshly-baked loaf is just the best!
Also, the point stands that I make bread with minimal or no sugar in it. I just don't make it all that often.
As far as the bread in the stores, it's usually in the bakery section. I think Walmart's sourdough doesn't have much sugar in it, but they stock it in the bread aisle. Brand is Sam's choice. (does soft sourdough bread count in the soft bread category we are now discussing?).
> made almost entirely just from flour, water, yeast, and salt.
So my "almost entirely" was my qualification or safety valve! I didn't know just how much sugar, dough conditioner, etc.
I did know that the French bread I've had in the US claims loudly that ALL it has is "flour, water, yeast, and salt" so concluded that US white bread doesn't actually need a lot more. This list of 4 for French bread is also elsewhere in this thread.
whoops! You're totally right. I had heard of the name of the USA process before and when looking it up, that was the top result in google.. i should have more closely read it to confirm, but you are totally right. the usa uses a different industrial process cause our wheat is more protein-rich.
Wheat/whole grain bread always tasted like mud to me, with an unappealing rough distracting texture. Never really got how there was enough demand for it to be produced even 1/3 as much as white wonderbread-type bread, which has always seemed perfect to me.
Whole wheat flour is somewhat bitter. Children are especially sensitive to bitter flavors and, thus, don't like wheat bread, coffee, etc. But, grown up, wheat bread, along with dark breads from Central Europe, etc. can no longer seem too bitter and can have some desirable texture and flavors. So, can get some liver wurst on rye bread with brown mustard or some such!
made almost entirely just from flour, water, yeast, and salt
Read the entire ingredients list; you may be surprised. Even the "flour" is generally made from just the endosperm. Only if it says "whole wheat/grain" do they use the whole seed.
It is incredibly dense, like a brick. A slice is more like a non-crunchy cracker. I like it because it doesn't seem like it ever goes stale. (Or maybe it does and the texture doesn't change?)
It is good but you would have to be an extreme German nationalist to enjoy it more than a good French baguette.
Yes, something like that, but this shop version is not good. You want it fresh from a baker, and then it will be a little bit less dense and have a much more pleasant texture. It is excellent the day it was made and the next and then stays okayish for about 3 more days, when stored in a paper bag or a wooden box. It keeps a bit longer in plastic but will go moldy instead of dry. But the way it goes dry does not fit the word 'stale' imho.
If you put it in a toaster it will still be good after 5 days. The time also depends on the flour - rye keeps longer than wheat, and things like a generous amount of sunflower seeds help.
Baguette is good too, but is only good for like half a day. And I feel better if I go for the darker bread most of the time.
mechanically separate meat is a paste-like meat product produced by forcing pureed or ground beef, pork, turkey or chicken, under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue.[1]
What is unappealing about that? It's still meat, just finely ground. And if you're keen on not wasting meat, it's a great way to get the last bit of meat off a carcass.
Does it have a different macro nutrient or vitamin content as a result? Seems like you'd get more calcium, or other bone matter if it was done that way.
Just to be a bit more specific - one a chicken carcass has had the main cuts of meat removed they use machines to remove the last bit of meat. Yes, that means bones get crushed and have to be filtered out later.
That still doesn't concern me. What would concern me is throwing away perfectly good meat simply because it's not feasible to remove it from the bones. What a waste that would be.
A valid point, though there might be others. Texturising additives which keep and store well (almonds, almond-meal, or almond paste might, say, keep longer and better than chicken, with less refrigeration) could also be considerations.
It's also possible that almonds rejected from other uses (for cosmetic reasons, small fragments) might be less expensive than whole, high-grade consumer almonds.
There has been some discussion regarding subway and carbs in the chicken, because their nutrition shows far fewer than some app trackers do. If it's 50%, that's a serious level of carbs, and makes Subway not an option.