There’s plenty of talk about how unhealthy fast food can be, as if it was the ultimate cause of our abundant health problems in America. True, many fast foods are pretty bad for us, containing high levels of saturated fat and far too few fruits and vegetables. But the fast food genre as a whole may not be as evil as many think. In fact, I would like to propose that most sit down restaurants are worse for our health than fast food.
Still skeptical? Consider this: The average plate of food at most sit-down restaurants tops out at 1,300 calories per plate, not including the sodas or alcoholic drinks, the bread basket, the appetizers, or the dessert! In contrast, the average burger and fry meal from a fast food joint adds up to about 950 calories. Still high, yes, but significantly less.
Plus, portion sizes at most sit-down restaurants average three servings per plate. That’s right: One meal should feed three people, and again, that doesn’t include appetizers, dessert, and other extras. And just because you order a salad as an entrée doesn’t mean you’re off the hook. It’s not unusual to have a restaurant salad weigh in at a whopping 1,200 to 1,500 calories.
When it comes to dining out, we need to throw away our preconceived notions that fast food is the worst thing we can eat. A perfect example is Chick-fil-A. Their chicken nuggets, with lower fat and minimal breading, are only 400 calories for a large, 12-piece lunch. McDonald’s bacon ranch grilled chicken salad with half a packet of full-calorie ranch dressing is a mere 350 calories. When was the last time you ate only 350 calories for lunch at a restaurant? It was probably the same time you shared your meal with two co-workers!
Posted by Dr. Caren Beasley on under