Subway

It seems Subway has both the highest and lowest fat and calorie
sandwiches in the fast-food industry. The 6" veggie has 230 cal and 3
gm. of fat, while the 12" meatball with cheese has 1120 cal. and 22
gms. of fat. You can also get that double meat and double cheese if
you want to add another 900 calories. I don't think Jared ate too many
meatball sandwiches on his diet.

The company calls their bread "wheat bread", which is kind of a
useless and misleading description, since it is not whole wheat and
all of their bread is made from wheat even though they call it honey-
oat, Italian (which is plain old white bread), etc.

I also strongly question their serving sizes, since they are not
consisent. I think the "standard" bread size is a huge factor, with
some Subways serving much larger bread. If you consider the 6" veggie
has 230 cal, you can assume the bread should have about 200 calories,
but that is two standard slices of sandwich bread, not the huge,
thick, large thing my Subway serves. I think there are at least 300
calories in the bread alone, plus they really load up the sandwiches
with lots of veggies, not just a few. I'm not complaining now, but the
numbers do not mesh.

I was in S. Padre a few months ago and stopped at the Subway there,
and ordered my veggie on wheat bread. What I got there was something
roughly half the size of the sandwich I get at home. That is what got
me thinking about the calories and serving sizes. I'm thinking the S.
Padre Subway sand. was closer to the 230 cal, with my home Subway
serving something about 350 cal. There is no standardization from one
franchise to the next in Subway. Not a problem, unless you try to
count calories, fat, carbs etc. accurately. Then the numbers are
possibly way off. dkw

On Mar 13, 4:32*pm, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It seems Subway has both the highest and lowest fat and calorie
> sandwiches in the fast-food industry. The 6" veggie has 230 cal and 3
> gm. of fat, while the 12" meatball with cheese has 1120 cal. and 22
> gms. of fat. You can also get that double meat and double cheese if
> you want to add another 900 calories. I don't think Jared ate too many
> meatball sandwiches on his diet.
>
> The company calls their bread "wheat bread", which is kind of a
> useless and misleading description, since it is not whole wheat and
> all of their bread is made from wheat even though they call it honey-
> oat, Italian (which is plain old white bread), etc.
>
> I also strongly question their serving sizes, since they are not
> consisent. I think the "standard" bread size is a huge factor, with
> some Subways serving much larger bread. If you consider the 6" veggie
> has 230 cal, you can assume the bread should have about 200 calories,
> but that is two standard slices of sandwich bread, not the huge,
> thick, large thing my Subway serves. I think there are at least 300
> calories in the bread alone, plus they really load up the sandwiches
> with lots of veggies, not just a few. I'm not complaining now, but the
> numbers do not mesh.
>
> I was in S. Padre a few months ago and stopped at the Subway there,
> and ordered my veggie on wheat bread. What I got there was something
> roughly half the size of the sandwich I get at home. That is what got
> me thinking about the calories and serving sizes. I'm thinking the S.
> Padre Subway sand. was closer to the 230 cal, with my home Subway
> serving something about 350 cal. There is no standardization from one
> franchise to the next in Subway. Not a problem, unless you try to
> count calories, fat, carbs etc. accurately. Then the numbers are
> possibly way off. dkw

You could easily figure out almost exactly what the caloric value of
that sub is. Just standardize your diet around the value subway
advertises, and make that the only uncertain food you eat. In a few
days time, you could have a pretty good guess just by monitoring your
weight.

You can't really blame subway for the differences between branches,
though. They have to purchase those ingredients, and the supply
industry has no real reason to standardize (nor should they).

On my campus, there's a little sub shop run by the food contractor,
Sodexho. They have nutritional information for these subs online.
Obviously that may of may not hold true for this one branch. However,
I find that even with the variation in who makes my sandwich when I
eat there (almost every day), my caloric intake (fairly regular across
the rest of my diet) deviates above and below the advertised value
equally, averaging to that value.


I would guess their nutritional information is an average across many
variations of the sandwich.

All that said, if you can't tell that your meatball sub every day
isn't that good for you, and that you should opt for the 6" instead,
you can't really play the blame game with the franchise.

It does make you wonder, though.

On Mar 13, 4:44*pm, James G <SnoopJ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 4:32*pm, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > It seems Subway has both the highest and lowest fat and calorie
> > sandwiches in the fast-food industry. The 6" veggie has 230 cal and 3
> > gm. of fat, while the 12" meatball with cheese has 1120 cal. and 22
> > gms. of fat. You can also get that double meat and double cheese if
> > you want to add another 900 calories. I don't think Jared ate too many
> > meatball sandwiches on his diet.
>
> > The company calls their bread "wheat bread", which is kind of a
> > useless and misleading description, since it is not whole wheat and
> > all of their bread is made from wheat even though they call it honey-
> > oat, Italian (which is plain old white bread), etc.
>
> > I also strongly question their serving sizes, since they are not
> > consisent. I think the "standard" bread size is a huge factor, with
> > some Subways serving much larger bread. If you consider the 6" veggie
> > has 230 cal, you can assume the bread should have about 200 calories,
> > but that is two standard slices of sandwich bread, not the huge,
> > thick, large thing my Subway serves. I think there are at least 300
> > calories in the bread alone, plus they really load up the sandwiches
> > with lots of veggies, not just a few. I'm not complaining now, but the
> > numbers do not mesh.
>
> > I was in S. Padre a few months ago and stopped at the Subway there,
> > and ordered my veggie on wheat bread. What I got there was something
> > roughly half the size of the sandwich I get at home. That is what got
> > me thinking about the calories and serving sizes. I'm thinking the S.
> > Padre Subway sand. was closer to the 230 cal, with my home Subway
> > serving something about 350 cal. There is no standardization from one
> > franchise to the next in Subway. Not a problem, unless you try to
> > count calories, fat, carbs etc. accurately. Then the numbers are
> > possibly way off. dkw
>
> You could easily figure out almost exactly what the caloric value of
> that sub is. *Just standardize your diet around the value subway
> advertises, and make that the only uncertain food you eat. *In a few
> days time, you could have a pretty good guess just by monitoring your
> weight.
>
> You can't really blame subway for the differences between branches,
> though. *They have to purchase those ingredients, and the supply
> industry has no real reason to standardize (nor should they).
>
> On my campus, there's a little sub shop run by the food contractor,
> Sodexho. *They have nutritional information for these subs online.
> Obviously that may of may not hold true for this one branch. *However,
> I find that even with the variation in who makes my sandwich when I
> eat there (almost every day), my caloric intake (fairly regular across
> the rest of my diet) deviates above and below the advertised value
> equally, averaging to that value.
>
> I would guess their nutritional information is an average across many
> variations of the sandwich.
>
> All that said, if you can't tell that your meatball sub every day
> isn't that good for you, and that you should opt for the 6" instead,
> you can't really play the blame game with the franchise.
>
> It does make you wonder, though.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Apparently, they get their bread from different sources. It comes
frozen, and they let it rise, then bake it fresh daily. Some
franchises have one central factory that sends out all the
product...like a container of croutons from McDonalds which are
exactly the same in Texas or New York. The patties are almost exactly
the same as well. You don't get one that starts out 5 oz. and another
that starts out as 6 oz. If they are supposed to be 6 oz., they will
be exactly that. Apparently, the Subway central office subcontracts
with several bakeries to provide the bread, since the difference
between the two breads I mentioned was dramatic. The meats and cheeses
at Subway seem pretty standardized in terms of size though. It is just
the bread, and of course the veggie portions they use that is
different. With veggies, this would make very little difference, since
they are very low cal to begin with. With condiments like ranch
dressing and the amount of bread, it would be significant. I still
love Subway and go there almost every day too. dkw

"James G" <SnoopJeDi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47194543-0521-4c99-84da-b17eb77baffe@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 13, 4:32 pm, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
> I also strongly question their serving sizes, since they are not
> consisent. I think the "standard" bread size is a huge factor, with
> some Subways serving much larger bread. If you consider the 6" veggie
> has 230 cal, you can assume the bread should have about 200 calories,
> but that is two standard slices of sandwich bread, not the huge,
> thick, large thing my Subway serves. I think there are at least 300
> calories in the bread alone, plus they really load up the sandwiches
> with lots of veggies, not just a few. I'm not complaining now, but the
> numbers do not mesh.

Buy one, take it home and disassemble. Weigh the components.
Compare the weight of the sandwich to the nutrition info.
Calculate your caloric values from the measured weights.

That will tell the tale, quicker than using your body as a crude
calorimeter.

On Mar 14, 12:34 am, "Del Cecchi" <delcecchioftheno...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "James G" <SnoopJ...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:47194543-0521-4c99-84da-b17eb77baffe@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 13, 4:32 pm, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> snip
>
> > I also strongly question their serving sizes, since they are not
> > consisent. I think the "standard" bread size is a huge factor, with
> > some Subways serving much larger bread. If you consider the 6" veggie
> > has 230 cal, you can assume the bread should have about 200 calories,
> > but that is two standard slices of sandwich bread, not the huge,
> > thick, large thing my Subway serves. I think there are at least 300
> > calories in the bread alone, plus they really load up the sandwiches
> > with lots of veggies, not just a few. I'm not complaining now, but the
> > numbers do not mesh.
>
> Buy one, take it home and disassemble. Weigh the components.
> Compare the weight of the sandwich to the nutrition info.
> Calculate your caloric values from the measured weights.
>
> That will tell the tale, quicker than using your body as a crude
> calorimeter.

That assumes the sandwich is made to the same proportions as the ideal
sandwich, which is unlikely. Hell, it even assumes you're getting the
same sandwich every single time you go there. Also unlikely.

If you're going to be a stickler about it, burn the damn stuff and
measure the heat, and never eat anything because you keep burning your
food to figure out what's in it.

Some of the food-co./govt conspiracy theories are really quite
ridiculous; I find the nutritional information usually lives up to
exactly what it's regulated as: a good approximation of what you're
eating. Given variations in metabolism, daily activity, and the
quantity of food you're actually eating, this approximation is well-
smoothed to the point that you're basically taking in what it says you
are.

There are exceptions, sure, but that's why dieting is a constant cycle
of experimentation, observation, and adjustment.

On Mar 13, 10:00*pm, James G <SnoopJ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 12:34 am, "Del Cecchi" <delcecchioftheno...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "James G" <SnoopJ...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:47194543-0521-4c99-84da-b17eb77baffe@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 13, 4:32 pm, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > snip
>
> > > I also strongly question their serving sizes, since they are not
> > > consisent. I think the "standard" bread size is a huge factor, with
> > > some Subways serving much larger bread. If you consider the 6" veggie
> > > has 230 cal, you can assume the bread should have about 200 calories,
> > > but that is two standard slices of sandwich bread, not the huge,
> > > thick, large thing my Subway serves. I think there are at least 300
> > > calories in the bread alone, plus they really load up the sandwiches
> > > with lots of veggies, not just a few. I'm not complaining now, but the
> > > numbers do not mesh.
>
> > Buy one, take it home and disassemble. *Weigh the components.
> > Compare the weight of the sandwich to the nutrition info.
> > Calculate your caloric values from the measured weights.
>
> > That will tell the tale, quicker than using your body as a crude
> > calorimeter.
>
> That assumes the sandwich is made to the same proportions as the ideal
> sandwich, which is unlikely. *Hell, it even assumes you're getting the
> same sandwich every single time you go there. *Also unlikely.
>
> If you're going to be a stickler about it, burn the damn stuff and
> measure the heat, and never eat anything because you keep burning your
> food to figure out what's in it.
>
> Some of the food-co./govt conspiracy theories are really quite
> ridiculous; I find the nutritional information usually lives up to
> exactly what it's regulated as: a good approximation of what you're
> eating. *Given variations in metabolism, daily activity, and the
> quantity of food you're actually eating, this approximation is well-
> smoothed to the point that you're basically taking in what it says you
> are.
>
> There are exceptions, sure, but that's why dieting is a constant cycle
> of experimentation, observation, and adjustment.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I figure I've lost the extra calories...the difference between the
stated and actual calories, just fretting, losing sleep, contemplating
and typing messages about the subject. This is a good thing. Everyone
needs purpose in their life according to Freud. Mine is counting
calories and Subway helps provide an opportunity and challenge for me.
That's why I eat my daily veggie delight with a smug attitude.

If you have followed this message board, you will see that food labels
are not in fact very consistent in some cases. Take lentils. A quarter
cup of dry green lentils can be labeled as anything from 50 cal. to
120 cal. I even saw 130 cal. once. How? Lentils and beans are very
high fiber. Some people include all fiber as caloric, some only add
the soluble fiber, and some add no fiber to the total calories. The
fiber is listed as part of the total carbs, and some packagers
subtract the fiber, some don't, some subtract a part of it, and
apparently some don't really know how much fiber is even in their
lentils. Another example. Is 1% fat milk really "low fat?" There are
22 cal. from fat in a cup of 1% milk which has 110 calories.
22/110=20% fat, which is not low. Sure it's lower than higher fat milk
mixtures, but not low fat. The 1% sure sounds low, but that is based
on a liquid measurement where you are counting the water in the milk
as food. The proper way to look at all food is the calories from the
portion of fat, carb, fiber, protein, etc. you are interested in
divided by the calories in the portion. Suddenly foods like green
beans are seen as very high fiber and high protein...higher protein
than a Big Mac by far. I really don't think too many people understand
this about food labels. It isn't so much misleading as as lack of
understanding about the labeling conventions. dkw

On Mar 13, 9:34*pm, "Del Cecchi" <delcecchioftheno...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "James G" <SnoopJ...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:47194543-0521-4c99-84da-b17eb77baffe@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 13, 4:32 pm, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> snip
>
> > I also strongly question their serving sizes, since they are not
> > consisent. I think the "standard" bread size is a huge factor, with
> > some Subways serving much larger bread. If you consider the 6" veggie
> > has 230 cal, you can assume the bread should have about 200 calories,
> > but that is two standard slices of sandwich bread, not the huge,
> > thick, large thing my Subway serves. I think there are at least 300
> > calories in the bread alone, plus they really load up the sandwiches
> > with lots of veggies, not just a few. I'm not complaining now, but the
> > numbers do not mesh.
>
> Buy one, take it home and disassemble. *Weigh the components.
> Compare the weight of the sandwich to the nutrition info.
> Calculate your caloric values from the measured weights.
>
> That will tell the tale, quicker than using your body as a crude
> calorimeter.

True. Visually, I know that their bread is somewhere between 3 and 4
times the size of 2 slices of standard sandwich bread, so that is a
rough estimate which will have to do since they don't measure or weigh
their ingredients when they make the sandwich, and although I am a tad
compulsive, I am not so compulsive that I want to dissect the sandwich
daily and weigh each component, or take a scales with me under my arm
to Subway. Besides, maybe my scales would be off...but that's another
subject. I just count the Subway Veggie Delight at my Subway as having
400 cal. rather than the stated 230, and that is probably pretty darn
close. I do drink diet soda along with that....COLD diet soda, which
according to some experts actually has negative calories because your
body has to burn extra calories to maintain your core temp. Now, if I
could figure a way to drink about 40 gallons of the stuff at a
sitting, I could count the calories in the Sub as 230. dkw

"James G" <SnoopJeDi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f35ee872-b34b-4f7d-957d-1a0ddee1e333@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 14, 12:34 am, "Del Cecchi" <delcecchioftheno...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "James G" <SnoopJ...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:47194543-0521-4c99-84da-b17eb77baffe@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 13, 4:32 pm, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> snip
>>
>> > I also strongly question their serving sizes, since they are not
>> > consisent. I think the "standard" bread size is a huge factor, with
>> > some Subways serving much larger bread. If you consider the 6"
>> > veggie
>> > has 230 cal, you can assume the bread should have about 200
>> > calories,
>> > but that is two standard slices of sandwich bread, not the huge,
>> > thick, large thing my Subway serves. I think there are at least 300
>> > calories in the bread alone, plus they really load up the sandwiches
>> > with lots of veggies, not just a few. I'm not complaining now, but
>> > the
>> > numbers do not mesh.
>>
>> Buy one, take it home and disassemble. Weigh the components.
>> Compare the weight of the sandwich to the nutrition info.
>> Calculate your caloric values from the measured weights.
>>
>> That will tell the tale, quicker than using your body as a crude
>> calorimeter.
>
> That assumes the sandwich is made to the same proportions as the ideal
> sandwich, which is unlikely. Hell, it even assumes you're getting the
> same sandwich every single time you go there. Also unlikely.
>
> If you're going to be a stickler about it, burn the damn stuff and
> measure the heat, and never eat anything because you keep burning your
> food to figure out what's in it.
>
> Some of the food-co./govt conspiracy theories are really quite
> ridiculous; I find the nutritional information usually lives up to
> exactly what it's regulated as: a good approximation of what you're
> eating. Given variations in metabolism, daily activity, and the
> quantity of food you're actually eating, this approximation is well-
> smoothed to the point that you're basically taking in what it says you
> are.
>
> There are exceptions, sure, but that's why dieting is a constant cycle
> of experimentation, observation, and adjustment.

weigh the bread, weigh the fillings. add it up. loved that song. add
it up, that is.

most of the calories in a veggie sub are in the bread anyway.