November 22, 2003 6:08 PM   Subscribe

Create-a-meal [note: flash] ... comes in mcdonalds, subway, barbeque, and pizza hut flavors.
posted by crunchland (17 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
whoops. I meant mcdonalds.
posted by crunchland at 6:10 PM on November 22, 2003

boy, mcdonalds is really bad for you...and barbeque isn't that bad at all : >
posted by amberglow at 6:14 PM on November 22, 2003

But for Flash Friday, they forgot the Filet O'Fish!!!
posted by wendell at 6:29 PM on November 22, 2003

Wahh! I thought a Big Mac had only 26 grams of fat!

Last time I rely on Wesley Willis for nutritional information..
posted by PrinceValium at 7:50 PM on November 22, 2003

I'm just disappointed that no special message appears after placing all the items onto your tray. Yes, I need a life. (Note: the total for all displayed McD's items equals 10909 calories, 439g fat, and 1427g carbs.)
posted by gluechunk at 7:55 PM on November 22, 2003

Last time I rely on Wesley Willis for nutritional information..

posted by ColdChef at 7:57 PM on November 22, 2003

Damn. Now I want a BigMac.

On a sidenote, it's interesting to see just how much the McDonalds menu varies from country to country... in Poland the latest fad is McDonald's Fried Zuchinni Strips. No joke.
posted by degnarra at 8:09 PM on November 22, 2003

Love the background.
posted by Keyser Soze at 9:01 PM on November 22, 2003

Here in Germany, they still have fried (not baked) apple pies and real ice cream. They also offer curry sauce for nuggets. And yes, beer.
posted by jopreacher at 1:02 AM on November 23, 2003

Slick graphics and all, but it would be ever more helpful if it would give you a clue about whether or not what you put on your tray was ridiculously unhealthy or not. For example, my favorite McDonald's meal is 640 calories, 20 grams of fat, and 101 grams of carbs. I never pay much attention to these things, so I have no idea how bad that is. Also, having something about the sodium would be good too.

But don't mind me. I've been awake for 38 hours straight working on some PHP, so I'm a little brain-fried this morning.

... and now I am so craving McDonald's.
posted by Orb at 1:50 AM on November 23, 2003

McDonalds? Naah, gimme 1200 calories worth o' barbecue. T-bone steak, here I come!
posted by arto at 2:40 AM on November 23, 2003

Wow - a footlong tuna sub gives me more fat and calories than QuarterPounder(R) with medium fries, and only 2 grams less carb.

Health food is the new junkfood.
posted by spazzm at 3:30 AM on November 23, 2003

There just isn't enough beer for me on the menu... But all the beer bottles have 0 grams of fat combined! DietBeerâ„¢!
posted by hoskala at 4:43 AM on November 23, 2003

The reason that footlong tuna sub is so bad for you is because its loaded down with mayonaise.

Try a can of tuna, a whole wheat sub bun, lettuce, tomato, etc., some mustard, and it will come up a whole lot less, both on calories and fat.
posted by benjh at 5:52 AM on November 23, 2003

McDonald's actually has a pretty detailed build-your-own nutrition analysis as well. Includes the daily allowance percentages too. Just a tad scary.
posted by Mrmuhnrmuh at 12:49 PM on November 23, 2003

Orb: People still disagree pretty heatedly about what the "right" proportions are. Atkins would say that if you take off the bun and the ketchup (vast majority of carbs), a McDonald's burger is OK.

The government thinks that's insane, and if you could drop the fat out of a burger it'd be fine, but that's really not possible the way they are made.

Interestingly, both agree fries are atrocious, but for opposing reasons; the government thinks they're bad because they're high in fat, Atkins would say it's because the potatoes are empty carbs.

Sodium is up in the air a bit; my understanding right now is that it's not an issue unless you have a pre-existing blood pressure problem, but they're arguing about it.

Part of the problem is that very few people are conducting truly scientific investigations of diet; if nothing else, in 10 years or so you'll probably have the recent resurgance of the Atkins diet to thank for finally producing real studies that might give real answers. (Almost everything to date has relied on self-reporting to work, which has itself been influenced by the dietary dogma of the day. For true science, you need to feed multiple groups of people everything that they eat, for years on end. This is, as you might imagine, quite expensive. They're finally funding these studies, and they are not all going as the dogma would have you believe.)

Right now, I'd say there's a lot of potential for change in the "right answers" for what you should eat.

(Note I don't intend this to advocate for Atkins per se, an Atkins flamewar would be off topic. However, I don't apologize for putting his theories on the same footing as conventional wisdom, because like I said, surprisingly little true science has been done on the issue, and I do not believe that conventional wisdom has anywhere near enough scientific support to be considered "true".)
posted by Jeremy Bowers at 3:42 PM on November 23, 2003

Wow - a footlong tuna sub gives me more fat and calories than QuarterPounder(R) with medium fries

Well, that is in large part because a "footlong" sub is another word for eating two sandwiches. Although I confess I'm somewhat surprised that the fries don't more than make up for it. However, if you put a large order of fries into the equation (since that's what a McDonald's combo comes with) and add cheese to the Quarter Pounder (which, again, is what's in the combo), the death-o-meter tilts back to McDonald's.
posted by kindall at 5:22 PM on November 23, 2003

« Older No, not the telegraph.   |   Naked World Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments