All it proved was that a footlong Meatball Marinara from Subway contains
as much salt as 9 pkts of crisps. It's a footlong FFS! and tastier than
9 pkts of crisps too.

One surprising thing though was that you could eat two, double, cheese
burgers from McDonalds and still consume less fat than a popular
sandwich from Marks & Spencer.

The food hygiene part showed the appalling standards under which some
sandwiches are made - I'd rather have a Subway/McDonalds/BK etc. than
some supposedly "healthy" sandwich contaminated with fecal matter!

Corey Richardson `R> wrote:
>
>One surprising thing though was that you could eat two, double, cheese
>burgers from McDonalds and still consume less fat than a popular
>sandwich from Marks & Spencer.


On Saturday, someone gave me a table of nutritional values from
McDonalds. I wish I had kept it, but I recall that the calorie
content of a "healthy" Deli Sandwich was actually higher than that of
a Big Mac.

Bruce wrote:
> Corey Richardson `R> wrote:
>>
>> One surprising thing though was that you could eat two, double,
>> cheese burgers from McDonalds and still consume less fat than a
>> popular sandwich from Marks & Spencer.
>
>
> On Saturday, someone gave me a table of nutritional values from
> McDonalds. I wish I had kept it, but I recall that the calorie
> content of a "healthy" Deli Sandwich was actually higher than that of
> a Big Mac.

I was looking at a website for deli sandwiches earlier (Jimmy John's) and
one of their signature sandwiches has 1008 calories, 54.6 g of fat, 3782.9
mg of sodium, and 59.53 g of carbs. I think that's got a Big Mac beat all
to hell.

kili

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:58:49 -0400, "kilikini"
> wrote:

>I was looking at a website for deli sandwiches earlier

Here is some interesting information.....you have to download the free
copy in PDF format.

http://fastfoodbook.com/

"Mike....." > wrote:

>Following up to Bruce
>
>> On Saturday, someone gave me a table of nutritional values from
>> McDonalds. I wish I had kept it, but I recall that the calorie
>> content of a "healthy" Deli Sandwich was actually higher than that of
>> a Big Mac.
>
>who said deli sandwiches were a low fat "healthy" option? I buy that sort
>of thing as a *tasty* treat, the "heathy" option is probably a salad or
>some fresh fruit.


I recall reading that, if you use all the McDonalds salad dressing
provided, a McDonald's salad has more calories *and* fat than a Big
Mac. This dated from when McDonalds introduced salads as a "healthy
option", which was several years ago. It may have changed since.

"kilikini" > wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>> Corey Richardson `R> wrote:
>>>
>>> One surprising thing though was that you could eat two, double,
>>> cheese burgers from McDonalds and still consume less fat than a
>>> popular sandwich from Marks & Spencer.
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, someone gave me a table of nutritional values from
>> McDonalds. I wish I had kept it, but I recall that the calorie
>> content of a "healthy" Deli Sandwich was actually higher than that of
>> a Big Mac.
>
>I was looking at a website for deli sandwiches earlier (Jimmy John's) and
>one of their signature sandwiches has 1008 calories, 54.6 g of fat, 3782.9
>mg of sodium, and 59.53 g of carbs. I think that's got a Big Mac beat all
>to hell.


That has double the fat of a Big Mac, and over three times the
calories. :-(

Mike..... wrote:
> Following up to kilikini
>
>> was looking at a website for deli sandwiches earlier (Jimmy John's)
>> and one of their signature sandwiches has 1008 calories, 54.6 g of
>> fat, 3782.9 mg of sodium, and 59.53 g of carbs. I think that's got
>> a Big Mac beat all to hell.
>
> and i bet it tastes better

It probably does, but it's a heart attack in a sandwich!

kili

Mike..... wrote:
> Following up to kilikini
>
>
>>d i bet it tastes better
>>
>>It probably does, but it's a heart attack in a sandwich!
>
>
> only if eaten often and only if you are overweight before you eat it.

Can anyone define over weight in simple terms?

Dave

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:41:18 +0100, Dave >
wrote:

>Can anyone define over weight in simple terms?

If you think you are overweight.....you are. If you don't think
you are overweight.....you are. Was that simple enough?

Dave wrote:
>
> Can anyone define over weight in simple terms?


This makes it pretty simple.
Of course, it is a complex subject so there are exceptions.

http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/


--Lia

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> Corey Richardson `R> wrote:
> >
> >One surprising thing though was that you could eat two, double, cheese
> >burgers from McDonalds and still consume less fat than a popular
> >sandwich from Marks & Spencer.
>
>
> On Saturday, someone gave me a table of nutritional values from
> McDonalds. I wish I had kept it, but I recall that the calorie
> content of a "healthy" Deli Sandwich was actually higher than that of
> a Big Mac.
>

Which only proves that Big Mac's aren't as unhealthy as peaple think.

Mike........ wrote:

> Following up to Dave
>
>
>>>only if eaten often and only if you are overweight before you eat it.
>>
>>Can anyone define over weight in simple terms?
>
>
> there are medical definitions of obesity IIRC. Basically for us blokes, if
> you have a roll of fat hanging over your trousers you are over weight and
> that fatty meal probably will not get burnt up. Thats highly un technical
> and im not going to argue the detail!

That is what I was going for, It's about right

"Mike....." > wrote:

>Following up to Bruce
>
>> That has double the fat of a Big Mac, and over three times the
>> calories.
>
>why have I not eaten one of these?



Geography?

Bruce wrote:
> "Mike....." > wrote:
>
>> Following up to Bruce
>>
>>> That has double the fat of a Big Mac, and over three times the
>>> calories.
>>
>> why have I not eaten one of these?
>
>
> Geography?

They're located all over the U.S. If you're in the U.K., I think you're out
of luck.

kili

Bruce > wrote:

> "Mike....." > wrote:
>
>>Following up to Bruce
>>
>>> That has double the fat of a Big Mac, and over three times the
>>> calories.
>>
>>why have I not eaten one of these?
>
> Geography?

I think I have one of these in downtown Austin that I walk by twice
a day, but have never tried them as I'm always too hungover in the
morning (when they're closed anyway) and too drunk in the evening.

How many sock puppets does the crosspoting UK-Christoper have?

-sw

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:05:26 -0500, Jerry Sauk wrote:

> Which only proves that Big Mac's aren't as unhealthy as peaple think.

But Big Mac's are only have the size of Jimmy John's....

"Mike........" > wrote in message
. ..
> Following up to Jerry Sauk
>
> > Which only proves that Big Mac's aren't as unhealthy as peaple think.
>
> if people "think" they they know they what is unhealthy is living on
"junk"
> food.


WTF? That line makes no sense at all.

And Big Mac's aren't junk food, junk food reffers to food like chip's,
candy, pretzel's, assorted snacks, etc......

"Mike........" > wrote:

>Following up to kilikini
>
>> hey're located all over the U.S. If you're in the U.K., I think you're out
>> of luck.
>
>or in luck as US leads the world (but not for long) on obesity.


I think Australia now leads the world on obesity.

In Europe, the Greeks are now No.1, with the healthy Mediterranean
diet of fruit, vegetables and a little protein having been replaced by
a high calorie, high fat diet.

"Mike........" > wrote:

>Following up to Bruce
>
>>>> That has double the fat of a Big Mac, and over three times the
>>>> calories.
>>>
>>>why have I not eaten one of these?
>>
>>
>>
>> Geography?
>
>probably, its US is it?


Yes, that's what I was hinting at.

"Mike........" > wrote:

>Following up to Bruce
>
>>>> Geography?
>>>
>>>probably, its US is it?
>>
>>
>> Yes, that's what I was hinting at.
>
>thought you might be :-)


There is a tendency to ignore the fact that the name
of this newsgroup begins with "uk." ;-)

Bruce wrote:
> "Mike........" > wrote:
>
>
> I think Australia now leads the world on obesity.
>
> In Europe, the Greeks are now No.1, with the healthy Mediterranean
> diet of fruit, vegetables and a little protein having been replaced by
> a high calorie, high fat diet.

Australia is the highest in obesity? I'm going to have to look that up.
And Greece? Really!?! Is it because of all the phyllo-type dishes? I
thought Greeks mainstay diet included lots of seafood and veggies. I really
enjoy Greek food. On a salad, I love a good, light, Greek homemade dressing
of EVOO infused with dill, lemon, and a tad of vinegar. (Even though I
know, technically, a Greek salad doesn't contain lettuce.)

kili

Bruce wrote:
> "Mike........" > wrote:
>
>> Following up to Bruce
>>
>>>>> Geography?
>>>>
>>>> probably, its US is it?
>>>
>>> Yes, that's what I was hinting at.
>>
>> thought you might be :-)
>
> There is a tendency to ignore the fact that the name
> of this newsgroup begins with "uk." ;-)

Yeah, but it's cross-posted, so we're not all aware (unless we check
headers, which I rarely do) from where you're posting. :~)

Believe it or not, I just read an article that said, the U.K. leads the
world in being lovers of fast-food at 45%, closely followed by the U.S. at
44%. Canada comes in 3rd at 37%. Who knew?

kili

kilikini wrote on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:55:03 -0400:

> Bruce wrote:
>> "Mike........" > wrote:
>>
>> I think Australia now leads the world on obesity.
>>
>> In Europe, the Greeks are now No.1, with the healthy
>> Mediterranean diet of fruit, vegetables and a little protein having
>> been replaced by a high calorie, high fat diet.

> Australia is the highest in obesity? I'm going to have to
> look that up. And Greece? Really!?! Is it because of all the
> phyllo-type dishes? I thought Greeks mainstay diet included
> lots of seafood and veggies. I really enjoy Greek food. On a
> salad, I love a good, light, Greek homemade dressing of EVOO
> infused with dill, lemon, and a tad of vinegar. (Even though I know,
> technically, a Greek salad doesn't contain lettuce.)

Just for interest and I don't mean criticism, but does anyone not use
extra-virgin olive oil for home cooking? Certainly EVOO is not an
abbreviation that I need :-)

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:23:24 GMT, "James Silverton"
> wrote:

> kilikini wrote on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:55:03 -0400:
>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> "Mike........" > wrote:
>>>
>>> I think Australia now leads the world on obesity.
>>>
>>> In Europe, the Greeks are now No.1, with the healthy
>>> Mediterranean diet of fruit, vegetables and a little protein having
>>> been replaced by a high calorie, high fat diet.
>
>> Australia is the highest in obesity? I'm going to have to
>> look that up. And Greece? Really!?! Is it because of all the
>> phyllo-type dishes? I thought Greeks mainstay diet included
>> lots of seafood and veggies. I really enjoy Greek food. On a
>> salad, I love a good, light, Greek homemade dressing of EVOO
>> infused with dill, lemon, and a tad of vinegar. (Even though I know,
>> technically, a Greek salad doesn't contain lettuce.)
>
>Just for interest and I don't mean criticism, but does anyone not use
>extra-virgin olive oil for home cooking? Certainly EVOO is not an
>abbreviation that I need :-)

No. There's nothing better than chips fried in dripping.

I use olive oil try fry eggs though for some reason.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:39:38 +0100, "Mike....."
> wrote:

>Following up to Corey Richardson
>
>> All it proved was that a footlong Meatball Marinara from Subway contains
>> as much salt as 9 pkts of crisps. It's a footlong FFS! and tastier than
>> 9 pkts of crisps too.
>
>a lot in the bread itself?

Probably in the sauce too.

>> One surprising thing though was that you could eat two, double, cheese
>> burgers from McDonalds and still consume less fat than a popular
>> sandwich from Marks & Spencer.
>
>mayo?

That and the bacon and the Parmesan.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:05:26 -0500, "Jerry Sauk" >
wrote:

>
>"Bruce" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Corey Richardson `R> wrote:
>> >
>> >One surprising thing though was that you could eat two, double, cheese
>> >burgers from McDonalds and still consume less fat than a popular
>> >sandwich from Marks & Spencer.
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, someone gave me a table of nutritional values from
>> McDonalds. I wish I had kept it, but I recall that the calorie
>> content of a "healthy" Deli Sandwich was actually higher than that of
>> a Big Mac.
>>
>
>Which only proves that Big Mac's aren't as unhealthy as peaple think.

There's nothing wrong with a Big Mac now and again.

Mike........ wrote on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:36:01 +0100:

>> but does anyone not use
>> extra-virgin olive oil for home cooking? Certainly EVOO is
>> not an abbreviation that I need


>so you end
>up sacrificing virgins, at least we dont bury them alive like
>vestals who fancied a bit of the other.

Were they then extra virgins?
--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"Corey Richardson" `R> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:05:26 -0500, "Jerry Sauk" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bruce" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> Corey Richardson `R> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >One surprising thing though was that you could eat two, double, cheese
> >> >burgers from McDonalds and still consume less fat than a popular
> >> >sandwich from Marks & Spencer.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Saturday, someone gave me a table of nutritional values from
> >> McDonalds. I wish I had kept it, but I recall that the calorie
> >> content of a "healthy" Deli Sandwich was actually higher than that of
> >> a Big Mac.
> >>
> >
> >Which only proves that Big Mac's aren't as unhealthy as peaple think.
>
> There's nothing wrong with a Big Mac now and again.


Damn Right!!! :-)

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:11:10 -0500, "Jerry Sauk" >
wrote:

>
>"Corey Richardson" `R> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:05:26 -0500, "Jerry Sauk" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bruce" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >> Corey Richardson `R> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >One surprising thing though was that you could eat two, double, cheese
>> >> >burgers from McDonalds and still consume less fat than a popular
>> >> >sandwich from Marks & Spencer.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Saturday, someone gave me a table of nutritional values from
>> >> McDonalds. I wish I had kept it, but I recall that the calorie
>> >> content of a "healthy" Deli Sandwich was actually higher than that of
>> >> a Big Mac.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Which only proves that Big Mac's aren't as unhealthy as peaple think.
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with a Big Mac now and again.
>
>
>Damn Right!!! :-)

I can't see why anyone would suggest otherwise.

Corey Richardson `R> wrote:
>
>There's nothing better than chips fried in dripping.


Not even good sex?

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:48:23 +0100, Bruce > wrote:

>Corey Richardson `R> wrote:
>>
>>There's nothing better than chips fried in dripping.
>
>
>Not even good sex?

Well...

Sometimes it comes close!

"Mike........" > wrote in message
...
> Following up to Jerry Sauk
>
> >> if people "think" they they know they what is unhealthy is living on
> > "junk"
> >> food.
> >
> >
> > WTF? That line makes no sense at all.
>
> they was repeated by mistake. Other than that, it means that people who
are
> capable of thinking rationally know that the problem in some peoples diet
> is that they live on junk food. Quite simple really.

What, TWICE? You have the word "they" in there THREE TIME'S, and only one
makes sence. Tell you what. Can you please re-word that sentence
altogether so everyone can read it.

Well nobody understood it yet.



"Mike........" > wrote in message
.. .
> Following up to Jerry Sauk
>
> > Tell you what. Can you please re-word that sentence
> > altogether so everyone can read it.
>
> i already did
> --
> Mike.....................
> Google-groups killfiled
> Remove clothing to email

Jerry Sauk wrote:
> Well nobody understood it yet.

I did.

"Jerry Sauk" > wrote in message
m...
> Well nobody understood it yet.


Jerry never top-posted, so you're over the line there.

****in' Isdjit!


TFM®