waltondammerung

Starbloated

Everyone is always picking on McDonald's. They're taking advantage of poor people and making them fat. They try to squeeze as many fat grams into their burgers and fries as they possible can. No one has made a documentary about Starbucks, though, and it is just as bad nutritionally as McDonald's. It's not even food! Okay, I wouldn't really call McDonald's "food" because it tastes more like "greasy cardboard", but at least it's solid and provides the illusion of a meal. And don't pretend poor people don't frequent Starbucks. I just heard a woman on the radio who joined a savings program for people in poverty. She saved enough to buy a house, and part of her strategy was to give up her froofy morning coffee and save the money instead. Spread the word: Starbucks makes people homeless!

Really, though, what's worse? A 420-Calorie quarter-pounder with 380 Calories from a medium serving of fries or a 6 oz hot chocolate with 390 Calories with a 430-calorie chocolate chip cookie? People are eating this stuff for breakfast. Breakfast! Okay, maybe not the cookie, but they might eat a 500-calorie blueberry muffin with their hot chocolate instead. But no, Starbucks is the favored stepchild of people who like to think they think about what they eat.

And don't even get me started on "slow food" chains. Most of the full-sized sandwiches at Panera are loaded with calories and fat. The lowest-Calorie sandwich is the PB&J at 460 Calories, and, honestly, who is going to eat PB&J at Panera? I couldn't find any other sandwiches under 590 Calories, and most were in the 700-900 Calorie range. The Italian combo sandwich has 1110 Calories, and that's without any sides or one of the syruppy Starbucks-style beverages. But, hey, at least it's served on a ceramic plate. If McDonald's is some sort of nutrition con artist, the slow food restaurants that have pushed it to serve salads to compete with them are eating its lunch. And good for them. They're better off than they would be eating their own.