Counting fast food calories

Fast food seems to be a staple of the average American’s diet. Always rushing, always busy, never time to go home and sit down for a nice, home cooked meal. But have you ever stopped to think which of these places are the best for you?

For example, I for one assumed Arby’s was pretty healthy. With their slogan “never fried, never greasy,” it went through my head, ‘Hey, this must be better than other fast food places, right?’ Some online research quickly proved me wrong. I compared a regular roast beef sandwich from Arby’s, accompanied by a small fry (because who in their right mind can pass up their curly fries?), to a plain hamburger and fries from McDonald’s, a place that has been beaten to the ground for being unhealthy by the movie ‘Super Size Me’ (Spurlock, 2004). Seems reasonable enough, I think, to compare a greasy, fried, disgusting hamburger, to about the same size of a non-greasy, never fried roast beef sandwich.

As I found out on the McDonald’s website, a regular hamburger has 250 calories, and a small fry, 230. Altogether, this is about 480 calories, about a tenth of the recommended daily allowance of 2500 calories a day. Doesn’t seem too shabby, does it? A regular roast beef from Arby’s has 320 calories, and a small fry from there? 340. 660 calories in all for that meal, which many would assume would be better for you than a plain McDonald’s hamburger and fry.

Let’s throw another fast food chain into the mix: Burger King. A regular whopper has a “whopping” 670 calories. Add a small fry to that? That’s an extra 340 calories, which gives you a total of 1110 calories. That’s almost half of the recommended daily allowance. IN ONE SITTING. That’s DISGUSTING.

So, as far as who’s the healthier burger and fries, I’d have to go with McDonald’s. As surprising as this may be, facts are facts. So as long as you don’t go with Morgan Spurlock and ‘super size’ your meal, McDonald’s is the way to go for your burger and fry cravings.