Perhaps a little bit of both. We ran across these posters in Midtown Manhattan on Friday courtesy of a chain of “healthy” fast food restaurants called the Energy Kitchen. Their own ads (which we admittedly dismissed at the time) flank these spoofs and carry the tag line – “Fast Food Doesn’t Have To Be Fat Food.” Upon arriving at the company website, visitors are greeted with the following information – “Nothing Over 500 Calories” – but as we’ve seen before, calories only tell part of the story. So how does it really stack up to the competition?
Sticking with breakfast sandwiches – bacon, egg and cheese – Â as a point of reference, these are the results:
McDonald’s Egg McMuffin®: 300 Calories, 12 Grams of Fat Â
Burger King CROISSAN’WICH® Bacon, Egg & Cheese: 340 Calories, 20 Grams of Fat
Energy Kitchen: The Energy Breakfast Sandwich: 365 Calories, 12 Grams of Fat
Curiously, Energy Kitchen doesn’t provide nearly as much detailed nutritional information as either of the two fast food giants and as we can see from this test at least, no matter how you package fast food, it still performs more or less the same. Although we have yet to do a side by side comparison of the sandwiches, if they’re all going to be equally good or bad for you – depending on your perspective – shouldn’t they at least taste that way? So for our money, we’ll take deep-fried and overly-processed over “grilled, baked or steamed” any day.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
That’s not exactly a fair comparison, no? Wouldn’t it make more sense to compare the entirety of the menu? I suspect that a bacon/egg/cheese dish, prepared by anyone, wouldn’t be the healthiest breakfast option.
I mean, not to stick up for Energy Kitchen, because that’s a crap name and making your restaurant seem healthy and then serving a crap breakfast like that sandwich doesn’t make much sense, but proving the Energy Kitchen people to be fools doesn’t make McDonald’s or the BK lounge any healthier.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:07 am
Scott, I agree that Energy Kitchen and other ‘healthy’ fast food joints need to be more explicit with their nutritional information. but I have to disagree with you on the point that, if compared side to side with these facts, the Mickey Ds and Energy Kitchen meals come out to about the same ‘healthiness’. Fat and calories aren’t even half the story. ‘Grilled baked or steamed’ are actually going to be better for you, and even if they result in the same number of calories, you can bet they’re less in saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, and other savory but artery-clogging ingredients.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:08 am
Sam: I agree it’s only one comparison and more or less an arbitrary one based on the McD’s advertising I saw from last week, but without having a lot of nutritional information to go on, it was easier to compare a simple breakfast sandwich versus various incarnations of burgers. Links to all of the nutrition information for the various restaurants are there in the piece.
I hope my final point didn’t come across as sticking up for these two fast food joints, but at least with them, you know what you’re getting – it’s probably not that good for you, but it tastes pretty darn good – so there’s something “admirable” about being true to your brand and not trying to hide behind a “healthy” name that might be somewhat misleading. And as far as taste goes – egg whites, turkey bacon and low-fat mozzarella – just sound much less appealing when compared to the original, unhealthy version.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 am
Christine: The Energy Kitchen website does say “Not All Calories Are Created Equal” and I do agree. That being said, though I admit at being a bit provocative with my conclusions, they were based on the only information I had available to me. When I snapped the photos, my resulting poor attempt at “muckraking” was never the final intent, but I was curious to see if a restaurant that made such bold claims and some fairly accurate accusations viz a viz their spoof ads was able to back it up nutritionally speaking. Not being as forthcoming with all of the facts is a somewhat dubious place to start – saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium being pretty basic parts of that conversation after all. And I guess my point being, unless they can prove that their “fill-in-the-blank” menu item is going to be significantly healthier for me by the numbers than any of the other myriad choices that exist then I’m going to stick with the “devil that I know” – greasy goodness. And I don’t even eat fast food. Regardless of that statement’s veracity, getting anyone to believe it might be the biggest stretch I make. Thanks for keeping the conversation going and holding me accountable.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I’ll stick with my McGangBang.
http://www.eatmedaily.com/2009/03/the-mcgangbang-a-mcchicken-sandwich-inside-a-double-cheeseburger/
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
TOK : Thanks. I ran across that link yesterday, but didn’t click through and now I’m not sure if I’m happy I did. Strangely, White Castle employed a similar tactic with an item that was actually available on their menu – the Surf & Turf sandwich, a fried fish patty nestled between two burgers. Food for thought, literally.
http://www.cakehead.com/archives/2007/09/white_castles_s.html
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I am mostly offended by their appropriation of “culture jamming” for their own nefarious and commercial purpsoses. Kalle Lasn must be rolling over uncomfortably whereever he is.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
The “Energy Kitchen” is a horror show. One of the worst run operations in NYC. Bad food, rude staff and EXTREMELY dirty stores. I hope this obnoxious “campaign” comes back to bite them in the ass.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:07 am