Not trying to defend the salads, but who just orders a sandwich? An better apples-to-apples comparison would probably be the salad vs. a meal deal.

@-s (the west virginia state bird): I have to agree. The only two places for fast food I pick up a salad is at Wendy's and Chick-fil-a. Wendy's would otherwise be two of their JR. Bacon Cheeseburgers, a small fry, and a drink. When I get salads, which is a recent transition of mine, I get just the salad, or if I'm very hungry, a salad and a Jr. Bacon.

Chick-fil-a is either their Nugget/Chicken Strip Combo meal (with full # of chicken pieces and larger sized) or I get the Chicken Strip Salad.

I believe the mandarin chicken salad included sugared walnuts and mandarin orange slices, probably in corn syrup. A better comparison would isolate the ingredients that are not pre-package. Some of us only use a little of the dressing because they give you a large packet for a small amount of lettuce. Pull that out and let us do our own math -- 300 calories for 3 tbsp, or 100 calories for the amount I'd probably use (made the numbers up). Croutons? Skip 'em -- dietician called 'em "fat bombs" once and the phrase stuck with me. Also ignore fried noodles or candied nuts.

Also, those Tendercrisp chicken sandwiches are full of fat and calories, so it's not surprising the salad version would be too.

There's a little fuzzy math here. It's clear from the numbers you post that in every instance, the salad is a larger portion of food (by weight--and did you include the container?) than the burger is. It's not unreasonable to expect more food to contain more calories, fat, etc. than less food. Because it wasn't my experiment, I'm not going to go and calculate what the nutrient content was by proportion, but I doubt the difference would be as striking if you accounted for the difference in portion size.

You also used the same sort of language to make your point that the restaurants themselves tend to use, to avoid liability if someone doesn't lose weight while eating the salads. Of course it's possible to eat salads and not lose weight. Everyone knows someone who's on a perpetual diet. But as we all know from the ad trend that Subway started, it is possible to eat or not eat all kinds of crap and lose weight/gain weight/nearly go into liver failure/make documentaries/make piles of money/make sweeping generalizations that don't do much but sensationalize. Which would be some very lazy reporting. There's a bigger picture to a diet's success or failure than the consumption of one kind of food from one specific place. Let's not discourage these places from offering vegetables for sale. There's no law that says you have to drown your food in dressing, or eat there altogether.

This is a disappointing post... it is full of some fairly bad assumptions and ignores all of the data available:

1) A small hamburger (double stack, etc) will not fill a person up as much as a salad will. So your argument about no fries (we could cut out the drink) is really flawed. True that a salad is mostly water, but despite that, it still contains nutrients and vitamins you won't get with a $.99 double cheeseburger.

2) What about cholesterol? Saturated fat? Trans-fatty acids? Well, taking the Wendy's example, the sandwich loses on all counts.

3) There are bad salads: covered in cheese and milk based dressing, bacon, etc. Why don't you take a more balanced approach?

And there is also the part where people ask for a salad without dressing or with more tomatoes, etc.

Ultimately this isn't really a comparison as much as it sounds like a quick writeup on "why I don't eat salads". You should just take it down.

I should also add, per your rules you are comparing weight... shouldn't you have some sort of calorie density? Then the salads would win. Why else would you have that rule?

Come on, this is like Dick Cheney logic.

Attempting to lose weight by eating fast food is like trying to get fit by going to the movie theater.

I'd be interested in seeing how they stack up without the dressing. Some people (like me) don't put dressing on their salad.

And technically, Coke hasn't had any sugar (defined as "sucrose") in it for a long time.

Hello, ordering a salad with breaded and FRIED chicken makes no sense. For example, the mcD's asian chicken salad with GRILLED chicken and the whole sesame dressing packet comes out to 390 calories (+), 12 g of fat (+), only 1.5g of that is saturated; 1630mg sodium(-), 38g carbohydrates (+). 5g of fiber (+)

In contrast, the double cheeseburger you listed has *11*g of saturated fat, and 1.5g TRANS (evil) fat (for now - will probably be gone within a year or so).

Don't forget the vitamins and so on that are not listed. No, a plain iceberg lettuce side salad is not going to cut it there, but that's not the issue anyway.

Yes, the point that a salad is not necessarily lower in calories than a sandwich is taken, but don't make it sound like it's usually better, nutritionally, to order a sandwich than a salad.

To make a smarter choice, order a salad, do not order crispy anything, use a low-cal dressing and don't dump the whole thing on your salad before you even take a bite, and reconsider whether you really need the extra packet of croutons.

Rather disappointing article, sorry.

There are general rules about salad-eating that anyone should know:

-- "Asian" salads or Chinese chicken salads almost always come with sweetened dressings that are full of sugar.

-- Fat-free salad dressings are full of sugar or corn syrup, while regular salad dressings are full of fat. Either way, you need to go easy (or thin the dressing with extra vinegar if it's available).

-- Of course, deep-fried chicken pieces in a salad are going to be full of fat and calories. In fact, unless the menu specifically says otherwise, any meat or cheese added to a salad is likely to be the high-fat version.

-- Taco salads are never healthy if you eat the deep-fried flour "bowl." You may as well be eating a bag of potato chips.

-- The ideal "meal" salad would have a variety of fresh vegetables, some low-fat meat, chicken, fish or cheese, either oil and vinegar or a low-fat dressing, and a few baked croutons or a piece of fresh bread on the side. Unfortunately, I don't know of any fast-food restaurants where such a thing is available.

The Wendy's burger is a fairly large burger, if I understand it right. A double stack is 1/2 lb. of meat, so that's a substantial sandwich (or is this a 1/4 burger? Still enough to fill me up). And the chicken burrito at Taco Bell is quite large. I do have qualms with the choice of sandwich at BK and McDonald's as they don't really compare with the size of the other choices. The comparisons across the brands isn't quite right, but w/in the brands it's OK.

While the scientific merit of the post isn't clearly there, it's still an interesting comparo showing that the MARKETED healthy salads are not as healthy as one would think.

The same goes for the salads in sit-down restaurants too. I get them a lot just to get my veggie helping for the day, but I know they're not exactly healthy.

There's nothing I loathe more than a nice crunchy salad drowning in salad dressing. Those fast food salads come with enough salad dressing to last me a lifetime!

I just assumed that the "nutrition" information listed for fast food salads included the dressing packet. Can anyone find that out for sure?

How come people who eat fast food just can't seem to lose weight? It doesn't make any sense to me. People who don't eat fast food don't need to try to loose weight, but people who do are constantly trying so hard! It's like trying to lose weight is worthless!

@Pasketti: Sucrose is not what sugar is being referred to in this context.

Nutritionally, "sugar" as in a nutritional label can include, besides sucrose, fructose, lactose, and glucose among others. Typically, these molecules are mono or disaccharides, easily used for immediate cellular energy, and can be thought of as contributing more to blood sugar levels than other types of carbohydrates.

---

Also, in reference to the original article, looking at the "sugar and carbs" seems to ignore the fact that sugars are types of carbohydrates, but not all carbohydrates are sugars. Remember "complex carbohydrates" from school?

Vegetables are generally mostly made of carbohydrates (some sugars), and some protein and even a little negligible fat.

Fiber is included in the carb category, so if a food is listed as having 20g carbs, but only 5g are sugars and 5g are fiber, that's probably going to be a better choice than an equal measure of another food with 15g sugar out of those 20g of carbohydrates and no fiber.

Thanks for trying here, Meghann -- the point is well taken, though the argument does need a little more work. Comparing a meal-sized salad to a single sandwich (and, having managed a McDonald's at one point, I can tell you that hardly ANYONE gets A sandwich these days) just isn't a valid comparison, though the breakdown of numbers is still very interesting.

Also, the lackluster copyediting (particularly the headline and the first graf) makes me wonder if this post didn't need another read through before it went live.

But you can't win them all, and you guys are generally awesome, so I won't hold it against you!

@epd: In response:

We will include the dressing in our total, because eating salad without dressing is nasty.

My rabbit thanks you, Meghann! Well...if I had one it would.

The humans in the household prefer to eat human food. If you want to diet just don't eat fast food. Period. If you can't handle that, then there's always liposuction. Or *gasp* exercise.

@ribex: Don't hate on trans fat just because its synthetic brother is up to no good. :-P

My office is literally next door to a Wendy's. It is far too easy to walk next door for lunch especially at our end-of-quarter when you scarcely have time to breathe, let alone leave for a real lunch.

Wendy's does have the option of ordering a side garden salad with any sandwich. I've worked out that if you order the grilled chicken sandwich, skip the mayo and a side garden salad in place of fries, you get a fairly healthy lunch with the filling salad and the protein boost you need. I keep homemade balsamic vinagrette in the fridge at my office so I can control the noxious ingredients and the portion size.

The other nice thing about Wendy's is that their website DOES break down each offering by ingredient, down to the fat and calories in each dollop of mayo and each squirt of ketchup. Coolness.

@The Walking Eye: No, it's 1/4 lb all together. They do have a much larger "double" that is two 1/4 lb patties.

Fried chicken patties are gross. I would have bought this a lot more if you had listed the grilled chicken versions. *shrug* And yeah, what everyone else said about portion size.

I'll agree that nobody gets just the sandwich.

@TedSez: I completely agree with everything he says.

I bet that given the opportunity and enough time fast food places will make water unhealthy and fattening - it is just a matter of time.

I could never understand the point of fast food companies and their salads.

People buy salads to eat healthy and loose weight, so why would they not use Kraft Fat Free Ranch, Italian, etc. or make their own low calarie fat free salad dressing?

Same thing goes to regular restaraunts and salad dressing makers.
Why do they even make high fat, high calories dressing? Everyone eats a salad to be healthy.

At most resaraunts sit down and fast food you need to suppy your own dressing if you want a healthy salad, it just doesn't make sense.

two things - first: I've never used all the dressing in the packet, and if the dressing was already included in the salad, it would be left over in the bowl at the end. 1/2 of the packet of dressing will saturate any of those salads to where you can't taste any of the good stuff any more.

second: everyone complaining about fried chicken in salads, and of course its not healthy, etc. - so what? a lot of people eat salads because they taste good - better than the other stuff offered by fast food plates. Just because someone likes veggies does not mean they are trying to loose weight.

oh - and i guess this is a third - but who eats the bowl in taco salad? break off a few pieces, sure, but the whole bowl?

I rarely post, but when fast food is the topic I just have to stop in a say that Chick-Fil-A is the greatest thing ever and may actually be proof of God's existence

Quite a few of the comments posted so far fail to recognize a few important facts.

1. For a lot of people, salads are just not filling. Ironically, although I'm vegetarian I'm among those people who do not find salad filling. I'm sure I would find a burger more satisfying than a salad.

2. Meghann wrote the article assuming that we're talking about either people dieting or concerned about not gaining weight. It is important to keep in mind.

3. Some of you said that if you're dieting, you should not go to a fast food restaurant, period. Welcome to the real world. Sometimes, even if you're dieting... heck, even if you're dieting and vegetarian... you end up at a fast food joint either because you are in a social situation that make it very difficult to chose otherwise or because there's just no other choice. (Think Smalltown, USA.)

4. When people are really following a diet seriously, they pay attention to what they eat. It is in fact realistic that dieting people would order only a burger without fries. Heck, this is the very same reason that would push them to order a salad rather than the burger!

5. Calorie density is a valid theoretical concept but is of rather limited value in practice. (Note that I'm not saying that it is worthless.) What happens is that people eat what is on their plate. The two things that really matter then are whether they feel satisfied or not after eating their meal and the total amount of the various metrics used (calories, sugar, fat, etc.).

6. There is perhaps a good point about saturated fats, trans fats and cholesterol being less in the salad than in the burger. Even if it is the case, the actual effects on a real metabolism remain to be demonstrated. Why am I saying this? I know for a fact that for some metabolisms at least there is no direct link between the cholesterol ingested and the blood cholesterol. I'm a case in point. For years, I tried to lower my cholesterol by cutting cholesterol from my food. That was the advice of my doctors and dietitians, no less! Well, that did not work so well. My cholesterol lowered significantly only when I took care of calories and lost weight! With my metabolism, it is totally useless to worry about cholesterol per se. It is the total amount of calories ingested that matter. Having talked with multiple doctors about my hypercholesterolemia I would also add that not all doctors agree about just how important ingested cholesterol is with regard to the amount of blood cholesterol. I can't say much about saturated and trans fats but there is a possibility that calories are more important then those two also.

Meghann deserves more credit than she's been given. Her message was a response to the assumption (promoted by the fast food industry) that a salad is automatically good for you just by virtue of being a salad. Boy, if I'd get a dime for every occasion someone expressed surprise because I did not order a salad, I'd be a rich man. My family and friends know about my cholesterol issue and they just assume that a salad will do the trick. No. It does not. Meghann ends her article with:

In quite a few cases, you might better off just ordering a sandwich... and skipping the fries.

How true! I avoid fast food joints as much as possible but I would do just what Meghann proposes, if I were not vegetarian!

Wow. I can't help but think that (nearly) everyone is missing the point here, Meghann. The point, at least as I understood it, is that choosing a salad at a fast food joint is not necessarily a healthy choice. This is contrary to what these chains want you to think as they have used these salads and "healthy" alternatives in an attempt to shed their unfit image. These chains have resisted requests to provide nutritional information at the point of sale. And the back of the tray liner does not mean "point of sale".

So, yes. If you throw a packet of their disgusting grease-ball fries in with the sandwich, then yes the scales will likely tip in their favor. So what? I don't usually eat all of the fries, just like some people don't use all of the dressing on the salad. So what? Still want fries included? What size? S, M, L, Super? regular fries or onion rings or curly fries? Because I *love* curly fries. There's a lot of variables here, that she simply cut out. I think that Meghann's comparison is acceptable for getting the point across. Yes, for the most part, the salads have a lower fat to weight ratio, Poindexter. Do you eat your salad gram by gram and stop when you've eaten the weight of the sandwich?

So, once again, I think the point is that you shouldn't think that you are doing yourself a favor by choosing a salad over a quarter-pounder - no matter what diet you are on. I also think that Taco Bell should be renamed SodiumLand.

I agree with anatak on this one. I think a lot of you are missing the point of this article, that people hear "salad" and immediately equate that with "healthy". The point here is they're not (made the way fast food places make them)! This article said at the beginning it's not going to compare subjective qualities, and as far as I'm concerned, that includes whether or not they're considered "filling", whether or not you use all the dressing included, whether or not you include fries with the sandwich, etc.

I think side by side, this was a great article that hit home the idea that salads are NOT a healthy alternative to a burger, which was the initial marketing claim these restaurants made when the salads were first introduced.

Everyone get off Meghann's back! :)

redundant.

anyone eating 'fast food salads' on a diet is not worth wasting good logic on, because they clearly arent genuinely interested in making logical lifestyle changes to lose weight. if they were they wouldnt buy fast food salads. although i have seen a few commenters try to seriously suggest people may have no choice. i assume these are people who cant find the fruit n veg aisles and are allergic to bowls and tupperware.

personally, this whole element of 'modern life' amuses me no end. i eat steak twice a week, bacon sandwiches for breakfast, crisps, cakes, and my crockpot has mexican in it 90% of the time. i love food and i feel great. i dont visit a gym. and im not fat. nor does my weight fluctuate. i do sometimes wonder; whats wrong with all these people? do they run off to secretly scarf down gobs of lard? are they alcoholics who starve themselves then tank up on liquid bread? what the hell is the deal?

What's up with all the freaking sodium? Damn!

I don't get the criticisms over weight. Isn't it better to assume that people that order the salad eat the whole thing, especially people who don't find them filling?

Just yesterday, I heard the "Real Men of Genius" Bud Light radio spot for the Giant Taco Salad Inventor:

Bud Light presents, "Real Men of Genius."

(Real Men of Genius!)

Today we salute you Mr. Giant Taco Salad Inventor.

(Mr. Giant Taco Salad Inventor!)

A culinary creation that baffles the mind … a 12,000 calorie salad. ¡Aye carumba! Ground beef, refried beans, guacamole, cheese, sour cream, and if there's any room left, a few shreds of lettuce.

(I don't see no lettuce!)

Some may ask "Is your taco salad healthy?" Of course it is, it's a salad isn't it?

You can eat that deep fried crunchy bowl. So crack open an ice cold Bud Light, Conquistador of the Calorie. You've put the feast in fiesta.

(Mr. Giant Taco Salad Inventor!)

Bud Light beer Anheiser Busch, St. Louis Missouri.

What is this "no one just orders the sandwich" crap? I just order the sandwich. Some of those burgers are big and make anyone feel bloated.

I know a lot of people here are saying that Fast Food cannot fit into a diet which in my experince (I have lost 60lbs since January on a traditional "eat less calories" [Weight Watchers] diet) is untrue. I eat very regularly at two fast food establishments, Subway (which I suppose is a duh) and Taco Bell (perhaps surprising) and have found that what is important is locating what is actually healthy and what is a trap. If you look at these salads all but one weigh in at over 500 calories (over a quarter of my intake right now) and all have 19.5 or more grams of fat. They are very obviously marketed as being "healthy choices" but just from looking you can tell that they really probably aren't all that healthy with that much sugar and fat. This is a marketing ploy trying to aswage your conscience by labeling something healthy to get you to order it but by lacing it with fat and sugars it also doesn't "taste healthy" (probably because it isn't very) which leads to repeat purchases. If I recall correctly these salads also tend to cost more than the more traditional value meal fare right? I almost universally avoid "meal" salads when eating out because of this.

The only fast food place that I've found to be up front for the most part is Subway (and I probably average 1.5 meals a day there given the ease of eating there and the ease of keeping calories and fat low). Taco Bell's Fresco options are also good if you order carfully.

The included nutrition information focuses only on things that most people wish to limit when dieting. It also fails to normalize the values. For example, the Wendy's salad and sandwhich both contain the exact same amount of fat per calorie and nearly identical carbs/calorie.

Let us not forget that we need fat and carbs to live, so you have to get them somehow. USRDA recommends no more than 65 grams of fat per serving, and granted the salad has more, but it's got a lot more protein. In fact, the salad has 30 grams of protein, to the sandwich's 25 (which results in markedly more protein/calorie for the salad, making the salad a better source of protein). This, coupled with the salads de-facto superior vitamin/mineral content, make it pretty obvious that the salad is healthier than the sandwich. When you factor in that the sandwich is rarely eaten unaccompanied, the scales tip further toward the salad.

Furthermore, you can easily avoid some of the unhealthier aspects of the salad by reducing the amount of dressing or not topping it with nuts, or whatever. With the burger, your options are no cheese or no bun(!).

That being said, the burger isn't really all that unhealthy, as it gives you 25% of your days protein for only 21% of your days calories (based on a 2000 calorie diet). It is a bit high in fat and sodium, however.

I love consumerist, but this is some serious schlock right here.

@aestheticity: Wow, it must be great being you (from a culinary standpoint, anyway). I'm glad to learn you're amused by those of us who do not share your great metabolism. I myself do not see much humor in the fact that other people were dealt a bad hand genetically speaking but what do I know?

If I ate what you eat, I'd be in a grave right now or at the very least morbidly overweight (but most likely in a grave). No, this is not an overstatement.

I've lost about 5 pounds lately eating McDonald's side salads and exercising a litle bit. Plus it's a sub $3 lunch. If I'm really hungry I'll get a double cheeseburger and throw out a patty (it's cheaper than a normal cheeseburger for some reason).

It's all about being smart and not drizzling the salad in ranch dressing.

@He: "If I'm really hungry I'll get a double cheeseburger and throw out a patty (it's cheaper than a normal cheeseburger for some reason)."
It's really cheaper? That's really odd.

Everyone else beat me to it. Pick the least caloric/fatty dressing, use it sparingly. And I've NEVER understood the desire to put anything milk-based on a salad! That's cheese and ranch dressing. And bacon bits. And anything fried. You might as well just give it up and buy the crappy food you're obviously dying for.

I would rather take one of those McDonald's Fruit/Yogurt/Granola parfait things over a salad. More filling (to me), only about 150 calories, and about $1.

Couple that with a healthy drink and some carrot sticks or something and it's a pretty decent lunch.

@aestheticity: The deal is they're not you. Just because you can eat fatty foods 24/7 without gaining weight doesn't mean everyone else can. Maybe you're just storing the fat internally around your organs instead of underneath your skin. Maybe you just have a crazy metabolism. Whatever it is, assuming everyone should be able to consume the same amount of fat and calories you do is just silly.

First you complain about wasting logic on people and lifestyle choices and then you're confused as to why people eating fast food gain weight. Who's not being logical now?

@He: damn, THAT is the problem with fast food places right there. it's cheaper to order MORE food than less food? wow.

anyway, i appreciate the nutritional comparison provided, but i would just like to make the insane suggestion that some people might order fast food salads in the hope that they'll TASTE better than disgustingly greasy, inevitably over- or undercooked burgers. the last time i went to mcdonald's--drove thru as a last resort when desperate for food on a road trip--i ended up actually throwing the quarter pounder w/ cheese out the window and on to the highway after about 3 bites. nastiest thing i've ever tasted. not fit for human or even animal consumption, though some poor creature probably ended up eating it.

a lot of the time, the salads aren't better... but i would like to highly recommend wendy's grilled chicken caesar salad. i had one last week (first fast food venture in a while) and it was seriously the BEST salad i'd eaten in a long time. like, better than many "real" restaurant salads. there was a lot of lettuce, it was a good mix of crispy iceburg and actual leafy greens, the chicken was cooked well and didn't have any nasty bits like fast food chicken sometimes does, the dressing was pretty tasty, the croutons were crunchy, etc. it was so delicious (and so big) that i saved it and ate the rest the next day. that salad may have had more calories than a burger, but at least i didn't want to kill myself and/or throw up after eating it.

Okay, anyone with any real greivances towards this "investigation" can go judge this on whatever level they want to on sites like:

http://www.calorieking.com

And judge for themselves whether or not the quantity of what they eat at lunch matches up to the salad they choose.

@astheticiy

I think a good deal of "those" people don't bother reading nutriion labels. Good for you that you do, I do as well, but I'm not going to lambaste people for not making a choice. And you can eat fast food, provided you read the label and you know what you're getting yourself into. Heck, even having a rough idea of calories and fat intake on a Whataburger or Crunchwrap Supreme can help some people be able to figure out where to put that in their daily calorie intake. I choose not to since a double Whataburger with bacon and cheese (a personal favorite) has 110% of my daily fat allowance and nearly 1000 calories. So, I pick one of these up maybe 2-3 times a year.

It's smart planning. Not being a smart ass.

The whole point of fast food is that it can be eaten fast (not just ordered and made fast) - i.e. eaten with one hand while driving. If you're in a rush, sitting down to a table and eating a salad with a plastic fork, and dripping dressing all down your clothes is not fast! If I want a salad, I'll make it myself or go to a "proper" restaurant which will let me customize it. If I want "fast" food I'll get real fast food (burgers/fries). I just don't understand why anyone would be so dumb as to order a salad at a fast-food joint.

What's with everyone trying to debunk the findings? They're true. Sure, you could say 'a sandwich isn't filling like a salad', but that's variable. To one person, it might be, to another, they may 'need' 5 Big Macs. The basic premise of the piece rings true: people choose salads to 'feel better' about what they are eating, but the truth is they might as well eat something else.

This happened to my wife and I, we used to love those market fresh sandwiches from Arby's, and we thought we were eating healthier. Notsomuch. Lesson learned: ANYTHING sold by a fast food chain is not good for you. Why? Because everything they sell you will have an additive that will make it unhealthy. They deal in the business of quick, tasteful food. Anything healthy takes time, and doesn't taste 'as good' (relatively, to most people used to fast food) as fast food.

I don't like french fries or soda but I like hamburgers. Is that really so crazy?

Great post. I'd also like to see a side-by-side comparison of fast food options to similar options from cafe chains like Panera or Cosi. Many people think they're better off going to Panera, but, in fact, their sandwiches range from 300 to 1100 calories each and salads there have between 400 and 630 calories without dressing.

"Who knew that eating a full portion of, say, the BK Tendercrisp salad would result in consuming 210 more calories than if you'd simply ordered a Whopper Jr.?"

Anyone who reads women's magazines or health magazines?

@Chris: I get just a sandwich.

These perpetual dieters get self satisfaction from ordering those salads. Dare I say that is the part about it they like best:

"Look at these fatties chowing down on their greasy burgers. I am better than all of them."