The Subway Diet: What's Missing?

Nutrition anyone? wrote:

but back to subject: do you really think that eating sodium laden "meat" and nutritionally useless "bread" is a good way to eat healthy?

Because most distance runners eliminate salt and bread from their diets?

deraj wrote:

[quote]Nutrition anyone? wrote:

but back to subject: do you really think that eating sodium laden "meat" and nutritionally useless "bread" is a good way to eat healthy?

The sodium would be fine for a runner, providing their diet is fairly balanced. I think it would be healthy, depending on what sandwhich you eat. Generally the bread with oats, a lean meat, cheese, virtually every vegatable, a side of apples, and water would be healthy. I'd have to occasionally add cookies or sun chips, just cause they taste good.

i run the 800 meters, if i just run an all-out 800 every day, will i get better?

dumbest thread ever

Nutrition anyone? wrote:

flagpole is wrong on the math, that's for sure. who needs two subs. plus, i don't believe he spends only 1/2 of the 14K/12 per month for a family of four (although it is possible.)

but back to subject: do you really think that eating sodium laden "meat" and nutritionally useless "bread" is a good way to eat healthy?

1) Who needs two footlong subs in a day? Pretty much anyone who wants to maintain their weight, ESPECIALLY a runner. According to Subway's website, their MOST caloric 6' sub is 580 calories (meatball marinara). Double that to 1160 for lunch (to make it a footlong) and then another 1160 for dinner and you're only talking 2320 calories. Get any other sub and the calories are less, even as low as 1140 for TWO footlongs.

2) And yep, $600 a month on groceries (anything you buy in a grocery store) is the budget in the Flagpole household per month, and it's not like we eat out a lot either. Not too hard to do, and you don't have to buy the super cheap brands of everything either.

3) You are correct though with questioning the sodium-laden meat and nutritionally "useless" bread.

supersub wrote:

Your math is excessive. There's only one of me and one fully loaded six-inch sub and cup of tap water is a pretty reasonable lunch for me. By the time I get home from work, I can run and cool off and shower without being too terribly hungry. I guess I don't have the ravishing hunger and monster calorie consumption I read about from some people on here. I can finish the day off with the other six inches of my $5 footlong. Maybe every two or three days I could buy the little baggy apples and some milk. So that's maybe $40 a week, or $2000 a year on food for me. That's about 3% of my salary and I am only taking care of me for the forseeable future. So forget the money. Hypothetically, if this were to be done, what would be my downfall, nutritionally speaking?

1) Well, $40 a week is $2080 a year, not $2000, but whatever. I agree though that it's not terribly expensive if that's all you're spending on food, but...

2) Dude, you are a runner and you are eating the equivalent of just a footlong sub each day, and only SOMETIMES you might have some milk and apples too? You realize that the most caloric footlong sub from Subway is 1160 calories? Sorry brother, but that's not enough...not even for a sedentary person.

So, first of all, nutrition aside, you aren't getting enough calories. Second of all, the sodium in the meat and bread is crazy high. Look here -

Pay particular attention to the vitamins and nutrients...really not very good over all. The fiber is actually higher than I would have guessed.

If you're looking for an easy way to fill up each day, then go ahead and eat those subs. If you want to have better nutrition, then you should buy the stuff yourself (making better choices about the meat and bread you use).

Jared had aides.

we're going to be respectful today or, to put it another way, we're going to observe a minimum standard of respect. the thread to which you refer included posts that didn't come close to meeting that standard.

the most salient element of ted kennedy's career is his ability to not hate, not be cynical, not keep score, not lay in the tall weeds. for this reason, orrin hatch and other of the *best* republican senators considered kennedy their friend. it would be nice if those of both political persuasions took a lesson from kennedy and hatch, and could comport themselves with the dignity of each.

but i know that will not happen, because the internet is populated by small, classless, unequipped, ignorant, fearful people, whose only outlet is to lash out from the safety of their keyboards. for those who behave according to type, do your best to listen to your better angels today, if you can still hear them.