I recently posted a list of the 88 worst fast food items. That list was based on the amount of trans fats in various fast foods. Now Men's Health has weighed in and picked the 20 Worst Foods in America, and this list is based not only on fats but also calories, sodium, and carbs.
Obviously, when you're talking fast food, a lot of it is going to be bad for you, but I guess it's good to have a list of specific foods and categories. For example, they name the McDonald's Chicken Selects Premium Breast Strips (5 pieces) witih Ranch Dressing as the Worst Fast Food Chicken Meal. The Jamba Juice Chocolate Moo'd Power Smoothie gets the Worst Drink nod. It's 900 calories, with 10 grams of fat and 166 grams of sugar.
What foods on the list do you regularly eat?











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
11-19-2007 @ 4:36PM
Kat said...
Nice to see they offer viable solutions to the offenders... though it seems to me if you're ordering fast food in particular, you should be expecting a high caloric payload.
Reply
11-19-2007 @ 5:11PM
Christine said...
Thank God I don't eat any of these.
I used to go for the Chicken Crispers at Chili's. But one look at the nutritional information online and I stopped eating there altogether.
Reply
11-19-2007 @ 8:10PM
Dan said...
HUH?
The alternative to a turkey burger is a 9 oz sirloin?
"The Truly Healthy Choice: Skip burgers entirely (few at Ruby Tuesday come in under 1,000 calories). Instead, order a 9-ounce sirloin (just 256 calories) with a side of steamed vegetables." OK, just for the sake of fact. IF the sirloin was 100% protein, which if lean is not too far off.... and using the standard 4 calories/gram for protein. 9 oz x 28.4 grams/oz x 4 cal/gram = 1022 calories. WHERE 256 calories came from is a complete mystery to me.
Reply
11-19-2007 @ 9:50PM
Dan said...
ooops, I forgot that water is counted in the initial uncooked weight. Nonetheless--the normally reported calorie count is Steak, 5oz, lean only 350 calories (assuming no fat). That makes a 9 oz steak 630 calories. Still NOT even close to 257 calories....
Reply
11-19-2007 @ 11:10PM
BigTed said...
Dan, you're absolutely right. The statistic of 256 calories in a 9-ounce steak is taken directly from Ruby Tuesday's nutrition label -- which is obviously incorrect.
It shows the steak as containing 46 grams of protein, just 11 grams of fat (elsewhere on the website it lists 6 grams of fat, but that doesn't really make a difference here) and 1 gram of carbohydrate -- for a total of 57 grams, which translates into about 2 ounces. So where did the other 7 ounces go? You might lose some water in cooking, but not that much.
I'm really surprised "Men's Health" didn't catch the mistake here.
Reply
11-20-2007 @ 12:46AM
Deuz Augustine said...
"The U.S. food industry has declared war on your waistline. Here's how to disarm its weapons of mass inflation"
Anyone else sick of puns like this?
Regardless, nobody is waging war on anybody. These are choices you can make, and if you choose to make them you take responsibility for the side-effects. If I stopped eating "unhealthy" food, I'm pretty sure I'd wither away into nothing. I have the highest metabolism of anyone I know.
Seriously, do we have to keep treating people like morons? People generally know when they eat items like this, it's not the best thing for them to be eating. This obsession with only eating the most optimal thing, all the time, is a little freaky.
And as a 6' tall male who weights 130 lbs., I can honestly say that I can't imagine any steak under 12oz. being adequate, and 16oz. being a sweet spot.
Reply
11-20-2007 @ 9:05AM
Ryan said...
@Deuz
I'm right with you coming from a 6'3" 150lb'er here :-)
I always joke with my friends that I will be the skinniest person to die of heart disease as I'm downing enough home-made alfredo sauce to feed a whole italian family.
I know that the stuff I eat isn't that good for me, and if the 350lb'er that's taking down 4 quarter pounders needs the FDA or whoever to tell 'em it's bad for them...well it's probably better they are not in the gene pool.
Reply
11-20-2007 @ 9:40AM
JPN said...
I used to love the Chicken Crispers too...
@Deuz - they are definitely waging war, in my opinion. Misleading labels (even for people who understand the numbers), hard-to-find nutritional information, etc. Obviously it's on us to make good choices, but we're also raising a culture of young people in a way that makes that difficult. (I have less empathy for adults.) Also high sodium and sugar contents make moderation difficult.
Reply
11-20-2007 @ 11:18AM
wintem01 said...
So Ryan, you're saying that because of your high metabolism that it's okay for you to "drown in homemade alfredo sauce" but the 350 lber who eats the same way is better off not being in the gene pool, i.e. dead?
Reply
11-20-2007 @ 2:50PM
J.Ho said...
It would be cool for someone to write up the Top 20 best fast food items. Not the healthiest, but the best. Like an In-n-Out Double-Double or ArbySauce. Kinda like a fast-food hall of fame.
Reply
11-22-2007 @ 2:35PM
JIM said...
CARL JR's What a joke. I will never trade with them and encourage all others to boycott till they change their tac of advertising imbeciles as their customers. Their ads simply make me sick and I cannot eat at their establishments without thinking about the slob eating, burping, slopping and drooling. UNNNNGH ! ! !
Reply
11-22-2007 @ 2:52PM
NENUIC said...
IT'S GREAT TO SEE THAT SO MANY OF US ON DIFFERENT POINTS OF THE SPECTRUM ARE WEIGHING IN ON THIS TOPIC... TO THE RYAN'S & DEUZ'S-IF WE COULD ALL BE BLESSED AS YOU! BUT OF COURSE, I'M A FEMALE THAT HAS TO WATCH WHAT I EAT & EXERCISE 5 TIMES A WEEK JUST TO FEEL GOOD AND LOOK AVERAGE. ANYHOO, DAN'S & BIG TED'S WATCHFUL EYE ARE GREAT ON THIS TOPIC THAT IS OBVIOUSLY MORE & MORE IMPORTANT EVERY DAY. BOTTOM LINE, IT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH WHAT WE LOOK LIKE OR HOW MUCH WE WEIGH BUT A LOT TO DO WITH OUR HEALTH & HOW WE FEEL, WHICH ARE ONE. WE NEED PEOPLE JUST TO BE MORE AWARE OF THEIR DIET B/C, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE SCALE SAYS, IT AFFECTS OUR FUTURE STANDARD OF LIVING, BY MINIMIZING OUR PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE/ ILLNESS.
Reply
11-22-2007 @ 4:24PM
Nana Mouse said...
I went on low carb and ate enough fat to fry up a moose and lost 50 lbs.--fat does NOT make us fat. What does, as far as I've observed in all my years fighting my (not entirely successful) battle is that these things do--fried carbs and sugar and not much else. So--avoid the fries, keep sugar to a minimum, exercise sanely and even those of us with a cursed metabolism (like me) can manage. At some point we have to just eat NORMALLY--this cultural food obsession is a waste of time. We have better things to worry about--like the PLANET.
Good luck!
Reply
11-22-2007 @ 5:13PM
smarteepantz said...
Seriously...6', 130 lbs?? 6'3", 150 lbs??
You guys, eating disorders go to both genders, that weight is *not* healthy and definitely *not* appealing.
Reply
11-22-2007 @ 6:32PM
joanna said...
I use to weigh over 165pds.and counting! my doctor
told to "COMPLETELY" give up soda pop.At first, I
wasn't sure but within 2 months, I DID give up ALL
soda pops!Now, after 2 months with SUCCESS, I weigh
140pds.and keep working on losing more weight! Iam an older female and about 5'2. HEY, IT DOES WORK,
AND I AM A SUCCESS! TRY IT! YOU WILL FEEL BETTER
AND LOOK BETTER,TOO!
Reply
11-22-2007 @ 6:45PM
Freedle said...
We don't eat out. I cook meals at home which is so much cheaper. We had deer steaks last week, along with a salad and some fruit. I believe in making a meal that is good for everyone. I do this every day of the week. I'm really upset at people that constantly go out to eat, whether it is fast food or restaurants. Save money, eat at home.
Reply
11-22-2007 @ 10:37PM
Sylvia Flynt said...
I just want to say I like to hear someone is checking up to make sure they are not falsly advertising calories to the public as I rely on these facts and figures to lose weight. Please keep it up.
Reply
11-23-2007 @ 2:36AM
Sara said...
These foods are definitely a little scary, but I wonder what would happen if Men's Health expanded their criteria of what "worst" meant. I know there wouldn't be room for everything on the list, but there are some items I find scary because they contain very few real (as in not artificially created) ingredients and/or flavors. The portions are smaller, but candies, sodas, cereals, pastries, etc. can give you much less nutritional value for their mass than even the worst food on the Men's Health list.
Unfortunately, the whole issue gets confusing because mainstream definitions of "healthy" and "not healthy" tend to rely on calories, fat, and maybe another category like sodium. Although these are important to consider for one's health, in the scheme of things they represent fairly narrow criteria.
Still, kudos to them for creating the list, and major thanks to Dan (comment 3) for pointing out that the information we get isn't always reliable.
Reply
11-23-2007 @ 9:02PM
Eric said...
It seems like people should have already known that pot pies are bad for them. It is on the nutrition label. If people eat garbage like this and get fat and/or become unhealthy then it is their own fault. I am sick of peope that eat junk food, smoke cigarettes, and don't exercise then get fat and complain that they are sick or unhealthy. These people are killing themselves and need to get some willpower and if they are that addicted to their deadly lifestyles and can't stop then they need to take a look at themselves. I have no sympathy for people like this. I work with mainly fat people who eat fast food almost every day for lunch and are fat, they smoke, and they don't exercise and then they complain that they don't feel good. I feel like saying "you deserve it." My boss's wife brings him a burger or some other crap every day for lunch and she eats the same garbage while she sits on her fat behind all day and smokes. It is only a matter of time before one of my coworkers drops dead. Lucky enough I work pretty much by myself and don't have much contact with their greasy behinds.
Reply
11-23-2007 @ 9:39PM
hugo said...
How bad is pizza with alot of cheese and Ice cream
Reply