Message Boards » Food and Nutrition

TOPIC: whats the worst "food myth" you have heard?

 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
May 19, 2012 11:34 AM
It's already been mentioned, but the one that bothers me the most is the "don't eat after __pm!" As if our body cares what time of day it is and changes the way it reacts to food. Bullsh!t laugh
  11877635
May 19, 2012 11:46 AM
You shouldn't eat carrots because they are nothing but carbs.....thanks, Mom!
  7182811
May 19, 2012 11:49 AM
I had a cousin that use to sware that fruit2o water made her gain weight.

and I use to go to church with a girl that said she could lose waight by eating dark choc. every night befor going to bed.

both of these ladies are still over weight
May 19, 2012 11:50 AM
That fruit is bad because it has sugar
  7216256
May 19, 2012 11:53 AM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Broken biscuits don't count, because they aren't whole biscuits.
Biscuits that you eat in the dark don't count, because you can't see them.
Really thin biscuits don't count if you eat them side-on, I guess because they are really thin and therefore you kind-of can't see them either...

Anyone seeing a recurring theme here?!

I also read on here somewhere the other day - if you eat too much fat your liver turns it into insulin so that will make your insulin resistance worse.

Also I feel a need to comment on some other things I've seen, though I haven't read the whole way through this thread.
Fruits are full of sugar which is bad, IF you eat a lot of them IF you are, for example, diabetic. High blood sugar is not conducive to weight loss.
Dietary fat clogs your arteries. Someone said this is one of those myths. If not from your diet, where do you think that circulating fat comes from? Why do you think things like the Atkins diet that encourage people to eat more fat result in statistically higher rates of heart disease and atherosclerosis? It is absorbed from your gut, metabolised by your liver and packaged into lipoproteins to be transported around your body for storage. Too many lipoproteins of a certain kind get eaten up by other cells and sit in the walls of your blood vessels. Ergo, fat clogging arteries.

FALSE as far as the fat clogging artery portion...OMG people have no clue when it comes to cholesterol
I am going to stop reading this post now, reading some of this non-sense is raising my Blood pressure (False, you can't actually feel blood pressure, hence hypertension is known as the "silent killer" in the medical world)


Of course you can feel high blood pressure. Unless my tinnitus, pounding heart and palpitations are imaginary? huh

Oh and I'm an overweight vegetarian. I've been vege since the age of 10, put on weight from the age of 18 - too much alcohol, fast food and general being young stupid, eating too much and thinking I was invincible. So yeah, you can be an overweight vegetarian
  19051227
May 19, 2012 11:56 AM
I need a "like" button on this thread!!!
  17184719
May 19, 2012 2:20 PM
QUOTE:

Some of these are real gems!! My grandmother always said standing up while eating makes your legs fat and my husband is convinced that adding water to orange juice has the same flushing, hydrating effect as just drinking just water . . .


If all you ever drank was orange juice, from a hydration perspective, your body would never know the difference.

Definite differences from a calorie perspective...but most any liquid will keep you hydrated successfully.
  7434194
May 19, 2012 2:26 PM
"Soda and coffee count towards your daily water" Unfortunately, there are a lot of people on MFP that still believe this too! noway
  19614385
May 19, 2012 2:27 PM
QUOTE:

Eat breakfast to stoke the metabolic fire!

Total BS!

grumble
There is real science behind this "BS" that demonstrates why you need to "[e]at breakfast to stoke the metabolic fire". Your metabolic process is centered around the regulation of glucose in your blood stream, the fuel your body uses, and during the night your metabolism changes as your blood sugar declines. In the morning your blood sugar is at a "low" level, relative to the "normal" level for your body ("[a]verage blood sugar levels are 100 mg/dl (70-120 mg/dl) or 5 mmol/L") and as such eating breakfast increases the level of glucose in your system and the level your metabolism is working at.

That said, you cannot use it as a blanket statement and say that ANY food will jump-start your metabolism in a healthy way, and in fact the whole subject of breakfast and metabolism is far more complex than what is presented here.

A side note to this and every one of the other "myths" presented in this thread is that they are consistently being misinterpreted by many different people in a variety of different ways with limited understanding of what they mean and context presented.
If there is any hope of this discussion being more than a running gag, the topics need to be well defined and the person presenting them must be clear and concise on the point, angle, and context they are arguing --and blanket statements should be avoided at all costs.
explode

References:
NSCA’s Performance Training Journal | www.nsca-lift.org/perform Vol. 4 No. 6 | Page 11
http://www.fodsupport.org/blood-sugar-monitoring.htm
Mayo Clinic, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/insulin-and-weight-gain/DA00139/NSECTIONGROUP=2
http://www.emaxhealth.com/43/2407.html
May 19, 2012 2:37 PM
QUOTE:

"Soda and coffee count towards your daily water" Unfortunately, there are a lot of people on MFP that still believe this too! noway


you know that, in the hospital, when tracking fluid intake that soup and even jello count, right? same deal here. I don't count soda, but coffee or tea? why the hell not? it's water with flavoring, essentially.
  13605134
May 19, 2012 3:12 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Eat breakfast to stoke the metabolic fire!

Total BS!

grumble
There is real science behind this "BS" that demonstrates why you need to "[e]at breakfast to stoke the metabolic fire". Your metabolic process is centered around the regulation of glucose in your blood stream, the fuel your body uses, and during the night your metabolism changes as your blood sugar declines. In the morning your blood sugar is at a "low" level, relative to the "normal" level for your body ("[a]verage blood sugar levels are 100 mg/dl (70-120 mg/dl) or 5 mmol/L") and as such eating breakfast increases the level of glucose in your system and the level your metabolism is working at.

That said, you cannot use it as a blanket statement and say that ANY food will jump-start your metabolism in a healthy way, and in fact the whole subject of breakfast and metabolism is far more complex than what is presented here.

A side note to this and every one of the other "myths" presented in this thread is that they are consistently being misinterpreted by many different people in a variety of different ways with limited understanding of what they mean and context presented.
If there is any hope of this discussion being more than a running gag, the topics need to be well defined and the person presenting them must be clear and concise on the point, angle, and context they are arguing --and blanket statements should be avoided at all costs.
explode

References:
NSCA’s Performance Training Journal | www.nsca-lift.org/perform Vol. 4 No. 6 | Page 11
http://www.fodsupport.org/blood-sugar-monitoring.htm
Mayo Clinic, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/insulin-and-weight-gain/DA00139/NSECTIONGROUP=2
http://www.emaxhealth.com/43/2407.html


Really?

Hmm...

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

The scientific community has a consensus that not eating sends your body into starvation mode. Starvation mode leads to conservation, not burning of caloric fuel. You must keep your metabolism running to burn fat efficiently. If you get hungry for two hours during the day before lunch, drink water and/or a light snack to pacify yourself. It's ok to fill hungry for a little while, your body will adjust after a few days...it won't last forever.

The notion that not eating has no effect on metabolism and therefore weight loss is simply laughable!


Here, since you asked...I'll give you some things to look up for light reading.

QUOTE:

In one study, researchers found that the when they made people fast for 3 days, their metabolic rate did not change. This is 72 hours without food. So much for needing to eat every three hours!

Reference:
Webber J, Macdonald IA, The cardiovascular, metabolic and hormonal changes accompanying acute starvation in men and women. British journal of nutrition 1994; 71:437-447.


QUOTE:

In another study by a different group of researchers, people who fasted every other day for a period of 22 days also had no decrease in their resting metabolic rate.

Reference:
Heilbronn LK, et al. Alternate-day fasting in nonobese subjects: effects on body weight, body composition, and energy metabolism. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2005; 81:69-73


QUOTE:

In still more studies, there was no change in the metabolic rate of people who skipped breakfast, or people who ate 2 meals a day compared to 7 meals per day

References:
Verboeket-Van De Venne WPHG, et al. Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism. British Journal of Nutrition 1993; 70:103-115

Bellisle F, et al. Meal Frequency and energy balance. British Journal of Nutrition 1997;, 77: (Suppl. 1) s57-s70


And the conclusion you must draw from such overwhelming evidence?

QUOTE:

The bottom line is food has virtually nothing to do with your metabolism. In fact, your metabolism is much more closely tied to your bodyweight. If your weight goes up or down, so does your metabolism. The only other thing that can affect your metabolism (in both the short term and longer term) is exercise and weight loss. Even in the complete absence of food for three days, your metabolism remains unchanged.


And so...since food has virtually NO impact on your metabolic rate...how exactly is it that eating breakfast 'jump starts your metabolism'?

If you want to jump start your metabolism of a morning, do 20 or so jumping jacks.



I'm so glad I copied that post to a word file. It gets REAL old retyping it every damn time someone pops up and says you have to eat breakfast to keep your 'metabolism fired up'...or to 'jump start your metabolism'.

Ctrl+v for the win.
Edited by crisanderson27 On May 19, 2012 3:14 PM
  7434194
May 19, 2012 3:14 PM
I guess it's not a food myth in particular but people always tell me carbs make you fat. I've been eating 50% the whole time and have successfully maintained for over a year :)
  2182844
May 19, 2012 4:52 PM
Oh geeze. I was raised on food myths.
- Eggs make you fat
- Finish everything on your plate because there are starving children in China (I saw some of you had this one too - its funny, but its also been the hardest part about my dieting... I am compelled to finish my plate, and feel guilty if I have anything left over. it sounds ridiculous but its taken me SO LONG to realize I can just PACK IT UP AND EAT IT LATER. *head slap*)
- My personal favorite, not really a food myth: "Running? You're going to get fat calves." My mother told me this when I quit cheerleading and took up XC running. She was upset she was losing her perfect cheerleader daughter and that I wanted to do a "boys sport". Never got those fat calves, but I definitely was in the best shape of my entire life.

Since I have put on weight in my 30s, I've heard a few more good ones from well-meaning people:
- Mustard kills your appetite - just eat packs of mustard instead of food!
- There are 1,000 calories in every slice of pizza (yeah, maybe a large meat-lovers, but a small thin-crust with veggies and low/no cheese? My mom just wanted to make me feel guilty and fat for eating pizza.)
- Breakfast isn't necessary (it is for me, anyway... a high-protein light breakfast keeps me energized all morning long)
- Corn Syrup isn't any worse for you than regular sugar (oh, this one starts so many debates... I avoid it because I try to avoid sugar, period, but HFCS is in so many non-sugar things - bread, salad dressings, canned soups, etc - gotta read the labels! If you wouldn't add corn syrup to something you'd make homemade at home, why choose to have it in something you buy in the store? My opinions, obviously)

sigh. there are so many out there. i think my all-time favorite one is: You don't have to count calories to lose weight! Just follow this diet or that diet or pay this $$$ and sprinkle this powder or drink this shake or take this pill and the pounds "melt away!" The only weight you lose following that kind of bogus pop advice is in the wallet area.
May 19, 2012 4:54 PM
Eating tuna and drinking milk at a meal with kill you lol
  7557665
May 19, 2012 5:02 PM
that would probably be the one where if you crack a cookie in half, you can shake out the calories. :P
  23126779
May 19, 2012 5:03 PM
There are certain foods I dont dare eat late....like pizza. If I do, I will end up waking at 3 in the morning with heartburn. Anything with tomato sauce will do that to me. But this has only been the last 5 years or so. Thats what getting old can do to you. bigsmile

But, as a rule, I dont eat late because I am a T2 diabetic and I have to test my fasting sugar in the mornings. wink
  23159244
May 19, 2012 5:14 PM
"Healthy wholegrains"

What a joke. The worst part is, people think they're slowly absorbed. ROFLMAO.
May 19, 2012 5:34 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

"Legumes are poisonous" Heard it on MFP from a Paleo fanatic.


I sort of follow the paleo way because it works with my body. A lot of people who follow this diet are pretty extreme and that's why I strayed away from those forums. Anyway, I had my first cup of pinto beans the other night only to wake up very nauseated and gassy the next day, so I don't eat them often. Not because I think they're poison, but they just don't agree with me. Each body is different.


Soak your beans for 8 hours, drain the water out, rinse and then cook. You should not have gas after that.
May 19, 2012 6:12 PM
Where to begin…maybe you should start by copy/paste this into that word file of yours. It is this common practice of blindly Ctrl+c/Ctrl+V of unsupported “research” that leads to the ignorant, perpetuating misinformation.

First we need to examine what the subject was, “metabolic fire” or more commonly, metabolism. You however, decided that a rebuttal using “metabolic rate” was more appropriate, as that was the content of your “supporting” documentation.

The definition of metabolism:
me•tab•o•lism
noun
1. Biology, Physiology . the sum of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which its material substance is produced, maintained, and destroyed, and by which energy is made available.
2. any basic process of organic functioning or operating: changes in the country's economic metabolism.

The definition for metabolic rate:
metabolic rate
noun
rate of metabolism; the amount of energy expended in a given period

Had you actually read the articles you are waving from your soapbox you would have noticed that the study done by J. Webber and I.A. Macdonald, entitled, “The cardiovascular, metabolic and hormonal changes accompanying acute starvation in men and women”, published in the British journal of nutrition, 1994, issue 71, pages 437-447, says nothing about how “researchers found that the when they made people fast for 3 days, their metabolic rate did not change”, and in fact showed that “…prolonged undernutrition and fasting lead to a reduction in resting metabolic rate (RMR).” Specifically relating to the subject being discussed, the chemical process, it was found that “[p]lasma insulin and free triiodothyronine fell during starvation. Plasma adrenaline and noradrenaline were unchanged at 36 h, but were significantly increased after 72 h.”

Likewise, in the second article about RMR and dietary restrictions, and not metabolism, by Heilbronn LK, et al., published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2005, issue 81, pages 69-73, titled “Alternate-day fasting in nonobese subjects: effects on body weight, body composition, and energy metabolism”, the conclusion of the researchers was not that “people who fasted every other day for a period of 22 days also had no decrease in their resting metabolic rate” but that the rate between the measurements taken for baseline and those taken on day 22 were not “significantly different”. This means that there was a difference (6675kJ baseline to 6292kJ day 21) but that it was not significant in the context of their study.

Yet again, the article you use is concerning RMR and not the actual chemical changes that were being discussed. This one, written by Wilhelmine P.H.G. Verboeket-Van De Venne, Klaas R. Westerterp, and Arnold D. M. Kester, titled, “Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism”, published in the British Journal of Nutrition 1993, issue 70, pages 103-115, does not make a blanket statement that “there was no change in the metabolic rate of people who skipped breakfast, or people who ate 2 meals a day compared to 7 meals per day”, rather stating that “a more likely conclusion may be that meal frequency has no effect at all on total daily [energy expenditure] EE.” To fully appreciate this conclusion you must read the article and take note that the study was riddled with sources of error, from discrepancies “due to the restriction of spontaneous physical activity of the subjects while staying in the respiration chamber” to the “possibility of a carry-over effect of the first treatment into the second half of the study.”

Conclusion: None of your rebuttal had to do with the topic at hand nor does it accurately portray any of the cited studies.

Due Diligence for the WIN

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Eat breakfast to stoke the metabolic fire!

Total BS!

grumble
There is real science behind this "BS" that demonstrates why you need to "[e]at breakfast to stoke the metabolic fire". Your metabolic process is centered around the regulation of glucose in your blood stream, the fuel your body uses, and during the night your metabolism changes as your blood sugar declines. In the morning your blood sugar is at a "low" level, relative to the "normal" level for your body ("[a]verage blood sugar levels are 100 mg/dl (70-120 mg/dl) or 5 mmol/L") and as such eating breakfast increases the level of glucose in your system and the level your metabolism is working at.

That said, you cannot use it as a blanket statement and say that ANY food will jump-start your metabolism in a healthy way, and in fact the whole subject of breakfast and metabolism is far more complex than what is presented here.

A side note to this and every one of the other "myths" presented in this thread is that they are consistently being misinterpreted by many different people in a variety of different ways with limited understanding of what they mean and context presented.
If there is any hope of this discussion being more than a running gag, the topics need to be well defined and the person presenting them must be clear and concise on the point, angle, and context they are arguing --and blanket statements should be avoided at all costs.
explode

References:
NSCA’s Performance Training Journal | www.nsca-lift.org/perform Vol. 4 No. 6 | Page 11
http://www.fodsupport.org/blood-sugar-monitoring.htm
Mayo Clinic, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/insulin-and-weight-gain/DA00139/NSECTIONGROUP=2
http://www.emaxhealth.com/43/2407.html


Really?

Hmm...

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

The scientific community has a consensus that not eating sends your body into starvation mode. Starvation mode leads to conservation, not burning of caloric fuel. You must keep your metabolism running to burn fat efficiently. If you get hungry for two hours during the day before lunch, drink water and/or a light snack to pacify yourself. It's ok to fill hungry for a little while, your body will adjust after a few days...it won't last forever.

The notion that not eating has no effect on metabolism and therefore weight loss is simply laughable!


Here, since you asked...I'll give you some things to look up for light reading.

QUOTE:

In one study, researchers found that the when they made people fast for 3 days, their metabolic rate did not change. This is 72 hours without food. So much for needing to eat every three hours!

Reference:
Webber J, Macdonald IA, The cardiovascular, metabolic and hormonal changes accompanying acute starvation in men and women. British journal of nutrition 1994; 71:437-447.


QUOTE:

In another study by a different group of researchers, people who fasted every other day for a period of 22 days also had no decrease in their resting metabolic rate.

Reference:
Heilbronn LK, et al. Alternate-day fasting in nonobese subjects: effects on body weight, body composition, and energy metabolism. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2005; 81:69-73


QUOTE:

In still more studies, there was no change in the metabolic rate of people who skipped breakfast, or people who ate 2 meals a day compared to 7 meals per day

References:
Verboeket-Van De Venne WPHG, et al. Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism. British Journal of Nutrition 1993; 70:103-115

Bellisle F, et al. Meal Frequency and energy balance. British Journal of Nutrition 1997;, 77: (Suppl. 1) s57-s70


And the conclusion you must draw from such overwhelming evidence?

QUOTE:

The bottom line is food has virtually nothing to do with your metabolism. In fact, your metabolism is much more closely tied to your bodyweight. If your weight goes up or down, so does your metabolism. The only other thing that can affect your metabolism (in both the short term and longer term) is exercise and weight loss. Even in the complete absence of food for three days, your metabolism remains unchanged.


And so...since food has virtually NO impact on your metabolic rate...how exactly is it that eating breakfast 'jump starts your metabolism'?

If you want to jump start your metabolism of a morning, do 20 or so jumping jacks.



I'm so glad I copied that post to a word file. It gets REAL old retyping it every damn time someone pops up and says you have to eat breakfast to keep your 'metabolism fired up'...or to 'jump start your metabolism'.

Ctrl+v for the [FAIL]
May 19, 2012 6:26 PM
QUOTE:

Where to begin…maybe you should start by copy/paste this into that word file of yours. It is this common practice of blindly Ctrl+c/Ctrl+V of unsupported “research” that leads to the ignorant, perpetuating misinformation.

First we need to examine what the subject was, “metabolic fire” or more commonly, metabolism. You however, decided that a rebuttal using “metabolic rate” was more appropriate, as that was the content of your “supporting” documentation.

The definition of metabolism:
me•tab•o•lism
noun
1. Biology, Physiology . the sum of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which its material substance is produced, maintained, and destroyed, and by which energy is made available.
2. any basic process of organic functioning or operating: changes in the country's economic metabolism.

The definition for metabolic rate:
metabolic rate
noun
rate of metabolism; the amount of energy expended in a given period

Had you actually read the articles you are waving from your soapbox you would have noticed that the study done by J. Webber and I.A. Macdonald, entitled, “The cardiovascular, metabolic and hormonal changes accompanying acute starvation in men and women”, published in the British journal of nutrition, 1994, issue 71, pages 437-447, says nothing about how “researchers found that the when they made people fast for 3 days, their metabolic rate did not change”, and in fact showed that “…prolonged undernutrition and fasting lead to a reduction in resting metabolic rate (RMR).” Specifically relating to the subject being discussed, the chemical process, it was found that “[p]lasma insulin and free triiodothyronine fell during starvation. Plasma adrenaline and noradrenaline were unchanged at 36 h, but were significantly increased after 72 h.”

Likewise, in the second article about RMR and dietary restrictions, and not metabolism, by Heilbronn LK, et al., published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2005, issue 81, pages 69-73, titled “Alternate-day fasting in nonobese subjects: effects on body weight, body composition, and energy metabolism”, the conclusion of the researchers was not that “people who fasted every other day for a period of 22 days also had no decrease in their resting metabolic rate” but that the rate between the measurements taken for baseline and those taken on day 22 were not “significantly different”. This means that there was a difference (6675kJ baseline to 6292kJ day 21) but that it was not significant in the context of their study.

Yet again, the article you use is concerning RMR and not the actual chemical changes that were being discussed. This one, written by Wilhelmine P.H.G. Verboeket-Van De Venne, Klaas R. Westerterp, and Arnold D. M. Kester, titled, “Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism”, published in the British Journal of Nutrition 1993, issue 70, pages 103-115, does not make a blanket statement that “there was no change in the metabolic rate of people who skipped breakfast, or people who ate 2 meals a day compared to 7 meals per day”, rather stating that “a more likely conclusion may be that meal frequency has no effect at all on total daily [energy expenditure] EE.” To fully appreciate this conclusion you must read the article and take note that the study was riddled with sources of error, from discrepancies “due to the restriction of spontaneous physical activity of the subjects while staying in the respiration chamber” to the “possibility of a carry-over effect of the first treatment into the second half of the study.”

Conclusion: None of your rebuttal had to do with the topic at hand nor does it accurately portray any of the cited studies.


Did I hit a nerve? Someone's been a busy little bee!

I have read the articles (actually multiple times), and to be honest, I've found a much different perspective than your own. So has a significant portion of the population, along with the author of the book where I pulled the quotes themselves from (never did I suggest that those comments were 'part of the study'). Additionally, whether or not you share the same perspective as I, facts remain facts...interpretation remains interpretation.

It will be interesting to go through the studies again however, looking for another perspective. Not that I truly believe I'll find one...but as you said:

QUOTE:

Due Diligence for the WIN


Which is obviously the only part we agree on.
  7434194
May 19, 2012 6:28 PM
QUOTE:

"Soda and coffee count towards your daily water" Unfortunately, there are a lot of people on MFP that still believe this too! noway


Because it's true.
  8487736
May 19, 2012 7:49 PM
Swallowing watermelon seeds will cause watermelons to grow in your stomach ...thanks grandad!
  15401804
May 19, 2012 8:11 PM
QUOTE:

(never did I suggest that those comments were 'part of the study').


The articles cited were studies, the book you claim to have drawn from was never quoted nor cited.

QUOTE:

facts remain facts...interpretation remains interpretation.


It has everything to do with facts and nothing to do with interpretation. The articles refer to metabolic rate, the discussion was about metabolism, the two are not synonymous, and it matter little how many times you read them they will always be a studies on metabolic rate.
May 19, 2012 8:13 PM
QUOTE:

if you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding. how can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

lol --yeah I've heard this one as well:))
Edited by chancie72 On May 19, 2012 8:13 PM
  2643309
May 23, 2012 5:46 AM
QUOTE:

Subway is healthy.


Thank you dear.

Yes Subway maybe a HEALTHIER choice,
compared to say....A double quarter pounder with extra cheese, a large fry and a coke BUT
I can honestly say, I only eat subway when i feel i HAVE too because I am starving, forgot my lunch etc. I know I dont have to do anything and I like subway but it is one of the things I have to be careful with what with easy access haha laugh "

BECAUSE a lot of the sandwiches... believe it or not are very high in if not calories with the sandwiches alone but in carbs and if you dont watch out, fats, sodium, and the extras on top of that.

If you can fit it in your allowance though go hog wild! but I ate a very good one the other day, made by yours truly and it used up a 1/3 of my allowance haha...my bad!

but

I can not tell you how many times I have had customers come in...
ask what my healthiest sandwich is... whine because I happen to say "6" veggie on wheat/white bread with no cheese"
end up getting the turkey, footlong, on honey oat, load it with mayo...I am talking both sides of the bread.., but it's okay, because it is "light" huh . usually extra cheese... and get mad at ME when they ask me if the calorie count is accurate and I inform them that they only are counting meat on bread with a specific formula of veggies on the sandwich, on a 6" white or wheat bread with NO cheese

Dont get me wrong, subway is yummy, I love my job, but would rather make my own yummy sandwich, have a nice side with it and have it only count half as much as just one 6inch would alone flowerforyou

ps: it's okay, im professional wink
<--------------------------------

Message Boards » Food and Nutrition

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.