4 ms·
> The average American’s total caloric intake grew from 2,109 calories in 1970 to 2,568 calories in 2010. As Pew Research put it, that’s "the equivalent of an e
by de_Selby 11y ago
> The average American’s total caloric intake grew from 2,109 calories in 1970 to 2,568 calories in 2010. As Pew Research put it, that’s "the equivalent of an extra steak sandwich every day."
A better comparison might be a snickers and a coke:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=snickers+and+coke http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=snickers+and+coke
- kyllo 11y agoYeah, what kind of steak sandwich would only have 459 calories? I wouldn't expect any reasonably sized and palatable steak sandwich to pack less than 800!
- dragonwriter 11y agoThank you for demonstrating part of the problem, the inflation in expected portion sizes.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- kazinator 11y agoAs well as the expectation that calories make something "palatable".
- will_work4tears 11y agoThe difference between a lean steak and a nicely marbled steak in both taste and calories are significant. Not that lean meat is not palatable, but it might require some sauce due to dryness at most places (if you make it yourself, you can probably do better than most fast food restaurants) - and that extra sauce might bridge that calorie gap. Most places always overcook their meat, sadly, and lean meat isn't very palatable when overcooked; or it at least has less resistance to dryness than the fattier cuts.
- DanBC 11y agoBut that's not so unusual. We know that people like a combination of salty fatty sweet stuff, and that food manufacturers engineer products to have the right proportion of sugar, salt, and fat, while being very eatable. That's how we go from roast chicken with gravy to deep fried chicken to deep fried popcorn chicken bites in batter with sugar sauces.
- kazinator 11y agoI mean more calories simply as in two pieces of deep fried chicken being more palatable than one.
- kyllo 11y agoThat's... not what "palatable" means. Think more like, deep fried chicken dipped in some delicious sauce, versus eaten without any sauce. The kind with sauce is more palatable because it has more fat and/or sugar, not because it is just more of the same thing.
- zzalpha 11y agoActually, the human body is wired to experience pleasure when eating fats and sugars. This represents a useful adaptation in a species exposed to a potentially nutrient-poor environment, where identifying and consuming high calorie food sources is critical to survival. So, yes, in fact more calories specifically makes food more palatable.
- kazinator 11y agoI didn't mean caloric density.
- kyllo 11y agoIf you just stuck 4 ounces of sirloin steak (276 calories) between two slices of white bread (158 calories) and put literally nothing else on it, you would have a "steak sandwich" with 434 calories. Does that sound like a good meal to you?
- BozeWolf 11y agoThe idea of steak sandwhich is just crazy. In the Netherlands something like that probably not even exists. Or it is exceptionally rare. Come on, if you want a steak. Sit down at at home or at a proper restaurant and have it on a plate. And not on the go. Pay attention to what you eat and actually taste it. If somebody would actually taste the flavor of a snickers he would probably not finish it. Same for a steak on a sandwhich. Steak is not the problem. Having it on the go/in front of the tv/computer is. (Nothing wrong with a bar of good chocolate though. Might be a bit more expensive though)
- cyphunk 11y ago> In the Netherlands something like that probably not even exists. Come on, if you want a steak. Sit down at at home or at a proper restaurant and have it on a plate The idea of a stroopwafel is crazy. Come on, if you want a waffle with syrup just sit down at a table and eat a real one ;)
- BozeWolf 11y agoBut stroopwafels are good;) and not like 1000 calories :)
- dagw 11y agoIn the Netherlands something like that probably not even exists. Or it is exceptionally rare. http://www.subway.nl/nl/locaties http://www.subway.nl/nl/locaties Doesn't seem that rare to me.
- BozeWolf 11y agoThats an american style thingie! Nice find though. But if you have lunch at restaurants like this you deserve to get fat. It would have been nice if it was open at night, so you can have a fat unhealthy meal after some proper unhealthy drinking session. Instead of a "frikandel". Which is another crazy dutch invention.
- bluedino 11y agoIn the USA a 'steak sandwich' isn't really like a ribeye steak on two slices of bread. It's typically either thinly sliced steak or ground beef patty of sorts, with cheese and sauce (and possibly things like onions or peppers) depending on what region of the country you are in.
- arh68 11y agoYou can get a Philly by the inch, any calorie count you want. Subway's Steak & Cheese 6" is 380 calories (241g). [1] [1] http://www.subway.com/nutrition/nutritionlist.aspx http://www.subway.com/nutrition/nutritionlist.aspx
- kyllo 11y ago*Sandwich nutrition values include 9-Grain Wheat bread, lettuce, tomatoes, onions, green peppers and cucumbers. Values do not include cheese unless noted. So that's for a Steak & Cheese, hold the cheese.
- rtpg 11y agoThis is such a great example. I used to have like 1 or 2 snickers a day, then noticed that it was basically 100% of my daily recommended saturated fat intake in a single bar. Snickers bars are one of the worst things you can put in your body.
- DanBC 11y agoIt'd be really helpful for someone like me to see the bellcurve. Shifting that average up means people on the high end are eating significantly more calories than the old high end.