How much work does it take to equal one fast-food meal

ernestrodgers82
ernestrodgers82 Posts: 208 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I saw an article today on Business Insider with infographics on how much activity one has to do to work off the damage from various fast food meals. The infographics also has the equivalent amount of calories in healthy vegetables (e.g., tomatoes, celery, carrots). The link is located at http://www.businessinsider.com/fast-food-workout-calculator-2016-3. Enjoy

Replies

  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,463 Member
    The other day I saw 524 burpees for 1 large order of fries !
  • pmm3437
    pmm3437 Posts: 529 Member
    Subway - Male - 870 - Daily calories for maintenance ~2400 - Amount of time to burn off = 8.7 hrs - Intensity level : Existing.

    1 Meal fueling your body for 1/3rd of a day ... that's just horrible.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    edited March 2016
    There's a total fallacy of logic going on here though....my BMR is around 1900 calories...so I'm going to burn off an 800 calorie fast food meal simply by existing on this planet...more than two of them in fact...and that's just existing...like someone shoving the McDonalds down my throat while I was sleeping and I never woke up for 24 hours and I'll burn off two+ of these meals.

    ETA: I'm not much of one for fast food...but I regularly have meals in the 600 - 800 calorie range...I need around 2800 - 3000 to maintain my weight...other than my meal typically being far more nutrient dense than a typical fast food meal, 800 calories of dinner is 800 calories of dinner.

  • RuNaRoUnDaFiEld
    RuNaRoUnDaFiEld Posts: 5,864 Member
    It doesn't make good headlines if they show how long you have to run to burn off a chicken salad.

  • MaryLeuelu
    MaryLeuelu Posts: 99 Member
    Probably more than it was worth lol. :)
    But wat the hay!!! if it's done, it's done. Today is another day, up and at it.
    Back to tracking.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    There's a total fallacy of logic going on here though....my BMR is around 1900 calories...so I'm going to burn off an 800 calorie fast food meal simply by existing on this planet...more than two of them in fact...and that's just existing...like someone shoving the McDonalds down my throat while I was sleeping and I never woke up for 24 hours and I'll burn off two+ of these meals.

    Yep.

    I don't care for fast food (and especially not McD's), but one BigMac is 540 calories, 25 g protein, 28 g fat, 47 g carbs. The main thing about this that is out of whack is the fat (and sat fat, I imagine) compared to what I usually eat for lunch. Also, too few vegetables, but if you buy lunch vegetables can be difficult.

    The comparison with vegetables doesn't make sense, as just vegetables isn't a good lunch, IMO (need protein and more calories).

    If I were buying lunch, a few options I consider to fit into my overall healthy diet include:

    Protein Bar (local chain) Southwest salad (http://www.theproteinbar.com/location-details.html?loc=120sriverside): 480 calories, 40 g protein, 53 g carbs.

    Hannah's Bretzel (local chain) Sergio's Special (http://hannahsbretzel.com/food, this is a splurge, but totally worth it because so tasty): 560 calories, 29 g protein, 69 g carbs (it also comes with about 80 calories of almonds, so total lunch value easily is 640).

    Chipotle fajita bowl with chicken, no rice (but yes on the black beans): 370 calories (not bad for fast food), 41 g protein, 31 g carbs

    While these others fit into my plan better than the BigMac (and taste far better to me), I don't consider the BigMac calories out of the ordinary for lunch or difficult to fit into a day, by comparison. Even the Sergio's isn't hard to fit in should I want to. I'm in favor of bringing lunch, as it gives more flexibility, but I don't think buying lunch means you have to burn it off in a special way -- I buy lunch more than I should without being over my calories.

    (I do exercise, of course, but that's based on my workout plan, not what I eat for lunch.)
  • blues4miles
    blues4miles Posts: 1,481 Member
    Also I don't like drinking my calories. Would rather have more fries/burger than non-diet soda.

    And not like I have to 'work off' what I already planned for dinner. Agree it's a fallacy, I burn calories by just existing. It's not like I had a sensible chicken breast and broccoli for dinner THEN went out and got a big mac and fries, who does that? So it's really big mac + fries - chicken - broccoli = 'extra'.

    Also wonder what weight the calories burned are calculated for. An overweight person walking/running/dancing burns more than a normal weight person.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    There's a total fallacy of logic going on here though....my BMR is around 1900 calories...so I'm going to burn off an 800 calorie fast food meal simply by existing on this planet...more than two of them in fact...and that's just existing...like someone shoving the McDonalds down my throat while I was sleeping and I never woke up for 24 hours and I'll burn off two+ of these meals.

    ETA: I'm not much of one for fast food...but I regularly have meals in the 600 - 800 calorie range...I need around 2800 - 3000 to maintain my weight...other than my meal typically being far more nutrient dense than a typical fast food meal, 800 calories of dinner is 800 calories of dinner.

    Yeah I hate those articles for this reason. I don't have to workout extra to burn that 700 calories meal - I burn 3x as much in a normal day!

    Although yeah some items are harder to fit in because they don't fill me up as much (like a filet-o-fish. Like eating air. Guessing it's pretty much the same for most fast food burgers though).
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    I like how at Wendy's the woman is getting a Baconator, Large Fries and a Frosty, and the man is getting a blueberry muffin and a caramel cream latte...

    Agree with above comments about the logical fallacy that I have to somehow "earn" eating fast food by exercising excessively, and that conversely, I could eat pounds of plain vegetables instead. How is that an appropriate comparison? It is similar to how Eat This Not That compares eating an ENTIRE Blooming Onion to a single serving of hummus and pita chips.
  • zdyb23456
    zdyb23456 Posts: 1,706 Member
    My favorite chick-fil-a meal is right around 1k! I love it, but I don't eat it very often.

  • Lounmoun
    Lounmoun Posts: 8,423 Member
    Burger King- I order a hamburger, side salad with ranch dressing for 470 calories
    About an hour of exercise but I burn more than that by being alive.
    I could have 18.8 tomatoes instead for those calories but 18.8 tomatoes at once would make me hate tomatoes forever.

    If I'm not eating fast food then I'm eating something with fat, salt, sugar, protein, etc. I'm not eating just a plate of ridiculous amounts of plain vegetables of equivalent calories that don't meet all my nutritional needs in a balanced way. 470 calories isn't particularly outrageous for a meal.

    You can still make decent choices for you at fast food places. You can make horrible choices for you at the grocery store.
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,224 Member
    Sooo... this is only relevant if I have otherwise already eaten to my maintenance level before eating the fast food meal, yeah?
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    Sooo... this is only relevant if I have otherwise already eaten to my maintenance level before eating the fast food meal, yeah?

    So true!
  • Onamissionforfit
    Onamissionforfit Posts: 90 Member
    I also read it 524 burpees to burn one large fry.
  • ernestrodgers82
    ernestrodgers82 Posts: 208 Member
    lorrpb wrote: »
    The other day I saw 524 burpees for 1 large order of fries !

    That would make me think twice before "super sizing" it! I think that's the real point of the article. It's very easy to pile on some massive calories from both fast and restaurant food.
  • cafeaulait7
    cafeaulait7 Posts: 2,459 Member
    ernestrodgers82 wrote: »
    lorrpb wrote: »
    The other day I saw 524 burpees for 1 large order of fries !

    That would make me think twice before "super sizing" it! I think that's the real point of the article. It's very easy to pile on some massive calories from both fast and restaurant food.

    Absolutely. Maintenance level calories for the average American would also keep them their same weight! That's not usually a good thing. I like fast food* but I never have the calories to get those big meals and still eat normally the rest of my day. Some folks eat like that multiple times a day, too, while being sedentary, etc.

    * It's too carby for me now -- blood sugar :( Bye, bye fries. But I do still eat some sandwiches with the most of the bun taken off. No soft drink, of course. The biggest problem is the lack of good veggies and whole grain options, imho (if I'm eating any bread, I like to get protein and fiber from it).
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    ernestrodgers82 wrote: »
    lorrpb wrote: »
    The other day I saw 524 burpees for 1 large order of fries !

    That would make me think twice before "super sizing" it! I think that's the real point of the article. It's very easy to pile on some massive calories from both fast and restaurant food.

    That may be the point of the article

    but the point of the thread is that it's a crock of *kitten* ...designed as scare mongering .. and if you've got your calories under control and your nutritional balance sorted fast food can easily fit on occasion if that's your kind of thing .. personally I dislike fast foods but I'd happily buy a sandwich

Categories