As I was passing a Subway, a popular eating establishment that I have yet to frequent, I paused to check out their product line and prices. Well actually I had just done a quick about-turn because I usually ignore these eateries as they look a bit like greasy cafes. The shop appeared to be in demand and as I looked upon it I noticed a sign on the front window displaying the number £2.99. This was encouraging, perhaps I have been missing something in all the years I have been shunning it as bad rubbish, I thought. But then I noticed the not so small print on the poster. In fact quite bold faced print. It was special low energy food being advertised. All the taste and not fattening (i.e. filling) or some such bulltulip it said. WTF thought I, I do not require taste from this establishment, I require nourishment, food, calories, and if it tastes good so much for the better. No hydrogenated fats though. This is why my tummy is rumbling and I am feeling weak. Rarely do I require taste and restricted calories in exchange for my rapidly depreciating coin. If I wanted taste I'd buy some sweets or grill a nice juicy steak and sprinkle on some salt, hmmm, FFS. WTF would I want to enter some tuliphole wasting calories queuing only to receive what they describe as 'taste', and left with an empty feeling 5 minutes later and £2.99 lighter sooner? Is there an extra charge for these less calories I pondered. Would it not be easier and more honest to make portions smaller rather than out of air or indigestible matter? I bet it wasn't even 100% meat. Maybe not even 0% meat. I was sufficiently stunned by the small print that I don't even recall what the food item consisted of now. Suffice to say it probably wouldn't have borne much more than a passing resemblance to the example shown on the poster, which itself was not memorable for its size and girth or nutritional content. Specifically, I submit that it would have been thinner and floppier and that a cursory examination of the contents would have revealed that the sliver of ingredients that had been displayed on the outside, from an optimum viewing angle, was all that was on the inside too. No sirs, I gave this establishment short thrift.
I'll stick with McDonald's, where at least I know that after a Big Mac Meal (large) I am good to go for a few hours. Though even with McD a whiff of foreboding hangs in the air. Yes, even MacD. I refer to the vast and detailed nutritional information provided on the back of each and every tray mat, staring back from every meal like a numerical prophesy of things to come. These numbers will come down from today's glorious heights you mark me, there is no avoiding it unless they put the prices up. I try to maximise these numbers but a suspicion is growing in me that even this fine purveyor of calories may be preparing the way to 'flog punters low energy food and leave 'em hungry for more' bandwagon. The path may already be trodden. They've already done it with salt and got away with it, and they don't make the salt sachets easy to find any more either. And they may start saying that less calories are good for you (and better for them too I bet). We shall see what the future holds but it fills me...no the future does not fill me.
Or maybe it's just me? Any there other non-fatties out there who eat for old fashioned reasons like feeling hungry*?
In other news the price of chips went up the other week, from £1.40 to £1.50, and if you want fish you'll need a fat wad or a credit card.
*Not hungry in the Ethiopian or Eastern European sense of the word. May contain low sodium calorie restricted nuts.
I'll stick with McDonald's, where at least I know that after a Big Mac Meal (large) I am good to go for a few hours. Though even with McD a whiff of foreboding hangs in the air. Yes, even MacD. I refer to the vast and detailed nutritional information provided on the back of each and every tray mat, staring back from every meal like a numerical prophesy of things to come. These numbers will come down from today's glorious heights you mark me, there is no avoiding it unless they put the prices up. I try to maximise these numbers but a suspicion is growing in me that even this fine purveyor of calories may be preparing the way to 'flog punters low energy food and leave 'em hungry for more' bandwagon. The path may already be trodden. They've already done it with salt and got away with it, and they don't make the salt sachets easy to find any more either. And they may start saying that less calories are good for you (and better for them too I bet). We shall see what the future holds but it fills me...no the future does not fill me.
Or maybe it's just me? Any there other non-fatties out there who eat for old fashioned reasons like feeling hungry*?
In other news the price of chips went up the other week, from £1.40 to £1.50, and if you want fish you'll need a fat wad or a credit card.
*Not hungry in the Ethiopian or Eastern European sense of the word. May contain low sodium calorie restricted nuts.
Comment