Subway Is Kicking McDonald's Buns

By
March 8, 2011
3 comments
subway
Better than a Big Mac? (Simon Shek/Creative Commons)

The Golden Arches of McDonald's are everywhere, but they're less plentiful than the yellow signs of Subway, according to a recent Securities and Exchange Commission document.

Time Magazine reports "a Subway spokesman counted their 33,749 eateries versus Mickey D's 32,737."

According to the Cleveland Leader, Mickey D's was trumped by the footlong food chain nine years ago in the United States. Now the global market is bowing down to the new super sandwich power.

Those numbers aren't completely representative of each company's reach. "McDonald's has a presence in 117 countries," Time's Nick Carbone explains, "while Subway cites franchises in just 95."

If you're sighing in relief that the birthplace of the Big Mac is seeing the beginning of the end to McDonald's domination, think again. The Wall Street Journal reports that "McDonald's is still the leader when it comes to sales. The burger chain reported $24 billion in revenue last year."

In any case, is Subway's surge anything to be celebrated? Sure, Jared shed 245 pounds in a year and shot to stardom as Subway's unofficial, then official, mascot. But Jared also started out at 425 pounds. Limiting his calorie count (rather than any particular Subway influence) was the probable cause for his weight drop. 

Eight months ago, TakePart dished up some of Subway's not-so-hot realities: the bread is loaded with high fructose corn syrup, and the "grains" in the 9-grain bread make up only 2 percent of ingredients.

What do you think—is Subway's boom a sign of healthier times to come, or another symptom of a fast food driven nutrition industry?

Let us know what you think in the comments.

Comments

3
McDonald's were only good cause kids loves them. I really wish that subway could beat them. -GAR Labs
garlabs
posted on Aug 19, 2011
Sure Subway offers "healthier" choices than McDonald's--in the sense that it's possible to consume a meal there without surpassing your recommended daily intake of fats and sugars. That does not, however, make it any easier to avoid going overboard when you dine at one versus the other. A sandwich that on its own exists as a low calorie meal could easily become stage one of a 1,000+ calorie overindulgence when upgraded to a "value meal" with a cookie, potato chips, and a large soda. If you were to ask me, they not only enable but ENCOURAGE customers to make unhealthy choices by bundling sandwiches with unhealthy side dishes. Pardon my harsh judgment, but I find it difficult to agree with a company that advertises being a healthy place to dine while simultaneously promoting the very eating habits that they claim they are an alternative to.
SLO_lane_Cycler
posted on Mar 13, 2011
Not that I think Subway is truly healthy, now that I know more about the bread, processed meats, etc. But they are WAY better for us than McDonald's. McDonald's takes something as simple as wholesome oatmeal and wrecks it with 11 unnecessary additives, then jacks up the price! Pointless. We can bring our own oatmeal packet to work, pop it in the microwave, and save a few bucks, calories and metabolic imbalance. Glad to see someone outrank McDonald's after all these years. I would like to see Subway (and other delis and restaurants for that matter) offer more Non-GMO and organic options, etc. (especially cooking & salad oils, breads, fruits and vegetables, etc.)
gmofreeworld
posted on Mar 8, 2011