Hacker News Reader

Comment by josefresco | Hacker News Reader

FYI there looks to be less saturated fat, and sodium in a MorningStar burger compared with the Impossible.

*http://smartlabel.kelloggs.com/Product/Index/00028989100689

My first complaint about the nutrition of the Morningstar burger is the ratio of carbs to protien. Restaurants are already throwing tons of carbs at me. I really want protein in my burger patty.

Wait, are you really complaining about nutrition at a fast food restaurant ?

It’s not as though some food is automatically bad for you because it came from Burger King, and even if it were, there is a huge range of how bad it is. I could get 500 calories from a burger or 2000 from a burger with a milkshake and fries. It’s not a good idea to make a fast-food restaurant a zone of nutrition nihilism where we just accept that we doom our health by entering and ignore the choice of what to order.

At least they are forced to display nutrition info, so I know what I’m getting, unlike most sit-down restaurants that serve even larger portions with no numbers included.

Sometimes, you need something fast, cheap, and easy, so it's nice to have some fast food items in mind that have reasonable calories and macros. A great example is when I'm driving long distance, I'll swing by CFA if possible.

> I'll swing by CFA if possible.

Uh... http://cfa.org ?

Chick-fil-A

https://www.chick-fil-a.com/

Assuming Chick-fil-A in this context

of course then you have the ethical implications of chick-fil-a

I really hate this take that if something is not perfect, you might as well just give up completely.

Fast food doesn't necessarily have to be bad nutrition. I can cook a couple of eggs in a couple of minutes.

:^)

Heck, you don't even have to cook 'em!

But it tastes like a patty of vegetables instead of a mock meat burger. Not really even the same category.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com