« March is approaching | Main | Go Ahead, Ur, say it with your parallelogram mouth." »
February 28, 2005
Chipotle and McDonald's: Are They Really that Different?
There was a curious article in the NY Times Magazine yesterday, the thrust of which suggested that Chipotle was a healthier alternative to the big fast food chain that happens to be its major investor.
To some people, it might seem like justice that a progenitor of trans fats would appear to be repenting for its supersize sins, but it's not. "Fast casual" restaurants like Chipotle, Qdoba Mexican Grill and Panera Bread have experienced steady growth over the past few years. McDonald's may be simply hedging its bets against its own seemingly bleak future.
The "bleak future" being the loss of profits due to people finally realizing how fat they are and trying to eat healthier. But is Chipotle really that healthy?
A Chipotle opened here in Lincoln over a year ago and we already had a similar locally-owned place called Oso Burrito. I still prefer Oso Burrito. Although the basic offerings are similar, Oso Burrito has fresh batter-dipped fish for Baja-style tacos.
Much of the Times article focused on the pork used for the carnitas at Chipotle which is naturally raised (no hormones or antibiotics) I guess that makes their pork as healthy as a heap of greasy shredded swine can get and it is a far cry from the McRib, but natural ingredients don't necessarily mean nutritionally healthy ingredients.
There's a well-known nutrition calculator for Chipotle that might shock some people. Say you order the three small soft-shell tacos at Chipotle with fajita vegetables, carnitas, red tomatillo salsa, sour cream and lettuce. You wind up with 770 calories (326 from fat), 37.5 g of fat, 2906 mg of sodium and 56 grams of carbs (if you're one of those people who cares about such things). Healthy it up as much as you can by ordering the bol (no tortilla), black beans, tomato salsa and lettuce and you get down to 193 calories, but who in the hell wants to eat that and who pays $5 for the privilege?
Many people prefer to load their burrito up when they go to a place like Chipotle that advertises huge burritos. Try the 13" burrito shell with rice, black beans, carnitas, corn salsa, cheese, sour cream and lettuce. That'll get you 1272 calories (only 438 from fat), 3411 mg of sodium, and 141 g of carbs (I've created a more fattening burrito on the calculator but I can't figure out the combination right now).
Compare that to a Big Mac and medium fries - 910 calories, 49 g of fat, 1230 mg of sodium and 89 g of carbs.
I know. I know. A lot of people only eat half their burrito and save the rest for later, but a lot of people don't. It's still an outrageous portion size driven by America's love of the buffet and the never-ending bowl of pasta.
Certainly you can put together a comparably healthy burrito there but a 13" burrito shell with black beans, cheese and salsa still gets you 638 calories, only 20 g of fat, but still 1898 mg of sodium and 99 g of carbs.
Posted by Half-Cocked at February 28, 2005 10:55 PM
Comments
One of the most disillusioning moments of my recent life was in looking at the nutritional info at the Baja Fresh site. Oy. Very depressing.
Posted by: Shelley at March 1, 2005 12:43 AM
wow! thanks, plenty of 15 &under carb options! katie is going to love this! wait, do they have vegetarian stuff?
THE SODIUM WILL KILL YOU THOUGH.
i *heart* baja fresh. thanks for the heads up shelly.
Posted by: julee at March 1, 2005 09:20 AM
Excuse me, complaint department? I'd like to complain that my burrito contains nutrition. "99g of carbs," to be precise. I don't know about the rest of the buffet-loving country, but when I eat, I prefer to have none of that food constitute heat energy (calories) that I could use for "energy" later. Also, there's no difference between "fat" and "saturated fat." Obviously.
Posted by: nick hiltunen at May 26, 2005 08:03 PM