More nonsense from Slate
The Slate article "Would You Like Fries With That Endive?" reviews the salads offered by various fast food restaurants:
The thinking seems to be that salads offer at least two incentives that haven't been traditionally associated with fast food: Classiness ("What's next-valet parking?" McDonald's asked in a recent billboard) and healthiness. "These are the anti-burger," the chains' ads seem to whisper. "Eat them, America, and live long and be well." ("And if you want to quit suing us, that'd be OK, too.")
Let's ignore for the moment that the last point is very similar to that I offered away back on May 26 in my McDonald's new "Please don't sue us" menu post.
No, let's instead concentrate on things like this:
[With a] Jack in the Box['s] Chicken Club [salad with] salty bacon-ranch dressing, and you end up with a staggering 65 fat grams-equal to the FDA's daily limit and perilously close to the chain's Ultimate cheeseburger (which has 66).
Well, duh. Most of the chains listed also offer low calorie dressings. Unfortunately, most of them are Italian and a bit too vinegary. But, if you can live with that, they'll bring the fat and calories down sharply. Most of the salads reviewed are high fat in their "stock" versions. However, if you use the lower calorie dressings, avoid the "crunchy" chicken, and throw away fried things like crispy strips, their fat and calorie counts go down to a reasonable level.
Given this article, can we trust anything else from Slate?