If you pack a footlong sub’s worth of meat into a six inch roll, should you have to pay more? That’s the question that a weight-watching Consumerist reader has asked himself after several frustrating trips to Subway. He breaks down his dilemma after the break.
I’ve nailed it down so that a foot-long ham sandwich has 570 calories, but if I cut out 210 calories by dropping half the bread, I can keep the sub to 360 calories and keep all the meat.
This seems like an easy solution. I ask them for a footlong turkey, but make it onto a 6-inch sub. Confusion ensues. So I say, just put the normal amount of ham for a footlong onto a 6-inch piece of bread. Then they say it’s no longer a $5 footlong and charge me for a 6-inch, double meat sub. Works out to about $6.25, but my point isn’t the five quarters I’m paying for LESS food. I can just take the footlong and slide the meat and toppings over myself, but when I’m on the go it’s a pain, plus, what’s the point of throwing out 6 inches of bread they can use for someone else.
I thought maybe there’s confusion by the sandwich makers, but it’s happened several times now, and a phone call to the store gave me the same answer. It’s amazing that a company that built its brand on the back of a weight loss campaign by Jared would have such trouble making what amounts to a calorie saving move. I understand that in a fast food setting, efficiency is everything and you don’t want people over-complicating the process of making sandwiches. Having worked in fast food myself I know that breaking the routine throws things off, but is it that much harder to build a sandwich onto half the bread that it is to ask which peppers you like, or whether you want mayo?
His argument makes perfect sense of course, but let’s not forget that restaurants often employ fuzzy math when it comes to certain orders. In this case, it’s a better financial move to order a footlong sub, stuff the meat into half of the sandwich and give the other half to the birds.
(via The Consumerist)