This sentence in Mark Bittman's complaint about McDonald's heavily caloric oatmeal caught my eye, as I suspect it did everyone else's who read the piece:
The aspect one cannot argue is nutrition: Incredibly, the McDonald's product contains more sugar than a Snickers bar and only 10 fewer calories than a McDonald's cheeseburger or Egg McMuffin. (Even without the brown sugar it has more calories than a McDonald's hamburger.)
When I first read that, I was as disgusted as everyone else. Oatmeal with more calories than a hamburger? Gross. But Bittman doesn't actually tell you exactly how many calories McDonald's oatmeal or hamburgers have throughout the entire piece, which is a bit odd considering that he's trying to tell you how bad it is for you. The truth is that at 250 calories, McDonald's hamburgers aren't particularly caloric by themselves. The two varieties of oatmeal on their nutrition list weigh in at 260 and 290 calories respectively, and while I wouldn't eat it, the fact that they are more caloric than a hamburger doesn't really mean all that much. Consider that a "skinny" turkey sandwich at Potbelly's, where I eat frequently, also has more calories (282) than a McDonald's hamburger starting out. I think it's probably better for me, but I really have no idea. I think the image of "McDonald's hamburger" probably invokes the image of the tiered sandwiches with multiple beef patties, rather than the sad, rumpled bread coasters you actually get if you order just a plain ol' hamburger.
Anyway, I don't think anyone should ever go to McDonald's to eat healthy, and I think most people know that -- unfortunately for many people living in poor neighborhoods, McDonald's is often one of the few options available. But if all you have for lunch is a McDonald's hamburger, you're not taking in very many calories, and I think most people probably consume more than 290 calories at breakfast in a 2000 calorie diet even without going to McDonald's in the first place.
