Quote:
Originally Posted by curves2000
One of the reasons why the franchises were hesitant about making the switch to all day breakfast was staff impact. I guess the way they used to utilize the kitchen for breakfast was different than for the lunch and dinner options. You would think now the kitchen is set up different to make way for both options.
The more and more I think about this, there might be a business rationale for offering an all day breakfast menu as opposed to just selling breakfast.
I know a lot of people who refuse to eat at McDonalds during lunch or dinner due to the perceived unhealthiness of the food but don't hesitate at all to pick up a sugary coffee, fatty and salty breakfast sandwich along with a sweet muffin. I know it sounds STUPID to think like that but I think a lot of people might think that the breakfast options are "healthier" than something like a Big Mac??
I have always found people to be a bit confused as to what they are eating health wise. People always vilify something like pizza as being "unhealthy" but don't bat an eye with a loaded deli meat sandwich from Subway. It's just interesting.
|
When you actually break down the nutrients in a Big Mac, if you get a diet drink with it, you're looking at around 8-900 calories. That's totally fine for a male with an active lifestyle.
The food people make at home, and fill with oil and butter, is often much worse. Following Super Size Me, McDonalds became the poster child for unhealthy fast food. It's obviously a little unfair.
Also, many of the healthy options they introduced, like ranchy salads, are worse for you than the burgers. When I worked at Earls, we'd see the nutritional breakdown. The Ceaser salads were horrendously bad for you, but people would order them as diet items. A reason I'm not against mandatory listing of calorie content on menu items.