Fast Food vs Full-Service Restaurants: Which is Better?

Fast food restaraunts are the epitome of modern day culture and technology. Never before has food been so plentiful and cheap that we simply want to get whatever junk down our throats.

I feel ashamed to even have to be talking about whether fast food restaraunts are better than full service. We all know which is best.

when eating at a dine-in restaurant, i notice that i eat a little slower, talk a little more, sip my water a little more- however when i was a fast food junkie i didn't even think about the food in my mouth, whether it tasted good or just greasy- but i ate it because the person with me ate it, or for whatever reason. you eat so quickly you dont even have time to talk between bites- i suppose if you wanted to be healthy, you would probably want to take the time to notice what is going in your mouth and if you like it or not- and is it going to fill you up- even if it is at a fast food restaurant, couldn't one make a better choice than double fried chicken and still not have to go to a sit down restaurant?

Not to mention you get full from the food in full service restaurants a lot easier... at least, I do.

Mmm, fiber.

Did they control for economic status?

In most cases, full service restaurants are nutritionally worse and have much larger portions. The difference is that massive Ruby Tuesday burger costs 5 times as much as the McDonald's burger, so most people can't afford to eat there as frequently.

Home cooking. I like to know what goes into my food.

McDonalds are spread into all over the world, so one branch is located in my local area in Japan too. Many parents are taking their kids to there and feeding them on their junk. It is really sad that our regular diets have been westernized and polluted by the America commercialized junk food restaurants...

Also, don't forget that there is typically a difference between the food served at a local-original restaurant versus that at one corporate-owned or franchised.

More often than not, the chain restaurants are serving you processed and frozen food, cooked somewhere else. Just like fast food.

It's quite obvious, when you're served something that looks like a tv dinner! (Olive Garden, TGI Friday's, among others)

The local-original restaurant is more likely to prepare the food right there, as much as if you would make it at home. At least you know the food was cooked, rather than "rethermalized", like airplane and hospital food.

I think it depends on what you mean by "Which is better?" As far as freshness & taste, full-service definitely wins. But if we're talking about obesity--I agree with the previous poster who said that most people simply can't afford to eat at full service restaurants as often as they do fast food. If they could--and did--eat at full-service restaurants several times a week, I think the "obesity epidemic" would be even worse. I personally would rather indulge in a full service restaurant once in a while, but I do it knowing that if I order a burger or a pasta dish, etc., the calorie count is probably very high, even if I do only eat half of it. The highest calorie item on the McDonalds menu is the Double Quarter Pounder with cheese, at 730 (I believe). Walk into a Ruby Tuesday and you are pretty much guaranteed to get one that has at least 1000 calories. The Colossal Burger has 1660, and that doesn't include fries. So I agree that full service restaurants probably have fresher and--all things being equal--healthier food, I don't eat there to control my weight.

Kailash said:
Also, don't forget that there is typically a difference between the food served at a local-original restaurant versus that at one corporate-owned or franchised.

More often than not, the chain restaurants are serving you processed and frozen food, cooked somewhere else. Just like fast food.

I work in one of the latter you've described, and it is little better than fast food. Pretty much everything we serve is pre-breaded, pre-cooked, pre-mixed, etc. We just throw it in the fryer or on the grill. To contrast that, though, I remember reading on a locally-owned restaurant's website about the chef buying a bag of a plain grain from another local restaurant that had just closed--and how that had inspired him.

I think if I'm going out, I'd prefer the local restaurant. This one even makes its own ketchup.

Katie - is that how Olive Garden does it? Why pay $14.95 for a a pre-packaged dish?

I don't know if that's how Olive Garden does it since that's not the chain I work out, but I suspect it's similar. Where I work, say you order a steak with rice and vegetables. The steak is frozen and vacuum sealed, your rice is cooked/rehydrated/reheated with chicken broth in the microwave, and your vegetables are cooked from frozen with a giant glop of margarine in the microwave.

I just take the stance that I don't like complicated food--so why pay good money above and beyond the cost of the food to someone if all I want are steamed vegetables and a salad? People need to realize the cost of the convenience of eating out.

Meant to write "work at," not "work out." Though it can be a workout walking around serving bad food for eight hours without a break.

Makes sense to me. With fast food restaurants people tend to eat everything they order; where as, in an eat-in restaurant they have no problem stopping when you are full and taking the rest home in a doggy bag for the next day.

The restaurant I work at is a smaller chain, and everything is made in-house. Nothing is frozen, except, I believe, the mozzarella sticks. We make our own salad dressings, potato chips, tortilla chips, sauces, and croutons as well.