Food News: Buffalo Chicken is the Subway Footlong of the Month

It’s a new month, and that means a new $5 footlong deal from Subway. August’s Five Dollar Footlong is the Buffalo Chicken.

A footlong of the Buffalo Chicken 930 calories, 38 grams of fat, and 10 grams of saturated fat. Looking for something a little lighter? Wait until next month, when the 570 calorie  Turkey Breast and Black Forest Ham will rotate in at five dollars.

26 comments on “Food News: Buffalo Chicken is the Subway Footlong of the Month

  1. Kyle says:

    I don’t care how unhealthy it is still my favorite sub there (although not nearly as good as a sit down places buffalo chicken it’s still pretty good!

  2. maxchain says:

    I’d be curious about it if they actually prepared the chicken that way, but they probably just slather the buffalo sauce on after the fact, don’t they?

  3. SPM says:

    Is the dressing the reason this thing is so up there in calories?

  4. Laurie says:

    The sandwich consists of chicken strips smothered with franks red hot sauce which gets heated up with cheese on top. This sandwich was around sometime before 2003 and discontinued. However, we always had a bottle of Franks under the counter at my Subway and the guys would make one for lunch every now and then. They would also make faux nachos with a bag of doritos, cheese, jalepenos, olives, shredded lettuce, tomatoes and chipolte sauce all heated in the microwave.

  5. Laurie says:

    The ranch dressing is what makes this sandwich high in calories because the chicken is the same used on their low cal subs and franks red hot I believe has very little calories in it. if they were smart they would start using a low fat ranch and put it on their low cal menu.

    • Jay says:

      They apparently used to have a low fat ranch dressing. I agree that it would a good move to include it again. One of subway’s main draws for me is the low fat mayo, which really cuts down the calories + fat on a sandwich.

  6. Justin ST says:

    Who cares about how unhealthy it is? God…

    • Chefprotoss or dan says:

      I do. There is a big difference between the lowfat buffalo chicken sub with lite ranch from a couple years ago and this one clearly with regular ranch. It doesn’t matter though condsidering it wasn’t very good then and I doubt its good now.

  7. dc says:

    I’m with you JST – we don’t care!!!!! Why do health folks smack it in our face!! I probably won’t be around to see them slobber on their 90-year-old faces because I’ll be eating tasty shit now – enjoy your slobber years folks!

    • Justin ST says:

      I don’t know what you’re trying to imply, but your quality of life goes down so much after 70 that it really isn’t worth living anymore. My grandfather lived to 99 years old, and it was misery for him in the last 10-15 years.

      Unless eating “healthier” helps you to live like a 25 year old in your old age, what’s the point?

      • Chefprotoss or dan says:

        As someone who used to weigh 245 lbs and now weighs 170, I would say not having man tits and being a fatass is a good reason to eat healthy. Having man tits wasn’t fun.

        • Justin ST says:

          It’s all about what you eat everyday and how you exercise. There’s a difference between eating badly everyday, and eating badly once in a while.

          I think one of the main reasons fast food is so bad is because of the cheese. Get rid of it, or eat it on occasions, and you should be fine.

      • dc says:

        Not sure how you read my post and thought I was disagreeing with you but I was not – wasn’t being sarcastic. I’m sick of health nazi’s and tired of every post full of dread and worry – go to beansprouts.com already folks.. I agree with your follow-up post as well.

        The freaks put up a billboard here in Indy comparing hot dogs to cigarettes – just tired of it

        • George says:

          I imagine your enormous stomach bouncing up and down as your sausage fingers pounded out this weird diatribe on your greasy keyboard.

          We’re both on a website that frequently reviews fast food items. Having people discuss nutritional information will happen. Calm down before you have an embolism.

  8. J.B. says:

    Possibly one of the more disgusting sandwiches that Subway makes.

  9. Steeve says:

    Why is the ranch dressing purple?

  10. SPM says:

    I love the fake char marks. I used to eat Subway pretty frequently, now I get it about twice a year. The quality was never there but now it seems like it is lower than ever.

  11. Joe Cool says:

    I love all the pretentious comments, its a $5 footlong sub. Christ, what are you expecting?

    If you don’t like the stats, leave the ranch off, its not that hard. They do give you a choice, its not like you just walk in and ask for the buffalo chicken sandwich and they make it just like in the picture.

  12. AJ says:

    This sub is not unheathly, people focus too much on calorie consumption, first of all, each person is in control of their own portion, and what they put on it. Six inches of this sub, load it with fresh veggies that are nutritional benefit(no iceburg lettece). Take off the ranch (or go low fat/fat free). The problem with this sub is that most people get it ranch and no veggies. Trying to fill a persons body with only meat/cheese/bread will only satisfy your hunger, not give your body the energy it is fully needing. Everyones body needs a active lifestyle along with a well balenced diet that matches ones lifestyle. However, if you are a organic/chemical free foods person, I doubt you will find anything ledgit on the menu at subway that matches your lifestyle choice (props to all you people living your life that way).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *