There are 250 calories in a McDonald’s Hamburger. It contains 12g of protein, 9g of fat, and 510mg of sodium.

This review summarizes how nutrient profiling models score foods using components such as energy, saturated fat, sugar, and sodium. Such models are commonly used to compare the relative nutritional quality of fast-food items, but they depend on the specific scoring system chosen and the set of foods included in the comparison.

The WHO guideline recommends reducing free sugars intake to less than 10% of total energy intake, with a conditional recommendation for further reduction to below 5% of total energy intake. This provides the public-health basis for nutrition scoring systems that penalize higher sugar content.

The CDC’s general nutrition guidance explains that foods higher in calories, saturated fat, added sugars, and sodium and lower in nutrients are considered less healthy options. It emphasizes that fast food meals often contain high levels of these components and advises limiting such foods as part of a healthy eating pattern. However, the CDC does not publish brand‑specific or chain‑specific composite nutrition scores (like Nutri‑Score) comparing McDonald’s hamburgers to the average US fast‑food hamburger; it provides criteria and recommendations rather than chain rankings.

The WHO fact sheet on healthy diets notes that limiting intake of "total fat and saturated fats," "free sugars," and "salt (sodium)" is important for reducing health risks. It explains that ready‑to‑eat processed foods and fast food often contain high amounts of these nutrients of concern. The WHO does not provide a Nutri‑Score or brand‑by‑brand comparison of fast‑food products such as McDonald’s hamburgers against other burgers in the US; its guidance is conceptual and nutrient‑based rather than chain‑specific.

McDonald’s publishes nutrition information for its U.S. menu items, including calories, saturated fat, sodium, and other nutrients used in many nutrition-scoring methods. These official values are the primary data needed to compare McDonald’s hamburgers with burgers from other chains.

The study assessed the overall dietary quality of full menus from eight fast-food chains (McDonald’s, Burger King, Subway, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, KFC, Arby’s, Jack in the Box) using the Healthy Eating Index-2005 (HEI-2005), where 100 points represents highest conformance to federal dietary guidelines. It reports: “Of 100 possible points, total HEI-2005 scores for the full menus ranged from 39.9 (Taco Bell) to 49.7 (Subway; Table 1).” It notes that McDonald’s obtained maximum points for some components (Milk, Total Grains) but that “full menus scored lower than 50 out of 100 possible points on the HEI-2005” and that McDonald’s dollar menu “rates poorly in relation to dietary guidance.” However, the paper evaluates entire menus, not specifically hamburgers, and does not compare McDonald’s burgers to the average fast-food burger across U.S. chains.

This National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief describes how much fast food adults in the United States consume, based on NHANES data. It reports: “Overall, the mean percentage of calories consumed from fast food among adults age 20 and older decreased from 14.1% during 2013–2014 to 11.7% during August 2021–August 2023.” It also notes that “the percentage of calories consumed from fast food on a given day decreased with age and increased with increasing weight status.” The brief does not break down nutrition scores of specific chains or burgers, and it does not compare McDonald’s hamburgers with the average fast-food hamburger in the U.S.

This paper presents methods for nutrient profiling such as the Nutrient Rich Foods (NRF) index and related scores that rate foods based on beneficial nutrients (e.g., protein, fiber, vitamins) and nutrients to limit (e.g., saturated fat, sugar, sodium). It explains how such indices can be used to compare the overall nutritional quality of different foods, including fast-food items. However, it does not include a specific comparison of McDonald’s hamburgers versus an average fast-food hamburger in the U.S., and is cited here to show the type of “overall nutrition score” that could theoretically be applied.

NCCOR summarizes a study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine that used the Healthy Eating Index to assess fast-food menu quality from 1997–2010. It states that “the overall health quality of fast food was poor,” with food items scoring “48 points on average, out of a possible 100, an increase from 44 points in 1997.” The restaurants analyzed included “McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC), Arby’s, Jack in the Box, and Dairy Queen.” The article notes that “KFC made the greatest gains, from 42 to 51 points on the Healthy Eating Index” and that “McDonald’s…has gained six points, peaking at 48 on the Healthy Eating Index.” These HEI scores apply to overall menus rather than to hamburgers alone, and no average across all U.S. fast-food hamburgers is provided.

This working paper examines the relationship between proximity to fast-food restaurants (including McDonald’s) and obesity outcomes using school and birth records. It documents that exposure to fast food increases obesity and weight gain, emphasizing the generally poor nutritional quality and high calorie density of fast-food items. The paper, however, does not provide a standardized nutrition score for McDonald’s hamburgers or compare them with an average fast-food hamburger across all U.S. chains.

Healthline’s dietitian-reviewed ranking identifies McDonald’s McDouble as the healthiest McDonald’s burger among the options considered, with 390 calories, 20 grams of fat, 22 grams of protein, 32 grams of carbs, and 2 grams of fiber. This shows that McDonald’s burgers can rank well on some nutrition measures, depending on which burger and scoring metric are used.

The ranking places McDonald’s hamburger near the top of the list, stating: “#2: McDonald’s Hamburger.” The article says it was similar to Burger King’s hamburger but ranked second because of higher sodium content, which indicates McDonald’s is not uniformly worse than its peers in this comparison.

This academic case study discusses McDonald’s role in the fast-food industry and mentions the use of a “Nutrition Profiling Index (NPI), which scores an overall nutritional quality based on calories, and variance of healthy and unhealthy ingredients including saturated fat, sugar, sodium, and fiber.” The text notes that NPI and similar indices can be used to compare products and menus across fast-food chains. However, the document focuses on corporate strategy and menu evolution and does not present a specific, numerical comparison of McDonald’s hamburgers versus the average fast-food hamburger in the United States.

The McDonald's chicken burger scores roughly half the unhealthiness points of its equivalents at Burger King (31 points) and KFC (27 points). The McChicken (14 points) at McDonald’s is the healthiest of its type among the fast-food chains we surveyed.

This overview explains that fast food “is inexpensive food, mostly high in calories and low in nutritional value, usually served by chain restaurants,” and emphasizes that such meals often contain high levels of fat, sugar, and sodium. It describes how nutrition scientists assess fast food using indices like the Healthy Eating Index and nutrient profiling, but it does not single out McDonald’s hamburgers or compare them numerically to an average fast-food hamburger across U.S. chains.

Reporting on PlushCare’s study, Allrecipes explains that researchers rated burgers from 16 popular chains on an “Unhealthiness Score” derived from energy (calories), total sugar, saturated fat, and sodium. It notes: “Five Guys’ cheeseburger received the highest points, coming in with an 'Unhealthiness Score' of 50.” The article adds: “You may be surprised to learn that McDonald’s wasn’t even in the top 10 list of most unhealthy burgers. The restaurant’s classic cheeseburger actually tied with Burger King’s cheeseburger for fourteenth place, each with a total score of 18.” It concludes that “McDonald’s is the least unhealthy fast food chain—but only as long as diners don’t pile their tray high.” The coverage reflects one comparative study rather than a comprehensive national average for all fast-food hamburgers.

Hims evaluated burgers from major U.S. burger chains using calories, protein, trans fat, saturated fat, net carbs, and sugar, with weighted scoring. The article focuses on chains’ top burgers rather than average hamburgers, but it shows that McDonald’s menu items were included in health-based burger comparisons and were not automatically the worst performers.

Fast Food Burgers Ranked by Nutritional Value. The list compares burgers across chains and includes McDonald’s among the items ranked by nutritional value. Shake Shack dominates with three out of the top four healthiest burgers.

Nutri‑Score is a European front‑of‑pack labeling scheme and has not been adopted as a standard nutrition rating system for fast‑food chains in the United States. Major US chains such as McDonald’s provide Nutrition Facts information (calories, fat, sodium, etc.) but do not routinely display Nutri‑Score ratings, and there is no official US database that assigns Nutri‑Score values across all fast‑food hamburgers. As a result, there is no widely accepted, systematically compiled "average Nutri‑Score" for US fast‑food hamburgers against which McDonald’s hamburgers could be quantitatively compared.

The classic McDonald’s burger has 12 grams of protein, 250 calories, 30 grams of carbs, 3.5 grams of saturated fat, and 510 milligrams of sodium. Delish ranks McDonald’s burger as the #3 healthiest option in its roundup.

This student-style statistical report compares nutritional data from McDonald’s and Burger King menu items. It notes: “The mean of McDonald’s calories was 497.74194 and the mean of Burger King’s calories was 523.33333. Although Burger King’s is slightly larger, there is not a substantial difference…” The analysis is limited to these two chains, aggregates multiple menu items (not just hamburgers), and uses calorie averages rather than a comprehensive nutrition score like the Healthy Eating Index or an NPI.

Burger King, McDonalds and Wendy's hamburger offerings topped the lists as the lowest calorie burgers from all 20 fast food chains, with just 250 calories. The 20 lowest calorie burgers at US fast food chains includes McDonalds Hamburger at 250 calories.

The caloric values for burgers in this data has a range of 1,320 calories and an IQR of 370 calories. Burgers are highly variable with respect to caloric value.

Classic hamburger only about 12 grams of protein. The video compares multiple McDonald’s menu items and describes the classic hamburger’s nutrition profile in the U.S. context.

This marketing blog presents a 2026 ranking of healthy fast-food chains, but it is not an independent or methodologically transparent source for comparing McDonald’s hamburgers with the U.S. fast-food hamburger average. It is included only as weak contextual evidence that newer rankings continue to vary by methodology.

Fast Food Burger (Typical Cheeseburger w/ Bacon & Sauce) approximate averages: calories 650–800, protein 25–30g, carbs 40–50g, fat 40–45g, sodium 1,200–1,600 mg. This is a user-generated nutrition comparison post.