1
2
1
3-min walk from Exit A2, Sheung Wan MTR Station continue reading
All Branches (3)
Telephone
25581099
Opening Hours
Today
11:00-22:00
Mon-Sat
11:00-22:00
Sun
Closed
Payment Method
Visa Master AE Cash Octopus
Review (7)
Level3 2017-02-23
1439 views
$78,買左chicken breast with broccoli and spinach,份量少,男士一定唔夠。雖然係健康,但非常唔好味.... 特别係菠菜。唔好再去… continue reading
(The above review is the personal opinion of an user which does not represent OpenRice's point of view.)
Level1 2016-12-09
1533 views
The concept of no sugar, no salt, no fat added meals was great. Gymbox serves very lean meals that fills you without any extra calories. Unfortunately they forgot to make it taste good. The food was pre-made and kept on a hot tray, then picked and plopped into a plastic box as your order. It reminds me of the very bland school lunch I used to get, the ones where you queue with a plate, then the staff plops onto your plate.When we visited, they had a tomato sauce and a weirdly chemical BBQ sauce. I would have done a lot more with the menu. There is a lot you can do with flavours like making your own lean vinaigrette with substitue sugar/sugar free jam/honey with vinegar, herbs, or even just taking advantage of the juice of the meat, or adding a bit of herbs. Sadly there is none of that and it tasted like everything was just blanched ... still a good idea for a lean meal but I wish they did a better job. continue reading
(The above review is the personal opinion of an user which does not represent OpenRice's point of view.)
Level1 2016-11-01
1351 views
They didn't answer the phone, didn't deliver the food, didn't have what I ordered and only started putting the order together over 2 hours after I placed the order. Horrible service continue reading
(The above review is the personal opinion of an user which does not represent OpenRice's point of view.)
Level2 2016-09-27
1698 views
第2次叫gym box , 好方便的健康餐係官網直接order夠 3個就會送外賣(只限附近啦),叫左兩雞一魚。一菜一澱粉質一蛋白質。$68 接近無油的健康餐,標示上只有3百幾大卡,真係好適合workout完補充能量。雞胸唔鞋口,都幾滑,加少少蕃茄醬調味,好食過白烚雞好多!菜份量太少,標準係2份蔬菜先算均衡飲食。但呢度份量只有大約一份,可以加十蚊double 份量,但加十蚊就不是太抵了。蕃薯泥,ok la。蕃薯唔太甜,同加左少少水?有d太爛感覺。整體黎講,太忙又想keep fit可以叫,但自己絕對煮到同無咩難度,希望多返d蔬菜份量同選擇啦。 continue reading
(The above review is the personal opinion of an user which does not represent OpenRice's point of view.)
Level1 2016-09-16
1141 views
Higher cost is not higher quality  !The natural sustenance industry was evaluated at $29 billion in 2010, and from that point forward, it's developed by just about 10% a year; that is by all accounts something to be thankful for. That is to say, who doesn't need more advantageous nourishment that is better for the earth? Be that as it may, how about we take a gander at the financial aspects. In March, a Consumer Reports investigation found that, by and large, natural nourishment is 47% more costly than consistent sustenance. The USDA numbers are comparable. Obviously, natural nourishment is more costly to make than normal sustenance, yet a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences observed that it's lone 5-7% more costly, so the value contrast is not so much advocated; it additionally implies that natural cultivating has turned out to be more gainful than standard cultivating. As such, from a value perspective, natural has turned into an equivalent word for extravagance. Natural sustenance is the quickest developing part of the American nourishment industry, and its cost is just too high. Be that as it may, hello, it ought to be beneficial for you, isn't that so? Natural nourishment and your wellbeing Spoiler alarm: there is next to no logical confirmation to bolster any medical advantages for natural items. Truth be told, there is developing proof that an eating regimen rich in natural items isn't very for you. "There's a clear absence of proof," says scientist Crystal Smith-Spangler at Stanford University School of Medicine, particularly with regards to investigations of individuals. A 2009 meta-examination (an investigation of different studies) said there was no supplement distinction in natural versus customary. Yet, that was one of the principal real studies concentrating on natural sustenance – from that point forward, we've had increasingly analysts dissecting the circumstance… yet they thought of comparative results. A recent report discovered somewhat higher phosphorous levels in the natural produce, and a recent report discovered higher cell reinforcement levels and lower cadmium levels in natural sustenance. Those are great things, however the distinctions weren't dynamite, and positively don't legitimize the value contrast. In 2012, another monstrous meta-investigation was distributed. A Stanford group investigated 240 studies: 17 contrasting populaces expending natural and ordinary eating methodologies, and 223 studies that analyzed either the supplement levels or the bacterial, contagious or pesticide defilement of different items (natural products, vegetables, grains, meats, milk, poultry, and eggs) become naturally and ordinarily. They report minimal critical contrast in medical advantages amongst natural and ordinary nourishments, and additionally no reliable contrasts in the vitamin substance of natural items. Truth be told, one and only supplement (once more, phosphorous) was altogether higher in natural versus traditionally developed produce. Protein and fat substance were likewise comparative, despite the fact that a critical distinction was accounted for in natural milk, which contained more elevated amounts of omega-3 unsaturated fats. continue reading
(The above review is the personal opinion of an user which does not represent OpenRice's point of view.)