Down with the Double Down (aka KFC's new artery clogging bunless sandwich)

[cartman]

awesome tk!

[Dodgerchick]

You brave! So how was it?

[terpkristin]

I very much enjoyed the Krispy Kreme burger. I didn't know what to expect, but it definitely hit the savory and sweet profiles. I used 80/20 ground beef patties (grilled), thick-cut bacon baked in the oven, and sliced cheddar.

I'll do it again...but not for at least 6 months.

/tk

[Passacaglia]

I was in KFC yesterday -- that Double Down was $4.99! And $7.49 for a value meal! That is the most insane thing about it, IMO.

[hukarez]

this double down was a challenge i wish i didn't accept. i feel like i've had a personal "oil change" conducted on my intestines.

[Oilers9911]

Damn, it's no wonder North Americans are so friggin fat.

[Greyroofoo]

More to Love

[albionmoonlight]

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Double Down by the Numbers: Unhealthiest Sandwich Ever?

KFC's Double Down Sandwich, an in-your-face collection of bacon, cheese and something called Colonel's Sauce betwixt two fried chicken "buns", is making waves for its unapologetic gluttony, compelling reviews out of everyone from the New York Times's Sam Sifton to the Onion's Nathan Rabin. But is it really the caloric monstrosity that it appears?

To get this out of the way: I haven't eaten a Double Down. I probably will. And I'll probably like it. But there are so many much tastier ways to clog your arteries here in New York that it's not high on the priority list.

So instead, let's start with the Double Down's calorie count: 540 calories for the crispy "Original Recipe" version and 460 for a grilled variant. Those seem like big numbers, but by fast food standards, they're pretty mild: the Burger King Chicken Tendercrisp weighs in at 800 calories, for instance, and Jack-in-the-Box's Ranch Chicken Club will set you back 700. Calorie counts for burgers are even higher: 1,320 for a Hardee's Monster Thickburger, and 1,350 for a Wendy's Triple Baconator. Even the humble Big Mac, a lightweight by modern standards, contains 540 calories, exactly the same number as the Double Down.

But calorie counts are overrated. We all need to eat, to the tune of about 2,000 calories per day for a healthy adult. It's not the calories so much as what you do with them. Are you getting a lot of fat, cholesterol, and sodium (bad)? Or lots of fiber and vitamins instead?

Here, the Double Down's credentials are more impressive. Those 540 calories contain 145 milligrams of cholesterol (more than twice that of the Big Mac and about half of the USDA's daily allowance) -- along with 1,380 milligrams of sodium (the USDA recommends no more than 2,400 per day) and 32 grams of fat (65 will keep you slim, says the government). So, for getting only about one-quarter of the calories that you need in a day, you're exhausting about half your budget of "bad stuff".

We can, of course, be a bit more exacting about this. I've created an index based on the amount of fat, sodium and cholesterol that the Double Down and a variety of comparable sandwiches contain as a portion of the USDA daily allowance. (In the fat category, saturated fats are counted double and trans-fats are counted triple.) The index is scaled such that the Original Recipe version of the sandwich receives a score of 1.00, a measure of gluttony that will hereafter be known as The Double Down (DD).**

By this measure, the Double Down is indeed quite unhealthy, but some other sandwiches are just as bad. The Burger King Chicken Tendercrisp (1.00 DDs), which has less cholesterol but more fat and sodium, is comparably unhealthy to the Double Down on balance. The chicken ranch sandwiches from Sonic (0.94 DDs) and Jack-in-the-Box (0.98 DDs) are close. And surprisingly, some sandwiches from "fast casual" restaurants that have a reputation for healthy food do even worse. Panera's Chipotle Chicken checks in at 1.49 DD's -- it has almost 50 percent more bad stuff than the Double Down -- and Boston Market's Chicken Carver at 1.14. So do some products that stretch the definition of "sandwich". A chicken burrito from Chipotle with rice, black beans, cheese and corn salsa will cost you 1.16 Double Downs: load it up with sour cream, guacamole, and picante salsa as well and you're up to 1.69. A pack of five McDonald's Chicken Selects with a side of ranch sauce is worth 1.23 Double Downs.



But it's the burgers that dominate this category, with Wendy's Triple Baconator (2.45 DDs) and Hardee's Moster Thickburger (2.24 DDs) in a league of their own and more than twice as bad-for-you as the Double Down. Even an ordinary Whopper with Cheese (1.10 DDs) is slightly worse than the Double Down.

All of those products, however, contain more -- often substantially more -- calories than does the Double Down. They have lots (and lots and lots) of bad stuff, but some good stuff like protein, iron and fiber as well. Their calories aren't quite so empty, and they damned well ought to leave you full.

So suppose instead that we re-calibrate our metric by dividing by the number of calories that each sandwich contains. This alternate measure, which we'll call Double Downs per Calorie (DDPC), gets at the idea of how bad each product is for you on a bite-by-bite basis.



And here, things don't look very good at all for the Double Down, since for all that crap you're taking in, you're only getting about one-quarter of the calories that you need. On this basis, not only is the Double Down worse for you than any of the chicken products (Chick-Fil-A's Chargrilled Chicken Club, at 0.91 DDPCs, is the next-worst), but also all of the burgers as well -- even the Triple Baconator (0.98 DDPCs) and the infamous Thickburger (0.92 DDPCs). In fact, the only thing that beats than the Original Recipe Double Down is the supposedly healthier grilled Double Down (1.19 DDPCs), which is almost 20 percent worse for you than the signature version on a per-calorie basis.

Things would look even worse for the Double Down if we also punished it for its lack of fiber (the original recipe version has just 1 gram and the grilled version has none) and other nutrients. But fast food restaurants are inconsistent about publishing this information, so it's getting a break.

So, is the Double Down the most gluttonous fast food sandwich ever created? It depends on how you measure it. At the margins, consuming one Double Down almost certainly isn't as bad for you as a Triple Baconator, a Thickburger, or even a fully-loaded Chipotle burrito. But while those products should, in theory, fill you up for at least half the day, the Double Down might leave you hankering for seconds. It's a high bar to clear, but it's the closest thing to pure junk food of any "sandwich" being marketed today.



** To calculate Double Downs for your own favorite sandwich, apply the following formula: divide the number of mg of cholesterol by 469, the number of mg of sodium by 3,754, the number of grams of total fat by 133, the number of grams of saturated fat also by 133, and the number of grams of trans-fat by 66. Then sum the result.

To calculate Double Downs per Calorie (DDPC), take the above result, divide by the number of calories, and multiply by 540.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

The graphs are in the original link for those interested.

[Karlifornia]

I think I'm gonna go get one of these right now.

[Dodgerchick]

If it's too unhealthy for you guys, try the vegan version:



and the recipe can be found here:

Vegan KFC Double Down!! « Ate-bit Vegan

[terpkristin]

Funnily enough, the faux meat products also typically have a ton of sodium. Probably not saving much, health-wise.

Though I have all the materials at home to make it, if I were really interested (I'm not). I'll use my faux meat products in other ways (dun dun dun).

/tk

[cuervo72]

Posting because it references the Double Down and salt recommendations...and because of Sharyn Alfonsi's neckline.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by terpkristin

Funnily enough, the faux meat products also typically have a ton of sodium. Probably not saving much, health-wise.

Though I have all the materials at home to make it, if I were really interested (I'm not). I'll use my faux meat products in other ways (dun dun dun).

/tk

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dodgerchick

If it's too unhealthy for you guys, try the vegan version:

and the recipe can be found here:

Vegan KFC Double Down!! « Ate-bit Vegan

As if the original weren't enough of a crime against God and nature...

You want meat, eat meat. Don't try to make some creepy Franken-sandwich out of "chicken substitute"

SI

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

As if the original weren't enough of a crime against God and nature...

You want meat, eat meat. Don't try to make some creepy Franken-sandwich out of "chicken substitute"

SI

I disagree.

While I am not sure about the recipe above, ever since Lady H_B went vegan almost 2 years ago, I have had quite a few "meat substitutes" and have found many, though not all, to be really quite good. Getting the consistency right is really the key, but, overall, I've been really happy with a lot of the ones I've tried and, you know, the fact that no living being had to die in order for me to eat it is quite a bonus.

There are a few meats out there that I'd never consider trying any kind of subsitute, such as steak or bacon (I've had tempeh bacon and it's not even close. It's an insult to bacon to call it bacon). But for things like chicken and sausages it is really, really easy to find quality subsitutues.

[Dodgerchick]

We've had soyrizo and MorningStar's Soy Crumbles and they're a great substitute for meat. We like them so much we haven't gone back.

[Ksyrup]

This isn't exactly a scientific study or anything, but it certainly seems more in line with what you'd expect, huh?

Kentucky Fried Bullshit | CityRag

You know what comes on the side with the Double Down, KFC’s disgusting new pile of crap? a hot bag of lies. And people are eating it up. There’s no way it’s 540 calories and 32 grams of fat! By our calculations it’s at least 1190 calories and 86 grams of fat. Check out the real math below.



2 fried chicken breasts at 360 calories, 21 grams of fat each, comes to – 720 calories and 42 grams…

2 x 1 oz slice of “Monterey Jack and pepper jack cheese” at 100 calories, 9 grams of fat each, comes to 200 calories and 18 grams fat…

1 squirt of sauce 100 calories and 10 grams of fat (even by KFC’s calculations) and the Double Down is hit twice as you can see in the picture, comes to 200 calories and 20 grams fat…

2 strips bacon, equals 70 calories and 6 grams of fat…

For a grand total of 1190 calories and 86 grams of fat!

According to KFC a single filet sandwich with sauce is 480 calories and 24 grams of fat. Even their own math isn’t working.

Calorie and fat information via CalorieCount.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And while the anal rententive crowd worries about parsing the calorie count , most people who are interested in buying it could barely care less, we just want to know if it tastes good or not.

WTF is actually buying this thinking "gosh, could it possibly have more calories than is recommended"? Duh. That's the fucking point morons, to eat it, enjoy it, and not still be hungry after you finish your meal which is too often the case with today's microportions.

[Ksyrup]

Microportions? Really? The wife and I have taken to splitting meals at most restaurants these days, and the secondary issue is cost. Mostly, it's just too much food.

The fact that you think we're being served microportions says more about the state of this country's food intake than railing against actually informing people of how much bad shit they are putting into their bodies.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Microportions? Really? The wife and I have taken to splitting meals at most restaurants these days, and the secondary issue is cost. Mostly, it's just too much food.

The fact that you think we're being served microportions says more about the state of this country's food intake than railing against actually informing people of how much bad shit they are putting into their bodies.

Seriously. Microportions? Portion sizes are bigger now than ever. It's getting to ridiculous portions. Your standard burrito at Chipolte weighs in at about 1.5 lbs. It's ginormous.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Microportions? Really? The wife and I have taken to splitting meals at most restaurants these days

Might be time to turn in your man card then.

[Ksyrup]

Ah yes, the whole "challenge your manhood when you point out the ridiculousness of my argument" gimmick. You got me!

Why pay for food I don't need or want to eat? Because only real men eat portion sizes designed to turn them into fat fucks?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Might be time to turn in your man card then.

Seriously. Nothing says "bein' a man" like being a gluttonous fat piece of ass.

[albionmoonlight]

DOUBLE DOWN FIGHT!!!!

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Seriously. Nothing says "bein' a man" like being a gluttonous fat piece of ass.

beefcake... BEEFCAKE!!!!

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

DOUBLE DOWN FIGHT!!!!

Sorry to disappoint, but this woman doesn't fight.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Seriously. Microportions? Portion sizes are bigger now than ever. It's getting to ridiculous portions. Your standard burrito at Chipolte weighs in at about 1.5 lbs. It's ginormous.

Granted, I was talking more about in general than trying to say there weren't specific exceptions. While Chipolte isn't really handy for us, Barberito's is & does something similar so I'll concede that there are a few exceptions. Even so, Chipolte specifically has been noted as having cut back their portions

From fast food to sit-down, there's been a concentrated effort in the past 3-5 years to make significant cuts in size while making miniscule cuts in price. (TGI Friday's "Right Size, Right Price" is an easy example).

[Ksyrup]

When I was a fat fuck unwilling or unable to stop myself from eating, I thought I was just being a fat fuck. I didn't realize I was also standing up for my gender.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Why pay for food I don't need or want to eat?

Lighten up just a tad there Francis, in case you haven't noticed, the man card is a long-standing rib here at the FOFC.

If you're happy with chick food & chick portions, knock yourself the fuck out. But you're going to get a certain amount of jokes about it, and rightfully so afaic.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cartman

beefcake... BEEFCAKE!!!!

This was, of course, the proper response

SI

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Lighten up just a tad there Francis, in case you haven't noticed, the man card is a long-standing rib here at the FOFC.

If you're happy with chick food & chick portions, knock yourself the fuck out. But you're going to get a certain amount of jokes about it, and rightfully so afaic.

Again, this attitude goes a long way toward explaining why we are a bunch of fat fucks in this country. Emasculating someone, jokingly or not, for not gorging themselves and for watching what they eat, seems to be a large part of the problem.

You can joke about it all you want, but from a logic standpoint, I think I'll have the last laugh when I'm paying half of what you do to eat out AND keeping my weight in check at the same time. I fail to understand how, if I eat about 1800 calories a day, something less than your standard 1200 calorie restaurant meal would be considered "chick portions."

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This was, of course, the proper response

SI

I concur.

[flere-imsaho]

America: where quantity is valued over quality.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I fail to understand how, if I eat about 1800 calories a day, something less than your standard 1200 calorie restaurant meal would be considered "chick portions."

And I fail to understand why anyone would want to live a life on 1800 calories a day. That's not living, that's existing afaic.

Oh, incidentally, at 6'0 170 I don't really think "fat fuck" applies to me. You could try "motherfucker" maybe or the more generic "asshole", but fat just kind of sounds silly.

But since you want to make a big deal out of a quick one-off, the growing animosity toward the self-righteous holier than thou food pussies is only going to get worse as you continue to rail against people actually, you know, daring to enjoy what they eat. If I'm paying for it then you can kiss my carb-loading meat-eating dual-fork wielding ass.

[MJ4H]

sigh

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

the growing animosity toward the self-righteous holier than thou food pussies is only going to get worse.

Huh.

First, I had no idea that there were a group of "self-righteous holier than thou food pussies". Second, I had no idea there was "growing animosity toward" such a group.

Interesting. I have learned something new today.

[DaddyTorgo]

lmao

predictable - thy name is FOFC

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And I fail to understand why anyone would want to live a life on 1800 calories a day. That's not living, that's existing afaic.

Oh, incidentally, at 6'0 170 I don't really think "fat fuck" applies to me. You could try "motherfucker" maybe or the more generic "asshole", but fat just kind of sounds silly.

But since you want to make a big deal out of a quick one-off, the growing animosity toward the self-righteous holier than thou food pussies is only going to get worse as you continue to rail against people actually, you know, daring to enjoy what they eat. If I'm paying for it then you can kiss my carb-loading meat-eating dual-fork wielding ass.

"Fat fuck" was a general comment - I didn't say YOU fat fuck.

Eat what you want. The point remains that portion sizes are ridiculous now, so calling them microportions is completely ignoring reality.

You don't have to eat more than you should to enjoy food. But since you equate overeating/indulging as enjoying a meal, then I guess you don't see the distinction.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

First, I had no idea that there were a group of "self-righteous holier than thou food pussies".

Well, Dan Rather thinks he's a moderate too.

Second, I had no idea there was "growing animosity toward" such a group.

What exactly did you think the marketing behind some of the large portion products was playing off of?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

sigh

It's called boredom. My time grows short on this planet, so I'm having a bit of well-placed fun before I head out of here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

You don't have to eat more than you should to enjoy food.

Should = I'm satisifed

But since you equate overeating/indulging as enjoying a meal, then I guess you don't see the distinction.

Enjoying = eating what satisfies me

Apparently you fail to make the distinction between that and "overeating".

[DaddyTorgo]

If "overeating" is enjoyable to Jon (note that i put the quotes to denote that it's a contested term), then it's enjoyable to him. Big deal. It's his own personal decision. Just as it's the personal decisions of others (who may have different metabolisms or family histories of different diseases) to eat differently.

Nobody should be judging anybody else based on that - whether they eat "a lot" or "a little." That includes all of you on both sides.

If the market dictates it, then restauraunts will find a way to cater to both groups. "Pay by the oz dining" or something like that.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Should = I'm satisifed

Apparently you fail to make the distinction between that and "overeating".

No, I'm trying to ascribe some logical consistency to your comment about microportions and eating until you are satisfied.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

If "overeating" is enjoyable to Jon (note that i put the quotes to denote that it's a contested term), then it's enjoyable to him. Big deal. It's his own personal decision. Just as it's the personal decisions of others (who may have different metabolisms or family histories of different diseases) to eat differently.

Nobody should be judging anybody else based on that - whether they eat "a lot" or "a little." That includes all of you on both sides.

If the market dictates it, then restauraunts will find a way to cater to both groups. "Pay by the oz dining" or something like that.

I don't care what he eats. The entire thing started with his misconception that what is served in restaurants today are "microportions."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't care what he eats. The entire thing started with his misconception that what is served in restaurants today are "microportions."

Well they're microportions in his eyes...relative to the amount he enjoys eating.

I suppose that the logical and factual counter to that would be to say/show evidence that portion sizes in restaurants today are larger than they have ever been. Thus they're not "shrinking" - although they may be "microportions" to him now, he would then have to concede that either (a) they have always been "microportions" or (b) he was being a hypocrite

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well, Dan Rather thinks he's a moderate too.

If I am a "food pussy", I'm a really bad one. I always eat my entire Chipolte burrito (with chips), I always eat that extra slice of pizza and that extra breadstick and always finish my entire massive plate full of chicken fried rice or pad thai at the local Thai place. I often eat until I am hurting.

Between those facts and that I'm about 6'4" and around 200 lbs, I believe I am considerably more manly than you, Light Weight. Sorry, dude.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What exactly did you think the marketing behind some of the large portion products was playing off of?

I don't think it's out of any animosity, but rather it's just counter-marketing to what you described below:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Granted, I was talking more about in general than trying to say there weren't specific exceptions. While Chipolte isn't really handy for us, Barberito's is & does something similar so I'll concede that there are a few exceptions. Even so, Chipolte specifically has been noted as having cut back their portions

From fast food to sit-down, there's been a concentrated effort in the past 3-5 years to make significant cuts in size while making miniscule cuts in price. (TGI Friday's "Right Size, Right Price" is an easy example).

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And while the anal rententive crowd worries about parsing the calorie count , most people who are interested in buying it could barely care less, we just want to know if it tastes good or not.

WTF is actually buying this thinking "gosh, could it possibly have more calories than is recommended"? Duh. That's the fucking point morons, to eat it, enjoy it, and not still be hungry after you finish your meal which is too often the case with today's microportions.

Microportions eh?

http://snippets.com/what-is-the-nutr...restaurant.htm

Just for the main entrée portion and doesn’t even include the sides. Claim Jumper’s Beef Back Ribs have 4,301 Calories, 7,623 mg of sodium, 156 grams of saturated fat, and 750 mgs of cholesterol.

[flere-imsaho]

I think Jon's suggesting that a man who feels pleasantly full after eating a 16oz steak, and declines to eat a 32oz steak primarily because he'll feel unpleasantly engorged after it, is somehow less of a man.

In so doing, Jon's reflecting a cultural view that's been pretty consistent through America's history (land of abundance, farmers/factory workers eat a lot) and has been powerfully reinforced by advertising since, say, the 1950s.

Given that so fewer of us these days are farmers or factory workers, it's also a cultural view/norm that's made a lot of us fat. Thus I think Ksyrup's point is that every time someone makes a joke about "chick portions", they simply reinforce this cultural norm which is, on balance, detrimental to the overall health of our population.

Of course, I'm sure we can all anticipate Jon's response, which would be along the lines of "fuck those idiots who can't stop themselves from eating too much", and certainly despite its delivery, this point has its merits.

The rest of that argument, of course, was recently covered in the Health Care thread about fast food and poor people, so I'm not going to rehash it here.


Regardless, it will perhaps surprise no one that I'd rather be the guy who orders a 16oz Niman Ranch steak at a local independent restaurant for twice the price of a 32oz, Grade Triple-Z semi-steak at the local outpost of a national chain. Some would point out that this merely proves (as if more proof were necessary, of course) that I'm a elitist liberal pinko commie, and that's fine, but I'm elitist liberal pinko commie who enjoys his food, yet is not fat.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Regardless, it will perhaps surprise no one that I'd rather be the guy who orders a 16oz Niman Ranch steak at a local independent restaurant for twice the price of a 32oz, Grade Triple-Z semi-steak at the local outpost of a national chain. Some would point out that this merely proves (as if more proof were necessary, of course) that I'm a elitist liberal pinko commie, and that's fine, but I'm elitist liberal pinko commie who enjoys his food, yet is not fat.

Talking about steak, I cooked the most awesome steak from a local butcher this weekend. They sell Vintage Natural beef http://www.vintagenaturalbeef.com/. Wow killer stuff and I tend to not get steak that often.