Kentucky Fried Chicken: We do Chicken.. twice!

The Sweaty Cowboy

Fried SPAM, peanut butter, bacon and cheddar cheese inside a sliced Twinkie.

.

I just threw up.
What the hell is Red Velvet made of? I hadn't seen it until last summer, now it's all over the place.

Spam is gross anyways, I put it up there with black licorice and liver. Blargh!

I can't get past how greasy the idea of this "sandwich" may be. I think Jim Gaffigan sums up my feelings regarding the thought of eating such a thing.
"Did I eat it or rub it on my face?”

MaxShrek wrote:

What the hell is Red Velvet made of? I hadn't seen it until last summer, now it's all over the place.

Like the cake? It's a chocolate cake with red food coloring. Why they call it red velvet I'll never know, but it is quite tasty.

Bear wrote:

For Mother's Day!

IMAGE(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kzswzehxoj1qzvnxpo1_500.jpg)
Bacon Bouquet

This is not the bacon thread.

AnimeJ wrote:
MaxShrek wrote:

What the hell is Red Velvet made of? I hadn't seen it until last summer, now it's all over the place.

Like the cake? It's a chocolate cake with red food coloring. Why they call it red velvet I'll never know, but it is quite tasty.

That's the reason? I guess it's a play on black velvet then.

I very rarely eat at fast food (except for the monthly craving for a Hardee's Thickburger) so something like this astounds/intrigues me in ways I don't think I fully understand. Why would someone do this to themselves? They know that regular fast food is already horrible for you so do they just stop caring and want to fling themselves off the deep end in the best way possible?

Vrikk wrote:

I very rarely eat at fast food (except for the monthly craving for a Hardee's Thickburger) so something like this astounds/intrigues me in ways I don't think I fully understand. Why would someone do this to themselves? They know that regular fast food is already horrible for you so do they just stop caring and want to fling themselves off the deep end in the best way possible?

So what is the best way possible? Let's ask the corporate nutrition information profiles!

KFC Double Down wrote:

Calories: 540
Calories from Fat: 241
Total Fat: 32g
Saturated Fat: 10g
Cholesterol: 145 mg
Sodium: 1380 mg
Carbohydrates: 11g
Dietary Fiber: 1g
Sugars: 1g
Protien: 53g

Hardee's 1/3lb Bacon Cheese Thickburger wrote:

Calories: 850
Calories from Fat: 520
Total Fat: 57g
Saturated Fat: 19g
Cholesterol: 105 mg
Sodium: 1650 mg
Carbohydrates: 49g
Dietary Fiber: 3g
Sugars: 7g
Protien: 38g

So a quick check shows us that the Hardee's burger is higher across the board, by a huge margin. Total calories, total fat, total saturated fat, and higher sodium. In fact, the only way it's better than a Double Down is in the 40mg savings on Cholesterol.

This isn't an attempt to pick on Vrikk, but I am seeing this kind of reaction all over the web. People express horror at the thought of this KFC sandwich, yet the vast majority of them don't realize that what they are already eating is far worse.

All right you guys have convinced me, I'll try one. Maybe even one of each.

Vrikk wrote:

.....They know that regular fast food is already horrible for you so do they just stop caring and want to fling themselves off the deep end in the best way possible?

To answer this question, yes.

trueheart78 wrote:

For a $7.00 meal, I expected a lot more out of the one I tried. It was good, and I'd buy it again if it was cheaper, but it's nothing I'd recommend. Oh, and the chicken didn't have that great crispy-brown look either, it was like a paler a version - maybe I got a sick one?

$7! I could get a 45 minute DLC adventure for that!

What, the reverse comment always appears in DLC threads, so I figure an eye for an eye.

BlackSabre wrote:
trueheart78 wrote:

For a $7.00 meal, I expected a lot more out of the one I tried. It was good, and I'd buy it again if it was cheaper, but it's nothing I'd recommend. Oh, and the chicken didn't have that great crispy-brown look either, it was like a paler a version - maybe I got a sick one?

$7! I could get a 45 minute DLC adventure for that!

What, the reverse comment always appears in DLC threads, so I figure an eye for an eye.

DLC only hardens your resolve, that sort of food hardens your arteries. My resolve can be repaired or remade

I heard that an image of the Double Down is being used as a recruitment tool for anti-American extremists.

What, vegetarians ?

In other news, maybe I'll create my own cheap (and much better!) version of the Double-down tomorrow:

IMAGE(http://imgur.com/T4Tif.png)

Oh Bojangles, I love you.

Fivethirtyeight.com did a study showing that calorie-for-calorie, the Double Down is probably the worst sandwich on the market, nutritionally.

I work a block away from a KFC and am not tempted by the DD at all. On the other hand, the McGangBang in the Cracked article is calling my name..

Tanglebones wrote:

Fivethirtyeight.com did a study showing that calorie-for-calorie, the Double Down is probably the worst sandwich on the market, nutritionally.

I work a block away from a KFC and am not tempted by the DD at all. On the other hand, the McGangBang in the Cracked article is calling my name..

I read that. Yeah... they might have a point, if you left out the fact that protein is both good for you and much more filling than an equivalent amount of carbs. Or that anyone who actually measures out their daily diet calorie by calorie is probably not considering any of the sandwiches studied. Or that generally speaking, consuming excessive amounts of calories is a bad thing, and if you're thinking "Gee, I'll eat tons more calories for a fairly minor benefit in nutritional value" you're probably doing it wrong. Or how he claims it would do even worse if it were penalized for other nutritional content he outright admits he doesn't know anything about, since fast food chains don't publish it; if he doesn't have the information, how does he know it's any worse or better on that score than anything else? And to top it off, this isn't even a study by an actual nutritionist, it's a study by a political analyst. I don't doubt that the guy knows his politics, but I'm not going to go to him for nutritional advice any more than I'm going to go to him to get my car fixed. He's not a professional in the field.

That's not a study, it's pure FUD. He almost completely dismisses the importance of calories, and bases the rest of his argument on the amount of fat and cholesterol per calorie while ignoring all other nutritional information. Saying that the DD is bad simply because it has a higher percentage of fat and cholesterol is a stupid argument at best since he mostly ignores the fact that there are different types of fat and cholesterol: some good, some bad. At worst, his argument could be completely backwards, since studies such as this are showing that high-fat diets may actually be healthier than diets high in carbohydrates.

I've never eaten a DD and probably never will, but this guy's reasoning is seriously flawed.

I always go to political blogs for nutritional info. Just like I go to My Little Pony blogs for car recommendations.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I always go to political blogs for nutritional info. Just like I go to My Little Pony blogs for car recommendations.

I go to amateur porn blogs for lottery numbers.

muttonchop wrote:

That's not a study, it's pure FUD. He almost completely dismisses the importance of calories, and bases the rest of his argument on the amount of fat and cholesterol per calorie while ignoring all other nutritional information. Saying that the DD is bad simply because it has a higher percentage of fat and cholesterol is a stupid argument at best since he mostly ignores the fact that there are different types of fat and cholesterol: some good, some bad. At worst, his argument could be completely backwards, since studies such as this are showing that high-fat diets may actually be healthier than diets high in carbohydrates.

I've never eaten a DD and probably never will, but this guy's reasoning is seriously flawed.

Agreed, as much as I've knocked the DD myself in this very thread, the fact that is doesn't have any white bread probably makes it less deadly than we like to make out.

I think they should officially change the name of the sandwich from the Double Down to the Double Dog Dare since that is the only reason I could conceive of anyone ever eating it.

Paleocon wrote:

I think they should officially change the name of the sandwich from the Double Down to the Double Dog Dare since that is the only reason I could conceive of anyone ever eating it.

Then what do I win? I've eaten two somewhat happily. Although I have come to the conclusion, it needs a real bun; lose one of the chicken breast and throw the rest on a bun; I like the flavor combo, but don't like the mess.

Tigerbill wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I think they should officially change the name of the sandwich from the Double Down to the Double Dog Dare since that is the only reason I could conceive of anyone ever eating it.

Then what do I win? I've eaten two somewhat happily. Although I have come to the conclusion, it needs a real bun; lose one of the chicken breast and throw the rest on a bun; I like the flavor combo, but don't like the mess.

Bragging rights.

muttonchop wrote:

Saying that the DD is bad simply because it has a higher percentage of fat and cholesterol is a stupid argument at best since he mostly ignores the fact that there are different types of fat and cholesterol: some good, some bad.

I agree, but what are the chances that any fast food is based around monounsaturated fats rather than saturated or trans fats?

Funkenpants wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

Saying that the DD is bad simply because it has a higher percentage of fat and cholesterol is a stupid argument at best since he mostly ignores the fact that there are different types of fat and cholesterol: some good, some bad.

I agree, but what are the chances that any fast food is based around monounsaturated fats rather than saturated or trans fats?

There's the Korean fried chicken chain BBQ that uses olive oil for everything, but they're kind of yucky tasting.

Tanglebones wrote:

There's the Korean fried chicken chain BBQ that uses olive oil for everything, but they're kind of yucky tasting.

Really? Olive oil is not recommend for frying.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

There's the Korean fried chicken chain BBQ that uses olive oil for everything, but they're kind of yucky tasting.

Really? Olive oil is not recommend for frying.

As I said, it's pretty yucky - the chicken comes out far greasier tasting than comparable Popeye's/KFC, with a weird olive oil flavor.

Here's their website:
http://www.bbqchickenusa.com/home.html

No thanks! Even my boyfriend, who eats just about anything, is stepping aside on this one. I'm a bit curious but not enough to run out and buy one.

Tanglebones wrote:

As I said, it's pretty yucky - the chicken comes out far greasier tasting than comparable Popeye's/KFC, with a weird olive oil flavor.

Wikipedia wrote:

The higher the temperature to which the olive oil is heated, the more one should prefer the use of refined olive oils. When extra-virgin olive oil is heated above 350 °F (177 °C), the unrefined particles within the oil get burned. This leads to deteriorated taste and possible toxicity due to the creation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Also, the pronounced taste of extra-virgin olive oil is not a taste most people like to associate with their deep fried foods. Refined olive oils are perfectly suited for deep frying foods and should be replaced after several uses.