KFC Double Down? For Real?
The ad said this is coming April 12th. Appears to be two breaded chicken breasts with bacon, cheese and mustard (?) sandwiched inside. In other words, a week's worth of cholesterol in one sitting.
My son thinks it's an April Fools Day prank. Anyone else heard of this yet?
-
-
I just saw on the TV this morning that KFC has announced they plan to keep it on as a regular item.
›2 Replies -
"If it were slapped between a bun there'd be no controversy." - Monku
Monku's on the right track.
It's a gimmick created entirely to get attention, create buzz and increase traffic to KFC.I guess it's easier than improving their quality control, cleanliness, and customer service.
I can only speak of KFC's in my area (Pasadena Ca) and my experiences over a year + ago.›6 Replies-
-
re: Firegoat
After Rachael Ray dissed the KFC Double Down, I was sure she'd have a healthier alternative. And I found this.....
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/ra...
Yes... a double-decker chicken, bacon and waffle sandwich..... with maple syrup gravy. KFC has NOTHING on her.
-
-
I broke down yesterday and picked up a couple of these for lunch (the meal), since a friend wanted to try it. It was NASTY. The fried chicken seemed to have steamed in the wrapper and the sauce/cheese was horrible. And expensive, $15.05 for 2 with tax. I usually only do fast food a couple times a year- In-N-Out. I don't care what the calorie/sodium/fat is, when something is tasty. This was not.
›6 Replies -
Let me try to bring a little perspective into things here.
Lots of people have been jumping on the DD. Seeing it as all that is wrong with American nutrition. So, lets compare it with something that gets favourable reviews on here and is seldom criticized for it's nutritional profile. A slice of Costco pizza.
The (fried) DD v CP
Cal: 540 v 717
Cal from fat: 290 v 301
Tot fat: 32 v 33.5
Sat fat: 10 v 15.4
Trans fat: .5 v 0
Col: 145 v 60
Sod: 1380 v 1634.2I doubt many people would condemn someone for eating a slice of pizza but are all over them for the DD
Anyway, food for thought.
DT
-
I've been thinking about these types of threads.
I trust myself to know when something is an everyday food, a once in a while food, or a hot mess on a bun. I trust "you" to know the same.
So really, who gives a damn about this thing? I mean, it's not like it's a school lunch. Or the only option on the menu.
And as ipsedixit pointed out, it is essentially a fast food version of a food most people (and by that, 'hounds) would instantly relate to - Chicken Cordon Bleu.
On top of all of that... Am I the only heifer that eats two - or more if there are wings - pieces of fried chicken when I do eat fried chicken?
›2 Replies -
Just got me a double down...it was more like a double let down.
The price is 5.99, which is too much IMO.
The worst part about it is that it's way worse than regular KFC chicken. I'm a big fan of KFC in general - but between the cheese and sauce and bacon, this 'sandwich' becomes significantly less than the sum of its parts. I love KFC chicken just the way it is, and the double down ruins the chicken with the nasty goop in the middle.
If I were to make a double down, i'd do chicken with mash potato, gravy, and mac and cheese in the middle. :)
›4 Replies -
-
Oddly enough I'm doing a low carb diet at the moment and saw the grilled version and instead of gross thought.... hm...... potential yummy. The only thing off putting to me is the sodium... but I wonder if the sauce was skipped and replaced with some horseradish mustard instead if it would take the sting out a bit.
›2 Replies -
-
-
re: ipsedixit
I've been avoiding this thread until i finally got around to trying one, and that was exactly my thought.... chicken-cordon-blue 2010. And i've had some pretty awful stuff claiming to be chicken cordon bleu at banquets of one type or another. i'm not saying i'm gonna rush back any time soon, but its all much ado about nothing.
-
-
-
tried this today - grilled and fried. i liked the grilled better. the problem was the sauce. it was sharp and salty, yet bland. it was just vile and kind of ruined the sandwich. i would try it sans sauce - just cheese and meat and see what that did. this was my first time having the grilled chicken and i actually liked it quite a bit. kfc may have been on to something going national with the double down. i haven't been in years - but might go back for a grilled chicken meal if i was hungry and desperate.
the overall take from the double down was that i felt sooooo salty afterwards - as if my blood pressure had skyrocketed.
›2 Replies -
-
-
-
-
Depending on which version you get it's not much worse than a Big Mac, which by the way is not Big!
›2 Replies-
re: malibumike
Yeah, I just don't understand why blogs and newspapers are hyperventilating about this. I was shocked at how low the calorie and fat count turned out to be. Panera just introduced a Cuban Grilled Chicken Panini, which sounds pretty mundane compared to this. It has 860 calories and 37 grams of fat. But the Double Down is the poster child for obesity while people don't even think about the other foods they eat.
-
-
-
-
-
re: Fibber McGee
I stand corrected. Following the link given above, the description reads:
This one-of-a-kind sandwich features two thick and juicy boneless white meat chicken filets (Original Recipe® or Grilled), two pieces of bacon, two melted slices of Monterey Jack and pepper jack cheese and Colonel's Sauce.
32 grams of fat. No kidding!
-
-
-
i saw a commercial for it yesterday, and nearly had a seizure. sadly, it's not an April Fool's prank...
http://www.kfc.com/doubledown/if this thing shows up as an entry in any of my clients' food journals, i'm firing them ;)
›26 Replies-
-
re: goodhealthgourmet
What if you sat down to a dinner plate with two grilled chicken cutlets, each with a strip of bacon and some melted cheese, and a serving of cole slaw or green beans? How is this any different from the Double Down? So why the reaction?
(Full disclosure: I haven't eaten one of these and I don't intend to, solely because I don't like KFC. I still see no reason to have a cow over something that would cause no outrage if it were served on a plate rather than in a paper wrapper. If the diner down the road served this it would be "authentic" and "homey." Since a chain is selling it, it must be evil. Doesn't compute for me.)
-
-
-
re: Jelly71
For me at least, things like this and the Domino's thing just look disgusting. I have no problem with chains. I have young children, so I can't. 8<D
Other examples: That hideous bowl o crap KFC tried a couple years ago, the McGriddle, and that oversized BK breakfast sandwich monstrosity.
-
re: Bob W
The mcgriddle isn't that bad, really, at least the sausage one. Not the best, my favorite breakfast thing there is still the bacon/egg/cheese biscuit, but it's still pretty good. As far as the KFC "bowl o crap", think about it, it's basically fried chicken, with mashed potatoes and corn. And a little cheese to tie it together. As they're saying about the double down, is it really worth having a cow over, just cause it's all in one bowl? I think they're decent, if somewhat over-salty.
My dad, though, took the double down one step further...he gave it a bun again...with a Krispy Kreme doughnut...that's just too evil.
-
re: Jelly71
"how is different than being given a bread basket at an Italian restaurant?"
~~~~~
the bread basket at a restaurant is a side item/add-on intended to be shared by the table. the bread bowl is part of a single diner's entree, and comprised of more servings of bread than a couple of rolls from the basket.
-
-
re: rockycat
rockycat, apologies for the delay - i just saw your question. to clarify, my initial reaction was to the *fried* Double Down, which was the one featured in the first commercial i saw. however, for the sake of comparison if we're talking about the *grilled* Double Down versus the meal you proposed, to be perfectly honest i'd have a similar reaction to both...because no matter whether it's served on a plate or in a fast-food wrapper, it's still an excessive amount of food for *most* people to consume in one sitting.
KFC isn't a special case - my visceral reaction is the same regarding ALL these super/mega/double/triple/extreme creations - people have a completely skewed concept of what constitutes appropriate portion size and this only makes it worse. in light of the obesity epidemic in this country, i take issue with ANY company that chooses to perpetuate the problem just to make a buck.
-
-
-
-
re: ipsedixit
the nutrient breakdown is still ugly. 1400 mg of sodium (sure, someone like you who works out so much can afford it because you need to replenish what you lose through sweat, but most Americans aren't nearly that active), more than 50% of calories from fat for the fried one, and still almost 50% calories from fat for the grilled version. in my world that in no way represents a balanced, appropriate meal. but that's just MHO.
-
-
re: ipsedixit
"Only that it was not one of those traditional "mega" fast food items in terms of size and quantity of food."
Everything is relative. When you compare it against those mega ff items this thing actually comes in on the "healthy" side of the ledger. Really pretty sly on the part of KFC. Get everyone talking and then point out they are trying to help the fight against the obesity of the American diner. ;-D>
-
re: Servorg
If it were slapped between a bun there'd be no controversy.
Look at the nutritional information on The Carl's Jr. Grilled Cheese Bacon Burger
http://www.carlsjr.com/menu/charbroil...-
-
-
-
-
re: monku
I had one (Big Carl) for the first (and probably only) time last week and thought it was okay for a "promotional" effort, but not something I would seek out to eat...Carl's has better burgers than that. I am still partial to their double chili cheese burger (even more than their $6 chili cheese burger) for instance.
-
-
-
-
-
re: monku
"If it were slapped between a bun there'd be no controversy."
~~~~~~
oh, i bitch about all of them equally - this one just happened to have a thread dedicated to it ;)if anyone's interested, Chow posted a story the other day that contained this link - it compares the calorie-for-calorie nutritional impact of various fast food items...
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/0...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
























