I can't get over all the hoopla surrounding the Double Down.
It's definitely a Frankenfood, but more from the yuck factor perspective than the nutritional perspective - certainly it was the yuck that hooked me.
Personally I think KFC's Double Down is more of a marketing home run than something KFC actually expects to sell a lot of. I wouldn't be surprised at all if in a few years it's gone from the menu due to lack of sales and I also wouldn't be surprised if its appearance doesn't spur an increase in this quarter's KFC profits simply by getting curious feet marching through its doors.
Nutritionally it sure is salty at 1,380mg of sodium, but calorically it's a bit of a fast food yawn at 540 calories.
That said, think of the incredible amount of coverage it's received. According to Google there's been over 3,000 news stories on KFC's Double Down in the past month. The blogosphere has 460,000 hits (including mine). But nutritionally is it really worth all the attention? When it comes down to it, nutritionally it's pretty much a Big Mac which also clocks in at 540 calories and a smidge less sodium at 1,020mg.
Interestingly in the coverage reporters and bloggers seem aghast that KFC's selling the Double Down. Really, is it KFC's job to look after our health? If you want to fault someone for KFC selling the Double Down (or for fast food in general) I'd point the finger at us. Why us? KFC and everyone else is just selling what the people want and buy. If we want healthier fare then we need to make it clear that we won't buy the garbage anymore. Industry, unlike government, reacts quickly to consumer demand. If we demanded health, we'd get it. The problem is, we don't demand it.
Want some perspective? Here are ten common fast food items, all of which top the Double Down in nutritional deviance and some of which put the Double Down to shame when it comes to unhealthy eating. This was by no means a difficult search either, took literally 10 minutes, and had I bothered to explore items other than sandwiches I'd have found offerings that would have put these numbers to shame:
10. Dunkin' Donuts Tuna (Albacore) Sandwich
660 calories, 1,280mg sodium
9. Au Bon Pain Southwest Tuna Wrap
760 calories, 1,570mg sodium
8. A&W Double Mozza Burger
780 calories, 1,230mg sodium
7. Arby's Roast Turkey Ranch and Bacon Sandwich
830 calories, 2,270mg sodium
6. Burger King Steakhouse XT with Cheese Burger
1,000 calories, 2,090mg sodium
5. Dairy Queen 1/2lb Flamethrower Burger
1,010 calories, 1,540mg sodium
4. Boston Pizza Boston Cheesesteak Sandwich
1,140 calories, 3,900mg sodium
3. Ruby Tuesday's Avocado Turkey Burger
1,234 calories, 2,961mg sodium
2. Applebees Quesadilla Burger
1,420 calories, 3,740mg sodium
1. Quizno's Prime Rib Cheesesteak Sub (that's it in the photo above)
1,770 calories, 2,895mg sodium
Posts
"Industry, unlike government, reacts quickly to consumer demand. If we demanded health, we'd get it."
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment, but I'm not entirely sure that I agree. There is a history of consumer demands that lead to unintended consequences as it seems that consumers are largely unaware of the realities of food processing and relative trade-offs. Eg, reducing fat in a product frequently leads to a reformulation involving more sugar to give it an acceptable mouth-feel and taste.
Demanding low-fat pork has led to cuts of meat that are unpopular in the home because they are difficult to cook (lack of fat). Pork is very popular in processed foods where it is heavily larded with additional fat, salt and various other flavourings.
Maybe you are correct but the missing part of the sentence is, "we might be offered foodstuffs that meet popular ideas of health but fall short in some way, or those offerings would be at a price that many would not pay for in price-sensitive markets".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-1264166/KFCs-Double-Down-chicken-sandwich-bread-unveiled.html
ReplyDeleteor 1228 cals?
Evidence Matters, indeed, there might be unintended consequences with fast food's answers to healthy eating though I can't imagine that the answers they provide could be worse that what they're currently providing.
ReplyDeleteAnne Marie, the Daily Mail is wrong. Visiting KFC's nutrition page reveals the Double Down to be the 540 calories I reported.
Prime rib cheesesteak sub? Not surprised that's high in calories!
ReplyDeleteI noticed the calorie count, too. All things considered, the Double Down really doesn't seem all that horrible ... for fast food.
ReplyDeleteThe calories are astounding, but I wonder why we need so much sodium? It's difficult to order "food" in these chain restaurants.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the other day, at Ruby Tuesday's I ordered a plain burger. Instead of the fries, I asked for some veggies. The veggies were soaked in salt and butter! It was not edible.
I keep forgetting that no matter what, these restaurants want to load healthy foods up with fat and salt.
Wanna see all the junk our restaurants are serving up? It's on their commercials - http://bit.ly/4QikjZ
Oh, that's disgusting. Has anyone done this kind of analysis on the food they serve at Tim Horton's?
ReplyDelete