KFC's Double Down Sandwich: Is Chicken Instead Of Bread Going Too Far? (VIDEO)

In the midst of a staggering obesity epidemic in the US, KFC has doubled down on a high-calorie menu choice. KFC is now offering a "sandwich" which consists of bacon, two kinds of cheeses and sauce between two pieces of fried chicken. That's right, fried chicken as a bun instead of bread.

According to Fox News, the "sandwich" is being test-marketed in only two areas so far, Rhode Island and Nebraska.

WATCH:

The item is not yet on the KFC website. We look forward to looking at the nutrition information once it appears.

UPDATE 8/24:

The Vancouver Sun has done an independent calorie analysis for the "Double Down" and has concluded the "sandwich" likely has 1228 calories.

But if our figures hold true, and KFC won't confirm they don't, the Double Down is more caloriffic than the Wendy's Triple with Everything and Cheese (1700 mg sodium, 960 calories, 26 gms of fat), the Burger King Stacker Quad (1770 sodium, 1020 calories, 69 gms of fat), and compares closely to the fat, salt and calorie totals of three McDonalds Big Macs put together (3060 sodium, 1620 calories, 87 gms fat).

UPDATE 8/25:

Rick Maynard with KFC public relations contacted us to say KFC estimates the numbers from The Vancouver Sun are inaccurate. According to their estimates, although they have not done an official workup the Double Down contains the following nutritional information:

Calories: 590
Calories from fat: 280
Total fat: 31g
Saturated fat: 10g
Trans fat: 0g
Cholesterol: 190mg

Quick Poll

What do you think of KFC's new "Double Down" sandwich?

Gross! And shame on them for selling such an unhealthy thing.

I wouldn't eat it, but it's a free country if others want to.

It looks kinda tasty.

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

Comments

[democles]

12:07 PM on 09/18/2009

Remove all farm subsidies;
Tax all junk food.
Support sustainable, low impact farming.
Do not put mini mansions on fertile land.
Encourage vegetarian, low fat diet.
Publicly flog anyone who promotes, or hands out sugar-based candies and drinks in our schools;

[thinkpeace24-7]

07:49 PM on 08/30/2009

I think Big Pharma must be in bed with KFC! I'm sure the heart surgeons are getting something under the table too! Look, people who would eat this stuff are slowly trying to kill themselves. Let Kevorkian Fried Chicken help speed up the process. Let the "Survival of the fittest/fattest" games begin!

[Paul Baack]

11:57 AM on 08/30/2009

And you just know there are people who are going to order TWO of these -- with, of course, a Diet Coke!

[Laura McBride]

03:27 PM on 08/29/2009

It's not the unhealthy aspect of the thing; it's the fact that in a world where hunger is a huge problem, these corporate greedmeisters are playing with enough protein to make a dent in that world hunger, while at the same time giving undisciplined Americans an excuse to cram ever more calories down their already overfed throats. Perhaps KFC could come up with a tasty lettuce wrap instead, and ship half those chickens to a less-developed nation where they could save a few kids from dying of starvation. I'd actually willingly overpay for a lettuce-wrap from KFC, if I could be sure they were sending the chickens they saved to those who need them.

[berzelius]

11:57 PM on 08/29/2009

The majority of people wouldn't though, so your plan is not going to work. Nothing wrong with wishful thinking. Except it basically is asking for global socialism. Maybe we should start with getting socialism locally first.

Besides, there is already too many people on the planet, why should KFC have to feed the ones who are hungry.

[Tunghoy]

01:31 PM on 08/29/2009

Cigarettes are required to carry graphic warning labels since the product will kill you. Why isn't killer food also required to carry warning labels?

[TimRivers]

11:41 PM on 08/29/2009

Cigarettes are also taxed through the roof purportedly to "offset the health costs" for the states and because as they drive the price of a pack up, smoking goes down. If it is truly a health-related thing (which it is most definitely NOT) and not just another revenue-generating deal for state governments, then why not tax these kinds of foods through the roof too (as they are as unhealthy as smoking to your heart)?

[KristinNoelle]

04:05 PM on 08/30/2009

I used to be totally in favor of a fat tax, but then I thought of how we would define unhealthy foods. Over 50% calories from fat? Well then we have to tax almonds and healthy olive oils. Over 50% sugar? Then we have to tax fruit (fructose is a sugar). Perhaps we could specify sucrose (table sugar). No problem. Food manufacturers can substitute fructose for corn syrup. Perhaps we demand that foods must contain a certain amount of vitamins. Problem solved: Antioxidant soft drinks (in fact, these already exist).

So what happens after candy bar companies get around the regulations by throwing a vitamin into a chocolate bar? People fool themselves into thinking that if it doesn't have the tax, it must be healthy. We don't need to tax junk foods, we need to stop agricultural subsidies that allow us to raise so much cheap, fattening meat, and sweeten everything with HFCS.

[uansari1]

01:20 PM on 08/29/2009

Too bad other peoples' horrible food choices lead to higher insurance premiums for those of us who don't eat garbage.

[fedupinfla]

03:38 PM on 08/29/2009

Riiiight...fat people make your premiums go up. It has NOTHING to do with the CEO's of private insurance companies whose sole job is to increase profits for their stockholders by denying payment of claims.

You want to teach good food habits? Start with the kids. Get soda & snack machines OUT of the schools. Increase funding for school lunch programs that emphasize healthy foods. Reagan cut 1 BILLION $$ from the school lunch programs right after taking office prompting officials to ponder declaring ketchup a vegetable.

[KristinNoelle]

11:25 PM on 08/29/2009

We might as well not even have public health initiatives as far as food is concerned because it's not even a drop in the bucket. Food advertisers have billion dollar budgets. The government can't compete with that which is why we need legislation to stop these companies from marketing their products to children.

And FYI, fat people DO cause premiums to go up. We spend about 147 billion dollars a year on obesity related illness. That means every man woman and child in this country is paying close to 500 bucks a year because of obesity. Personally, I want my money back. I shell out extra money for healthy foods and my gym membership. I shouldn't have to pay for obesity-related disease as well when I don't contribute to the problem.

[drewbob]

12:30 PM on 08/29/2009

Thats not a KFC creation. I came up with that about a month after I first started smoking. In any case, if people are willing to buy it than so be it. If it doesnt sell very well it will be gone in 2 weeks like all other amazing fast food creations.

[romchr]

11:50 AM on 08/29/2009

Can I order a couple over the internet? I would hate to have to get up to eat some of these.

[DrP]

11:07 AM on 08/29/2009

I still haven't seen the carb count. Why isn't that included? That is much more meaningful to me in making choices about what I eat. If this was made with two pieces of non-breaded chicken, real, unprocessed cheese, and no sauce (there is nothing said in these stories about the content of the sauce, which probably is full of HFCS), it might not be a bad choice. White buns are nothing but refined flour and HFCS which actually turn into glucose while still in your mouth - not good for blood sugar and insulin levels. (High insulin and leptin levels cause the health problems usually attributed to fat and cholesterol in the diet - it's time that people start reading the real science on this).

[Lawrence Hopper]

03:08 AM on 08/28/2009

1228 calories, is that all?

[Evan Karp]

02:15 AM on 08/28/2009

When a business is found to be polluting the air, the business is regulated within the limit. It seems to me we should be more rigid about our health standards. I anticipate the following arguments:
1. It's a free country. It's our right to eat a sandwich with meatbuns!
2. It's the consumer's responsibility.
The first argument includes no higher vision and has resulted in, amongst other things, a nation of overweight, unhealthy sluggards who take life for granted by eating it.
The second argument implies that we should personally inspect buildings for asbestos, for instance. We need responsible companies because too many individuals, like children, are not able to tell the difference between what's good for them and what's bad. Some don't care enough to make - or are incapable of making - the decision to refrain. If you want to eat a sandwich like this I think you should at least have to do it on your own time, with your own resources and in your own home -- it shouldn't be so easy that you can get in your car and pick one up in the drive-thru.
The idea of an American company being allowed to manufacture these on a food assembly line is I think a very valid symbol; we need to reevaluate the importance we place on our "anything goes," freedom-first-and-before-all attitude. You are not free to kill yourself. Why is KFC free to endorse such an unhealthy lifestyle?

[leicesterwriter]

09:43 AM on 08/29/2009

1. The higher vision is a society of people free to make decisions for themselves. Autonomous adults rather than perpetual children to a nanny state.
2. Nope. If the chicken was contaminated with salmonella, or asbestos, that should be a matter for health inspectors, but if the food is what it is sold as then it is a matter for the individual.

Almost everything can be hazardous to health. Especially things that are fun.

You can die from drinking too much water, just as you can die from eating too much KFC. I wouldn't eat this myself, but I wonder which of my habits you want to control for me?

[Ramius]

10:21 PM on 08/27/2009

Quite frankly, I think two pieces of protein are better than two pieces of white bread.

Let's face it... if they had just stuck a white bread bun around the same concoction, no one would be complaining.

[JohnSpenser]

02:02 AM on 08/28/2009

grilled chicken maybe.. fried chicken not so much.

[ocalasatpro]

08:19 AM on 08/28/2009

One could hardly call that mess "two pieces of protein." Ironically, as fat as this country has become, I believe that this 'sandwich' will turn out to be a complete disaster--as it should. Glad I don't eat that crap...

[ROLtheWolf]

10:14 PM on 08/27/2009

I think this is great!

No need for death panels to off the stupid fatties!

Yum, yum! Eat up Sarah!

[EagleBenny]

09:17 PM on 08/27/2009

I really don't look at this as a - freedom to eat whatever you want as much as how cheap it is to eat something that will kill you.

[gatogato]

09:03 PM on 08/27/2009

They should call it the Limbaugh. A lot of fried fat surrounding a foul pool of cheese.

[mjeffn]

09:38 PM on 08/27/2009

LOL

[FunIndex]

09:08 AM on 08/29/2009

Now I can make an even wider detour around KFCs and Limbaugh, but at this rate, will it ever be WIDE enough?