Remember the much-maligned KFC bowl? I admit I got on the “ew, gross” bandwagon, because eating KFC makes me feel nauseous for two days. (I used to forget and eat at KFC approximately once a year. No longer.) Now there’s more hoopla with the release of the Double Down, two pieces of fried chicken filled with bacon, cheese, and mayo.
Here’s an overview from the New York Times.
Advance reaction to the Double Down has been intense in the blogosphere, in part because the sandwich plays into our worst fears about Obese America, a nation in which we disdain not simply vegetables but now starch as well. The sandwich posits chicken as bread. Bacon and cheese as sandwich fillers. Plus mayonnaise. No vegetables…
But for the record? The calorie count for the Double Down is 540, according to KFC. That’s exactly equivalent to a Big Mac over at McDonald’s, and well below the 920 that constitutes a Double Whopper at Burger King.
And a taste test from Salon.
But the Double Down, and everybody’s peeking-through-covered-eyes reaction to it, is not about logic. It’s about balls. The balls of a fast food chain, in the middle of rational America’s hand-wringing about obesity and sustainable eating, to come out with a sandwich made of bacon, cheese, mayo-ish sauce and two slabs of fried chicken as the bread. The balls of KFC, which, in the weak-willed ’90s, changed its brand from Kentucky Fried Chicken to its lame initials because it didn’t want you to have to say the word “fried” every time you spoke its name.
In retrospect, though, the really funny thing about the Double Down is not that it exists, not that it’s a dare pretending to be a lunch, but that it would be nothing special if they added a bun to it. Think about it. It’d be like, “What’s that? A double chicken sandwich? Pffft. Snooze. Any jackass can make a double chicken sandwich.” Somehow, by taking off the processed-food bread, KFC made this thing look deadly.
Ha! Good point.
And a do-it-yourself alternative (link swiped from Eric on Facebook) that looks pretty awesome.
Most of the panty-twisting revolves around its nutritional qualities. But is it really that bad for you? After all, conceptually and nutritionally, it’s no different than a Chicken Cordon Bleu, right? Is there no room in our diet for fried chicken or bacon?
To me, the grossness of this sandwich is the same as what’s gross about all fast food: convenience and quality. It’s simply too easy to walk up to a window, hand over five bucks, and get 600 industrially produced calories prepared by a worker who couldn’t care less.
I admit that I will never go to KFC, but a fried chicken sandwich from Bakesale Betty’s is, every so often, delicious.
Posted by mo pie
Filed under: Food