Food & Drink Crap food that you absolutely love to eat

[Barry_Static]

Get a bacon double cheese burger then. No mayo and none of that green crap.

I really want a burger right now.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Aye I've never had a beef burger with mayo.

Do you have any enemies in burger king?

Did they 'soggy biscuit' your burger?

[Reality]

I'm surprised people still go to Burger King..

[choffer]

Tunnocks Milk Chocolate coated Caramel.

Food from the heavens!

[Ryan.]

Buger sting more like, bloody rip off!

[knoppy1987]

Tunnocks Milk Chocolate coated Caramel.

Food from the heavens!

The Tunnocks teacakes aren't bad either.

[b23avfc]

Tunnocks Milk Chocolate coated Caramel.

Food from the heavens!

The Tunnocks teacakes aren't bad either.

35p in eat4less in brum, next to oasis market

[Milfner]

Kebabs in Naans.

Had one earlier, ooft.

[shambles]

Scottish Munchy Box

8)

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Looks like someone decapitated Morphs wee mate Chas, laid his head on some firewood and shat on his face.

Chas

[leviramsey]

Analysis by Nate Silver

KFC's Double Down Sandwich, an in-your-face collection of bacon, cheese and something called Colonel's Sauce betwixt two fried chicken "buns", is making waves for its unapologetic gluttony, compelling reviews out of everyone from the New York Times's Sam Sifton to the Onion's Nathan Rabin. But is it really the caloric monstrosity that it appears?

To get this out of the way: I haven't eaten a Double Down. I probably will. And I'll probably like it. But there are so many much tastier ways to clog your arteries here in New York that it's not high on the priority list.

So instead, let's start with the Double Down's calorie count: 540 calories for the crispy "Original Recipe" version and 460 for a grilled variant. Those seem like big numbers, but by fast food standards, they're pretty mild: the Burger King Chicken Tendercrisp weighs in at 800 calories, for instance, and Jack-in-the-Box's Ranch Chicken Club will set you back 700. Calorie counts for burgers are even higher: 1,320 for a Hardee's Monster Thickburger, and 1,350 for a Wendy's Triple Baconator. Even the humble Big Mac, a lightweight by modern standards, contains 540 calories, exactly the same number as the Double Down.

But calorie counts are overrated. We all need to eat, to the tune of about 2,000 calories per day for a healthy adult. It's not the calories so much as what you do with them. Are you getting a lot of fat, cholesterol, and sodium (bad)? Or lots of fiber and vitamins instead?

Here, the Double Down's credentials are more impressive. Those 540 calories contain 145 milligrams of cholesterol (more than twice that of the Big Mac and about half of the USDA's daily allowance) -- along with 1,380 milligrams of sodium (the USDA recommends no more than 2,400 per day) and 32 grams of fat (65 will keep you slim, says the government). So, for getting only about one-quarter of the calories that you need in a day, you're exhausting about half your budget of "bad stuff".

We can, of course, be a bit more exacting about this. I've created an index based on the amount of fat, sodium and cholesterol that the Double Down and a variety of comparable sandwiches contain as a portion of the USDA daily allowance. (In the fat category, saturated fats are counted double and trans-fats are counted triple.) The index is scaled such that the Original Recipe version of the sandwich receives a score of 1.00, a measure of gluttony that will hereafter be known as The Double Down (DD).**

By this measure, the Double Down is indeed quite unhealthy, but some other sandwiches are just as bad. The Burger King Chicken Tendercrisp (1.00 DDs), which has less cholesterol but more fat and sodium, is comparably unhealthy to the Double Down on balance. The chicken ranch sandwiches from Sonic (0.94 DDs) and Jack-in-the-Box (0.98 DDs) are close. And surprisingly, some sandwiches from "fast casual" restaurants that have a reputation for healthy food do even worse. Panera's Chipotle Chicken checks in at 1.49 DD's -- it has almost 50 percent more bad stuff than the Double Down -- and Boston Market's Chicken Carver at 1.14. So do some products that stretch the definition of "sandwich". A chicken burrito from Chipotle with rice, black beans, cheese and corn salsa will cost you 1.16 Double Downs: load it up with sour cream, guacamole, and picante salsa as well and you're up to 1.69. A pack of five McDonald's Chicken Selects with a side of ranch sauce is worth 1.23 Double Downs.

But it's the burgers that dominate this category, with Wendy's Triple Baconator (2.45 DDs) and Hardee's Moster Thickburger (2.24 DDs) in a league of their own and more than twice as bad-for-you as the Double Down. Even an ordinary Whopper with Cheese (1.10 DDs) is slightly worse than the Double Down.

All of those products, however, contain more -- often substantially more -- calories than does the Double Down. They have lots (and lots and lots) of bad stuff, but some good stuff like protein, iron and fiber as well. Their calories aren't quite so empty, and they damned well ought to leave you full.

So suppose instead that we re-calibrate our metric by dividing by the number of calories that each sandwich contains. This alternate measure, which we'll call Double Downs per Calorie (DDPC), gets at the idea of how bad each product is for you on a bite-by-bite basis.

And here, things don't look very good at all for the Double Down, since for all that crap you're taking in, you're only getting about one-quarter of the calories that you need. On this basis, not only is the Double Down worse for you than any of the chicken products (Chick-Fil-A's Chargrilled Chicken Club, at 0.91 DDPCs, is the next-worst), but also all of the burgers as well -- even the Triple Baconator (0.98 DDPCs) and the infamous Thickburger (0.92 DDPCs). In fact, the only thing that beats than the Original Recipe Double Down is the supposedly healthier grilled Double Down (1.19 DDPCs), which is almost 20 percent worse for you than the signature version on a per-calorie basis.

Things would look even worse for the Double Down if we also punished it for its lack of fiber (the original recipe version has just 1 gram and the grilled version has none) and other nutrients. But fast food restaurants are inconsistent about publishing this information, so it's getting a break.

So, is the Double Down the most gluttonous fast food sandwich ever created? It depends on how you measure it. At the margins, consuming one Double Down almost certainly isn't as bad for you as a Triple Baconator, a Thickburger, or even a fully-loaded Chipotle burrito. But while those products should, in theory, fill you up for at least half the day, the Double Down might leave you hankering for seconds. It's a high bar to clear, but it's the closest thing to pure junk food of any "sandwich" being marketed today.

** To calculate Double Downs for your own favorite sandwich, apply the following formula: divide the number of mg of cholesterol by 469, the number of mg of sodium by 3,754, the number of grams of total fat by 133, the number of grams of saturated fat also by 133, and the number of grams of trans-fat by 66. Then sum the result.

To calculate Double Downs per Calorie (DDPC), take the above result, divide by the number of calories, and multiply by 540.

[steve-67]

Jammy dodgers in my tea. Lovely.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I need to get me a Wendys Triple Baconator

:eek:

[leviramsey]

That's a double baconator (or actually the original baconator, before they introduced single and double varieties), CED... the triple baconator is three patties, with a layer of bacon and cheese topping each patty.

[leviramsey]

There are apparently some Wendy's franchises in Ontario that will let you order bigger baconators, e.g. this sextuple baconator (though I suspect that this was ordered before the reconfiguration to an interleaved stack):

That's 1.5 pounds (before cooking) of beef and 18 slices of bacon

[Reality]

**** hell..

[leviramsey]

The nutrition facts for:

Triple Baconator

3 Crispy Chicken Sandwiches

Large French Fries

Large Coca Cola

Calories: 3230

Calories from fat: 1480

Fat: 165 grams

Saturated fat: 54 grams

Trans fatty acids: 4.5 grams

Cholesterol: 445 milligrams

Sodium: 5790 milligrams

Carbohydrates: 300 grams

Dietary fiber: 14 grams

Sugars: 99 grams

Protein: 143 grams

There was a period not too long ago when that was a normal lunch for me....

[Mr_Dogg]

Who watches Man vs Food? Hilarious stuff!

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

That's a double baconator (or actually the original baconator, before they introduced single and double varieties), CED... the triple baconator is three patties, with a layer of bacon and cheese topping each patty.

I will conquest this burger.

[TheDon]

Analysis by Nate Silver

loads and loads of bullshit

That entire article is flawed as hell.

Fat isn't bad. Eating fat does not make you fat. You're not exhausting half your budget of "bad stuff" you're meeting half your budget of "stuff your body needs, but you're probably not giving it, because you're a retard that thinks all fat is bad so avoid it to the extent you're probably only getting 10% of your calories from fat rather than the 30% your body really wants".

That's not to mention that protein is awesome. And people generally eat too many carbs. That means the double down is FAR better for people than anything in a bun when people already eat carb dense diets.

The salt thing is a non-issue unless you have hypertension as well. Our bodies can cope with far far more salt than that.

If you're grabbing a bite to eat at a fast food joint the double down should be top of the list of "things that won't turn me into a fatty" simply because it lacks the calorie dense hunks of something that looks kinda like bread but really isn't either side of it.

By missing off the carbs contained in everything other than the double down they're screwing the results, so essentially the graph is true ONLY if you just eat the patties.

The "double downs per calorie" is also laughable, because it then turns getting calories from anything but protein and fat into a good thing, the more calories in the burgers that come from anything else, the better according to that graph! Which is pure bullshit when you consider the breakdown of your average diet. Whereas you should be aiming for a 50/30/20 carb/protein/fat break up most people are actually nearer to 70/20/10