Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Versed in Chick-fil-A

The new spicy sandwich at Chick-fil-A
Boasts heat that will make wimps most likely bray.
And if it's two meals' worth of sodium*
At least it's not more fast-food tedium...

* Actually, the plain sandwich ($3.27 including tax) has 1730 mg of sodium, which is 72 percent of a day's recommended intake (it's saltier by a tad than the regular sandwich and a good bit saltier, and in the ballpark on calories and fat as -- are you ready? -- the KFC Double Down.) You can also get the sandwich made deluxe, with lettuce, tomato and pepperjack cheese. Either way, it comes with two pickle slices, and a bit of orange (from the marinade) rims the crust (a seasoned flour coating). It may not be habanero-hot, but it has a nice little kick that develops as you keep eating. My verdict? I like it, but the original still rules.


Anonymous said...

Helen, I really thing the should have called it a buffalo chicken sandwich. It is eveident these have been placed in a buffalo style sauce. A spicy chicken sandwich would merely have additional chili/hot spices added to the chicken or batter. and I agree with you, I like it, but the original still rules.

Anonymous said...

You are right, the new Chick-fil-A Spicy Sandwich is great!

The spice is actually in the fresh chicken itself. The fresh chicken is then breaded and pressure cooked in 100% peanut oil. There is no spice in the coater, just a tad of food coloring to make it look slightly different than the Original Chick-fil-A Chicken Sandwich.

I have to strongly disagree with your nutritional comparison to the KFC Double Sandwich. The KFC Double Down has: 10% more Total Calories(540 vs 490); 61% more calories from fat(290 vs 180); 60% more Total Fat(32g vs 20g); 150% more Saturated Fat(10g vs 4g); 0.5g Trans Fat (CFA Spicy has 0); 142% more cholesteral(145mg vs 60mg).

This data was pulled straight from the Chick-fil-A and KFC official websites.

Helen Schwab said...

Thanks for the more detailed information, A. I had pulled up the nutritional data for a glance at the sodium levels in each and was surprised - both by those and the calorie and fat counts. I wouldn't not have guessed them to be anywhere near as close as they are. But I should have been more specific and detailed about the fat counts if I was going to bring it up at all. (Still, aren't you surprised, too?)