Random thought..
Antidisestablishmentarianism,
who made up that word?
Which is Better?
The cons and pros of:
I'm not rooting for any, I don't even eat any but, this is my only blog idea, for now.
KFC-
What no nutritionist wants to admit is that most fried chicken joints aren't the health hazards we make them out to be. KFC, the most vilified of the fried-chicken purveyors, makes an exemplary case-in-point. The menu's crispy bird-bits are offset by skinless chicken pieces, low-calorie sandwich options, and a host of sides that go way beyond the typical battered-and-fried potatoes and nuggets. And with meals that allow you to hand pick each piece that goes on your plate, you won't be forced to square off with that big, crusty, 5-gallon bucket of fried chicken.
McDonald's-
The world-famous burger baron has come a long way since the days of Fast Food Nation—at least nutritionally speaking. The trans fats are mostly gone, the number of gut-wrecking calorie bombs are now fewer than ever, and the menu holds plenty of healthy options such as salads and yogurt parfaits. Don't cut loose at the counter just yet, though. Too many of the breakfast and lunch sandwiches still top the 500-calorie mark, and the dessert menu is fodder for some major belly-building.
Despite KFC's cruelty and the slaughter house, and McDonald's hormone wrenching meat; McDonald's is better than KFC.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)