T Nation

Is KFC/Popeyes Chicken Breast Okay?

When eaten skinless the #'s on their nutrition guide look OK:

Skinless Chicken Breast
Popeyes: 120 Cals, 2 g Fat , 23 G protein, no carbs
KFC: 140 Cals, 2 g Fat , 29 G protein, no carbs

When I’m in a rush or lazy I get 2 breasts from KFC and eat it skinless. I realize that some grease does still make it on the breast when you remove the skin but can’t be more than 10 grams of fat total.

The numbers look good, but is there some other factors I’m not considering?

My preferable quick protein fix is 1/2 lb of slice roast beef from the deli but they close early.

depends what you want to do…if you’re cutting, removing the skin gets rid of the carbs and that’s gonna be fine in my opinion. otherwise if you’re clean (or not) bulking, you want the fat in there anyway…though just be careful with your sat. fat intake.

in short, don’t worry about it.

I agree with Metal. Also John Berardi states there is no dif. between 90% and 100% compliance in a good eating program as long as that 10% is not extremely off course.

If your just eating them every now and then when you in a hurry and not everyday I think it wont matter.

Assuming your eating 6 times a day, once every 2 days wont cause any harm.

You can always add good fats later on in the day to balance out the sat fats. I think 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. is what?s recommended.

Edit for sp.

That is a REALLY misleading thing to say. Berardi does NOT say there is no difference between 90 and 100 % compliance. He just says that 90% compliance IS THE BARE MINIMUM for getting where you want.

Geez, man…

[quote]G87 wrote:
That is a REALLY misleading thing to say. Berardi does NOT say there is no difference between 90 and 100 % compliance. He just says that 90% compliance IS THE BARE MINIMUM for getting where you want.

Geez, man… [/quote]

Hate to nitpick here and continue this part, but I’m pretty sure he says that there’s not much difference between 90% and 100% compliancy as far as results go.

As for KFC chicken, I’d ditch the skin because there’s probably a good amount of trans fat if it’s fried.

[quote]G87 wrote:
That is a REALLY misleading thing to say. Berardi does NOT say there is no difference between 90 and 100 % compliance. He just says that 90% compliance IS THE BARE MINIMUM for getting where you want.

Geez, man… [/quote]

please show me where Berardi states that.

This is taken from Berardi’s Top Ten Tips: “I’ve come to realize that 100% nutritional discipline is never required for optimal progress. The difference, in results, between 90% adherence to your nutrition program and 100% adherence is negligible.”

not so misleading after all huh?

to the OP: there is no difference between a fast food chicken breast and a chicken breast any other sourse. just because it’s from a fast food joint doesn’t mean it’s inherently unhealthy. eat up.

I always go to KFC if im stuck out somewhere and need food fast. I find nothing really wrong with their chicken breasts with all the trans fat removed.

Check Johns 10 habits audio archives ?Plan to Break the Rules? at 2 min 38 sec in. He states there is ?no? dif. But, I will concede that the argument of ?No? and ?Not much? dif. Is of little consequence to the OP. I would much rather eat what he is suggesting than to miss a meal, if those were my only 2 options.

If this is his only issue that he is having, he need not worry. I would think that a missed workout would be a bigger issue than eating the meal he suggested vs. 100% clean.

To be completely fair to G87, earlier in the audio John also states that there is ?very little? difference in 90% vs. 100% so I guess were both right in some respects.

As for the trans fat, I thought KFC went trans-fat free but I could be wrong.

since the chicken is deep fried doesnt a lot of that oil end up in the meat, perhaps this is why fried chicken is so juicy,tender and delicious compared to plain old cgrilled chicken or other variants ? please correct me as im probably way wrong here.

It’s because it is moister.

On the original question: Nothing wrong with it: good food.

I heard KFC is being forced to fry their chicken in trans fat free oils now…so have fun!

Sorry, RAGDE; I was wrong after all.

Still, I wonder if John is being honest in saying that, or if he just made that 90% mark to make his rules easier to swallow :slight_smile:

Just to reiterate, KFC doesn’t have trans fats in their chicken anymore.

Take the skin off and you have, well, chicken.

I say go for it.

[quote]G87 wrote:
Sorry, RAGDE; I was wrong after all.

Still, I wonder if John is being honest in saying that, or if he just made that 90% mark to make his rules easier to swallow :)[/quote]

think about it. do you really think 4 meals out of one week will really make that much difference if you happen to “mess up”

Sure, if for example the mess up is each meal being say 1000 calories more than it should have been.

A fairly long time back (more than 10 years) when dieting I recall noticing clear difference over time between doing everything the same but having two trips to the Texas Roadhouse per week instead of one trip.

So even one extra way-off-diet meal per week can be a visible difference.

Now, I don’t know how many calories those trips were: I tended to eat the entire bucket of peanuts along with the steak and sweet potato. The peanuts were what wrecked the deal. (Ultimately I had the waitress just not bring the bucket of peanuts and then these meals did not make such an adverse difference.)

Dang my secret is out. I’ve been hitting up KFC when nothing else is avaliable for a long long time. I buy the breast, take off the big part of the skin and leave the skin and breading around the sides. Super convinient and still tastes awesome with 80% of the skin removed.

BTW: someone above was asking if fried chicken tastes more juicy because the meat absorbs the oil. This isn’t true, there is oil on the surface but the extra juiciness is because when you deep fry meat the juices that would drain out when grilled or broiled don’t seep out when the meat is surrounded by oil.

[quote]G87 wrote:
That is a REALLY misleading thing to say. Berardi does NOT say there is no difference between 90 and 100 % compliance. He just says that 90% compliance IS THE BARE MINIMUM for getting where you want.

Geez, man… [/quote]

No - actually Berardi says there’s not much difference between 90 and 100 % adherence. Go back and read his article on the PN site and you’ll see.

Good thing there’s not going to be a test… ; )

On topic: If you remove the skin that chicken is fine - plenty of protein, and ditching the skin rids it of most fat & carbs…

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Sure, if for example the mess up is each meal being say 1000 calories more than it should have been.

A fairly long time back (more than 10 years) when dieting I recall noticing clear difference over time between doing everything the same but having two trips to the Texas Roadhouse per week instead of one trip.

So even one extra way-off-diet meal per week can be a visible difference.

Now, I don’t know how many calories those trips were: I tended to eat the entire bucket of peanuts along with the steak and sweet potato. The peanuts were what wrecked the deal. (Ultimately I had the waitress just not bring the bucket of peanuts and then these meals did not make such an adverse difference.) [/quote]

Is it even possible to eat less than a few thousand calories when going to Texas Roadhouse? The peanuts and their cinnamon rolls alone have to be up there as far as calories, and then you get your steak on top of that. I just wish there was one a little closer to me. Actually, that’s probably a good thing. Keeps me honest. :slight_smile:

Oh yeah, I forgot the cinnamon rolls. I ate all of them too :slight_smile:

Oh man, I need to find a Texas Roadhouse…

We have an Uncle Frank’s BBQ around here. Good, homestyle Lousiana BBQ.

Brisket, fried shrimp and catfish, with sides of cajun corn and potato salad and red beans & rice and pineapple yams…I need to go again.