This came from CNN news today.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/28/new...dex.htm?cnn=yes


Chain reported set to debut new Enormous Omelet Sandwich with more calories, fat than Whopper.
March 28, 2005: 9:32 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Burger King is reportedly set to unveil a new breakfast sandwich that's a huge bet that not everyone is looking to watch their diet.
USA Today reported that the No. 2 fast food chain is set to debut its Enormous Omelet Sandwich Monday.

The sandwich will have one sausage patty, two eggs, two American cheese slices and three strips of bacon, according to the newspaper.

That works out to 730 calories and 47 grams of fat, according to the report -- more than a Whopper burger, which the Burger King Web site said has 700 calories and 42 grams of fat.

While the new breakfast sandwich goes against the trend at some competitors to offer healthier fare, some analysts were quoted as saying the new sandwich is likely to be a sales success.

"The critics will still label it food porn," Sherri Daye Scott, editor at fast-food magazine QSR, told the paper. "But the average male fast-food customer does not have a problem with this."

The new offering could also make Burger King more of a player in the breakfast market, where USA Today reports it is quite a ways behind McDonald's (Research).

Burger King has been privately held since it was sold by British food conglomerate Diageo to a group led by Texas Pacific Group in 2002.

Sounds wonderful (without the bun!).

ditto fletcher! but there cheese 2g per slice so no cheese either!

The calcium in the cheese should more than offset the carbs in the cheese.

Darn it, gotbeer, now my keyboard is covered with drool!

Mmmmm....

Yummy.

Just gotta watch those fast-food "meats," as many of them contain soy and fillers. So not nec. low carb, and certainly all that fat can't be good for you?

I don't advocate "low-fat" but I wouldn't eat that much fat either.

Throw away the bun, and the rest of it has 4 gm carbs, and 0.5 gm trans fat, according to BK.COM.

That is about what I eat at home, calorie and fat wise, I would guess, because I don't worry about either fat or calories. Why can't all that fat be good for you? What do you people with fat phobias do for your fat soluble vitamins, the lack of which has been linked to every thing from bone loss to cancer?
I'll be at Burger King in the morning, chowing down sans the bun. Yum!!

Okay, I'll eat the fat for you Ivanna. BK let's you order any sandwich lc, so I can't wait for this one!

"The sandwich will have one sausage patty, two eggs, two American cheese slices and three strips of bacon, according to the newspaper"

This sounds like a typical breakfast for me, except I usually have 3 eggs, and I'll have bacon OR sausage, but not both.

I had one this morning without the bun. It was ok, eggs a little dry. I would probably eat just as much at home, only I wouldnt use processed cheese and probably would buy beef sausage. But all in all in a pinch on the run I'd order it again.

I was watching the today show this moring and they were talking about this. I was yelling at the TV to stop talking about the fat and calories! And to boot there was a Dr on there saying how bad the fat and calories are in this sandwich. Now I know why I was so in the dark about simple carbs until now.

ChristineP,

Isn't it awful. And they always bring on a "registered nutritionist" like that has any substantial meaning whatsoever. It is really hard to watch those shows when they're talking about nutrition. But for some reason, it's hard not to watch them, too ;-)

"...and certainly all that fat can't be good for you?"

I don't mean to gang up on you, but this statement is typical of the nutritional brainwashing of our times, characterised by immense self-assurance coupled with a glaring lack of evidence. The demonizing of dietary fat is what we have discovered is NOT certain at all. 30 years of intense study has found little evidence to support it.

Scientists are blindly and ineffectively focused on eradicating the SYMPTOM of metabolic syndrome (fat buildup) instead of the CAUSE of that buildup (carb overloading). They are guilty of trying to force the evidence to fit their pet theory, instead of the other way around.

Worst of all, the research system forces a scientific conformism on a national and global scale where dissention is punished by public professional condemnation, leading to loss of research funding and severely damaged career opportunities.

To be fair, some people, myself included, feel heart flutters when they eat large amounts of dense fat, but it goes away soon and leaves no dangerous buildup AS LONG AS you are not loading up on carbs at the same time.

I also would not recommend intense fat-loading for sedentary people, but it is not the CAUSE of any of the modern health problems it is claimed to be.

How can the entire Western/American health system be so mistaken about something? That is a mystery of human nature which only time and hindsight will be able to answer some day. It is somewhat beyond comprehension. The worse problem is that they are compounding their error by denying their mistake and repressing the truth from being studied.