In case you've been on another planet recently, you've probably heard about Kentucky Fried Chicken's latest culinary offer, the "Double Down" — a chicken, cheese, bacon, and mayonnaise sandwich where two boneless pieces of chicken serve as the bread.

It's not the type of food to please the culinary folks at the New York Times, or even the culinary folks at The Onion.

But is it really unhealthy for you?

What a stupid question — of course it is. 

But Nate Silver, statistician extraordinaire, decided to create a measuring unit called the DD (standing for "Double Down") and see how the Double Down compared to other fast food chicken and burger items (1 DD is the amount of fat, sodium and cholesterol in one Double Down). 

The results? 

The Double Down fared better than many chicken sandwiches, and was even better than a Big Mac.

The real problem with the Double Down, Silver continues, is the calories.  It has a LOT, especially for a fast food item so small.

When calories are factored in, the Double Down is even worse than a Triple Baconator.  But here's the thing: you can eat a Baconator and then never eat for another 24 hours — a Double Down is a tiny thing that will leave you hungry.

Silver's conclusion:

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.