I had the Rolling Stones pun all ready. You know: “I can’t get no… no Satisfries-faction.”
And then I tried Burger King’s new low-fat, less-calorie fries and… they’re not bad.
Burger King has always had fries issues. The issue being they were never as good as the other chains, and didn’t really complement their signature entrees, the Whopper and the humble, underappreciated Chicken Sandwich.
Basically, you went to Burger King for the sandwiches and tolerated the fries with a large swig of Coke. Even a change to the regular fries a couple years ago left them lagging behind Wendy’s sea-salted fries, McDonald’s thin, yet fat-tastic fries and probably the best among chains — Five Guys’ heavily-salted, thick-cut fries.
Now, at the very least, Burger King is back in the game.
Let’s sum up the Satisfries:
- The good: Better than Burger King's regular fries. The crisp, crinkle on the outside and moist, baked potato like feel on the inside is a vast taste improvement for the Miami-based chain.
- The bad: It costs about 25 to 30 cents more than the regular fries. Will people pay more for a satisfactory fry? (I would, for what it's worth.)
- The ugly: Sure, the new BK fries apparently have 40 percent less fat and 30 percent fewer calories than regular fries from McDonald's. But once you've paired them with a Whopper with cheese and a large soft drink, you're in calorie hell, my friend.
Bottom line: If you're serious about cutting calories, why are you eating at a fast-food chain in the first place?
About the Author
