Burger King’s new Satisfries ... don’t satisfy
Burger King has introduced Satisfries, left, which have fewer calories and fat than classic fries, right. (Sept. 24, 2013) Credit: Newsday / Erica Marcus
How satisfying are Burger King’s new Satisfries? Not terribly. The French fries, which debuted Tuesday at around 7,200 Burger Kings across North America, have about 20 percent fewer calories and 25 percent less fat than the chain’s original version, according to the company. I’d say they were about 20 percent worse.
Burger King’s old fries (now identified as “classic”) are pale fingers of vaguely potato-y fluff that somehow manage to taste oily without affording the consumer the crispy, browned pleasure of most deep-fried foods. The new crinkle-cut Satisfries are comparably pale and fluffy, but since they are thicker, they manifest more fluffy interior and less oily exterior. Add to this less salt and you have a singularly unsatisfying fry.
After my jaunt to Burger King, I headed to McDonald’s to sample what the world’s largest burger chain calls its World Famous Fries. They were better than either of Burger King’s, if only because they are thinner.
In for a penny, in for a pound. While I was at Burger King I met a fellow who agreed that French fries were not The Home of the Whopper's strong suit. “You should go to Wendy’s,” he told me. Off I went, and he was right. The Wendy’s fries were thin, like McDonald’s, but browner, and with bits of skin still attached. They even tasted like potatoes.
