Photo Credit: Drew DiSabatino
When I first heard about the new Satisfries from Burger King, I was skeptical.
Burger King claimed the new crinkle cut fries had 30% less fat and 20% fewer calories than regular fries, despite being cut from the exact same potatoes and fried in the exact same oil. The secret lies in the batter, an invention that took 10 years of R&D (what?) that allows the fries to absorb less oil during the cooking process. Granted, the difference between eating 340 calories of fries vs. 270 calories is probably not enough to solve the national obesity crisis, but it's certainly progress.
The big question still remains: How do these healthier fries stack up against the competition? To solve this mystery, I spent an afternoon taste-testing Satisfries against other french fries. Here are the results:
The Satisfry (pictured on top) was certainly bigger than the Burger King original, though the color for each of them was pretty... meh. Fans of wide-cut potato fries would probably be excited about the girth of the new menu item, though biting into them was fairly unsatisfrying. The fry itself was mushy and limp. It was, for lack of better imagery, kind of like biting into a mushy limp wet french fry. On top of that the taste was nothing special; even with copious amounts of ketchup, the Satisfry was a pretty bland side order for the Whopper I definitely would come to regret later. (Still not convinced? Grab a free serving of Satisfries this Saturday and Sunday, October 12 and 13, at participating Burger King chains.)
Rating: ...5? No, actually 4 out of 10.
The Burger King Original
Burger King's Original French Fry was very different from its hip Satisfry counterpart. It's smaller and skinnier, which may explain why it's so much crispier than the Satisfry. Though I knew it was (relatively) worse for me, it tasted so much better. This fry was also cold (maybe my local Burger King was to blame) but what it lacked in warmth it made up for in taste (and by taste I mean salt). The original fries were considerably cheaper, though we're still only talking fast food fries here. In this Dr. of Fryology's opinion, these tasted better.
Rating: 6.5 out of 10
McDonald's French Fries
What you might have already noticed about McDonald's fries is the lower price, and fewer calories, than Burger King's original fries. Side note: The McDonald's employee "accidentally" slipped a toy inside with my order (a miniature Batmobile) though I promise this bribe has not affected my judgment. In fact the car got ketchup on the wheels and immediately ceased to function. But I digress. This fry, like the BK originals, was crispier and saltier (and better) than the Satisfries as well, not to mention the improvement of color from sickly pale yellow to a nice goldenrod hue. I'm not one to get emotional about fries, so I won't, but these fries were so good that I actually finished the entire box, despite having just eaten two orders of BK fries and the aforementioned very regrettable Whopper. Oops, not sorry.
Rating: 8 out of 10
So after much debate and several clogged arteries, the winner of this battle is the classic McDonald's French Fry. Kudos to Burger King for trying to be health conscious, but for now, the Satisfry is not up to snuff. If it does take Burger King another decade to come up with a revolutionary healthy batter I won't be disappointed -- 2023 is probably the next time I can look at fries again without gagging.