Burger King’s new fries fail to satisfy our taste-tester


Calorie counts

Here are the nutrition facts of the french fries, based on a three-ounce serving, or 89 grams. The variation in calories — and in fat grams — stems from the different levels of fat absorbed into the fry and its coating.

Burger King (Old fries)

240 calories

10 grams fat

330 mg sodium

Burger King (New fries)

190 calories

8 grams fat

210 mg sodium

Five Guys

205 calories

8.9 grams of fat

205 mg sodium


285 calories

13.4 grams of fat

196 mg. of sodium

Source: Adapted from the companies, adjusting for a 3-ounce serving size, as calcuated by Miami Herald nutrition columnist Sheah Rarback

Nothing in life fascinates me as much (at least, since that stern talking-to I got from Jennifer Aniston’s lawyers) as new fast-food products. Not since Dr. Frankenstein was directing research for the European medical industry has anybody produced more botched experiments or buried the bodies faster.

Remember the grilled pineapple-and-cheese Hula Burger? McDonald’s certainly hopes that you don’t. McSpaghetti or McPizza, either. And it’s hard to say which failed more spectacularly: Burger King’s early-’90s attempt at table service (with a menu that included shrimp, salad, baked potato and of course the sine qua non of fine dining, popcorn). Or its 2005 Meat’normous Omelette Sandwich, a breakfast-buffet-on-a-bun that included eggs, cheese, bacon and ham dressed with 330 milligrams of cholesterol and 1,950 milligrams of sodium.

So when I heard that Burger King has introduced a mutant low-cal dish called Satisfries, I reacted pretty much the same way those apes did in 2001: A Space Odyssey when they saw that black monolith: jumping around, squealing and brandishing a club at my editors while demanding a chance to sample and write about it.

Nothing gets Americans ticked off faster than messing with their fries, which they consume at an awesome rate of 60 pounds per person per year. The Internet has entire message boards devoted to bitter screeds about how fries haven’t tasted worth a damn since 1982, when McDonald’s began the downfall of the fast-food industry and probably even Western civilization by caving to the Health Gestapo, switching its deep fryers from beef tallow — tallow being the polite cooking term for “fat”— to vegetable oil.

And someday we will doubtless invade and subjugate some other country for atrocities it has inflicted on defenseless potatoes. From Canada’s barbaric poutine (cheese curds! on fries!) to the sinister mayonnaise fries of Belgium and the Netherlands, the world is one culinary outrage after another to the keepers of the American french-fry flame.

So my editors, who I sometimes suspect are as happy to be rid of me as I of them, gave me a few bucks and sent me off to Burger King and a few other venerated french-fry spots to see what the fuss is all about. My verdict: By the next full moon the night will be alive with tattered bands of Burger King executives, shovels over their shoulders, looking for a deserted spot in which to inter a mutilated corpse. Satisfries are dead on arrival.

This isn’t really surprising. The stuff that makes food taste good — fat, salt, sugar — are the same things that throw the calorie fascists and the blood-pressure police into a rabid frenzy. This is especially true for fast food, which in the hands of nutritional fundamentalists gets reduced pretty much to nothing. Literally: McDonald’s health-nut-certified Arch Deluxe, which cut the fat in a Big Mac by nearly two-thirds, did it by using “beef” patties composed mostly of seaweed and water. That’s great if you’re a sea turtle, but human customers were less enthusiastic, and the Arch Deluxe is now buried out in the Everglades alongside the McGratin Croquette (don’t ask).

Satisfries were obviously invented by scrawny, calorie-counting schoolmarms rather than anybody who’s ever eaten a meal for pleasure. Burger King is promoting them with the pitch that they are dramatically healthier than the fries at McDonald’s. My confidence in this claim is more than a little undermined by a Burger King press release that claims Satisfries have 140 percent less fat and 230 percent fewer calories — both numbers are mathematical impossibilities.

Whatever the real-world numbers, though, I’m willing to believe that Satisfries are healthier than McDonald’s fries, because they taste so much lousier. Burger King’s new batter, which is supposed to improve the nutritional value of the potato sticks by preventing them from absorbing so much cooking oil, also appears to prevent them from frying properly.

Though they brown nicely, they’re unpleasantly mushy inside and taste less of potatoes than cooking oil. Satisfries have an old-school crinkle cut so they don’t get mixed up with what Burger King employees now refer to by the unfortunate sobriquet “old fries.” But believe me, your mouth will never mistake one of these pasty newcomers with the crisp originals.

Or anybody else’s fries, for that matter. To give our taste test some context, I visited four other revered deep-fry oases: McDonald’s (obviously), the up-and-coming Five Guys chain (which only began expanding outside its Washington D.C. birthplace a decade ago), Coral Gables’ upscale OneBurger (bad fries would be a zoning violation), and Aventura’s Bourbon Steak, which in addition to $100 steaks made from hand-massaged Japanese wagyu cattle offers the — spoiler alert — best fries in the known universe.

My approach to evaluating fast food is generally to grab a fistful of it, stuff in my mouth, and grunt either good or I told you we should have gotten pizza. But my girlfriend, who’s written a bunch of cookbooks (though never one with anything as useful as how to make the Big Mac special sauce), insisted that we keep a bunch of charts ranking the various fries on color and crispness, greasiness, potato flavor, seasoning and heat when served.

Satisfries came in dead last with just 15.5 points out of a possible 25. Five Guys fries, the greasiest of the bunch — the brown bag in which they’re served will be soaked with the peanut oil in which they’re cooked by the time you get it from the counter to the table — were next, with 17.5 points. Burger King “old fries” came in fourth with a very respectable 20 points, getting dinged slightly on seasoning (over-salted) and flavor. McDonald’s was just ahead with 21 points. And OneBurger, a nondescript black box from the outside but one of the true holy places of burger-and-fry cuisine within, served delicious fries that were truly excellent in nearly every respect: 24 points.

The ringer in this competition was Bourbon Steak, a perennial presence on lists of the best 10 restaurants in America and better known for its porterhouses slow-poached in butter than as a competitor to the Satisfry. This is the sort of place where french fries aren’t called a side dish but an amuse bouche.

And amusing they are. Each order comes in three stainless steel cups, together with a sauce for each. In one cup the fries are dusted with rosemary; in another, with smoked paprika and in the other, a subtle onion salt. Dips include a smoky barbecue sauce, a smoked-onion aioli in another, and spiced ketchup in the third. Then there’s the secret ingredient: They’re cooked in duck fat, which probably gives them their gusto, but remarkably, the fries have not a speck of grease, are light and airy and yet have a potato flavor that does not quack.

The very best thing about Bourbon Steak’s fries: They’re free. Of course, to get them, you have to order one of the entrees, which start at $40 and curve sharply upward. (I don’t even want to guess what the menu warns is “market price” for the Maine lobster pot pie with truffle cream might be.)

Here’s a tip that, unfortunately for the Herald’s bookkeepers, was passed to me only after I’d eaten at Bourbon Steak. If you sit at the bar, you can order the fries for just $5. That’s twice as much as a bag of Satisfries, and about 26,000 times the taste. Burger King needs to hire a duck-oil scientist.

Read more Health stories from the Miami Herald

Miami Herald

Join the

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category