REVIEW: Burger King Satisfries

I have to admit “Satisfries” is a very clever name for Burger King’s latest addition to their sides menu. Or perhaps I should say its name gratifries my wordplay bone. Yes, I could fill this review with words that end with -fries, but the thought of that probably horrifries many. So this sentence signifries the end of me using anymore words I’ve made up using the suffix -fries.

Burger King’s Satisfries look like your typical crinkle-cut fries, but it’s what you don’t see that’s being promoted heavily by the fast food company. According to Burger King’s website in a big, bold font, Satisfries have 40 percent less fat and 30 percent less calories than McDonald’s fries. They also have 20 percent less calories and 25 percent less fat than Burger King’s classic fries, even though they’re cooked in the same fryers, same oil, for the same amount of time as the non-crinkled fries.

So what fast food magic allows Satisfries to have less fat and calories? According to Burger King, these new fries use a less porous batter to keep out more oil during cooking. So how are these crinkle-cut fries that sound like they’ve been through a culinary Oxy acne treatment?

I like them. In fact, I like them more than BK’s classic fries. Although, to be honest, I don’t think too highly of them.

They have a better potato flavor than Burger King’s classic fries and because they’re thicker there’s a lot of hot and fluffy goodness inside. It’s almost as if they’ve been stuffed with mashed potatoes. Satisfries go great with ketchup (and Burger King’s Zesty sauce) and have a pleasant crisp exterior, however I think BK’s classic fries are crispier and salted better. The first few Satisfries I ate were salted well, but as I made my way through the sleeve, they seemed to be less salty.

However, while Satisfries have significantly less calories and fat than McDonald’s fries, I don’t think they have the flavor to make my taste buds crave them instead of McDonald’s starchy offering. They taste too similar to the frozen crinkle-cut fries I can prepare in my oven.

You also have to pay a premium for them. They’re 10 to 30 cents more expensive than Burger King’s classic fries and there’s an upcharge if you want them with your value meal.

Personally, I think Burger King should make their Satisfries the same price as their classic fries and then have the two battle it out for the hearts and wallets of consumers. The product that sells better wins and becomes Burger King’s only fries and the loser is banished from the fast food world and promises to never return, not even for a limited time, joining Burger King’s pre-2011 fries and The King mascot.

I hope Burger King’s Satisfries sell well and takes its rightful place as the fast food chain’s default fries. They’re better tasting, better for you, and have a better name than their classic fries. Also, having two different fries on the menu that have almost the same flavor profile stupefries me.

Sorry. I couldn’t help myself.

(Nutrition Facts – medium size – 340 calories, 120 calories from fat, 14 grams of fat, 2 grams of saturated fat, 0 grams of trans fat, 0 milligrams of cholesterol, 370 milligrams of sodium, 51 grams of carbohydrates, 4 grams of fiber, 0 grams of sugar, and 4 grams of protein.)

Item: Burger King Satisfries
Purchased Price: $2.99
Size: Medium
Purchased at: Burger King
Rating: 6 out of 10
Pros: Better potato flavor than Burger King’s classic fries. Clever name. Less calories and fat than McDonald’s fries and BK’s classic fries. Hot and fluffy innards. Crispy exterior. Not using diversifries, exemplifries, and identifries in this review.
Cons: Pricier than Burger King’s classic fries. Not as crispy and salty as BK’s classic fries. Still not as good as McDonald’s fries. Autocorrect correcting every attempt to type Satisfries.