Every few years one of the major fast food chains pays lip service to the idea of providing healthier foods. It never lasts, because no one cares. The problem isn't that Burger King's food is unhealthy. The problem is that we really want to eat Burger King food. And when I say "we really want to eat Burger King food," I'm not talking about salads and low-fat fries.
Remember the disastrous McDonald's experiment with salads that you shake up in a plastic cup? That was an embarrassment to all concerned.
So here we have Burger King trying to switch up their fry recipe to make them healthier. Or if not "healthier," then at least "less bad." Will it work?
Called "Satisfries," these crinkle cut French fries have 20% fewer calories than the standard fries. (Frankly, I don't think that's enough of a caloric savings for me to bother with them. I'd rather just go without. But hey, 20% is better than 0%, right?)
The new fries took 10 years to develop. They are made from the same potatoes and fried in the same oil. The main difference between Satisfries and regular fries (aside from the crinkle cut factor) is that the batter used for the coating is different. The Satisfries batter absorbs less of the cooking oil, which gives you a less-greasy and less-fattening French fry.
Surprisingly, a lot of people enjoy these fries. There have been a lot of ad hoc taste tests performed, and many people prefer Satisfries to the regular fries. HuffPost Taste bloggers declared that they have "a more profound potato flavor," although they added that if you smother them in ketchup, you can't even tell the difference (for better or worse). Columnist Daniel Gross, although initially highly skeptical of the Satisfries, concluded that "they don't read in the mouth like diet or low-cal the way that baked potato chips or sweet potato fries do." That's... actually pretty high praise for diet French fries.
Image courtesy Flickr/jhmostyn
2 comments