So, here's the thing: Burger King's fries suck. They have always sucked. So it's super-funny to me that they are trying to improve their fry image by offering low-calorie fries. Shouldn't they be working on taste? My guess is that the more fat/calories something has, the better they will taste (butter).
But check the small print:
They only have to be better than McDonald's, get it? This is sad. BK is basically acknowledging that their fries are nowhere near as good as McDs, so they're trying to get you to eat these by implying that they are somehow better for you. BTW, the calorie/fat ratios are based on small orders of fries. Who orders small fries?
I think the whole thing is absurd. If you're eating fries, eat fries. Don't kid yourself. Anyway, I decided not to play BK's game and compare the low-calorie Satisfries with BK's regular fries. Here they are side by side. Notice the exquisite presentation? Looks JUST LIKE the photo from their website, huh?
Closeup of the regular fries.
Closeup of the Satisfries.
There's a definite taste difference, but it's not noticeable enough to choose one over the other. I guess that's a positive for the Satisfries since they have fewer calories. But let's think about that. It's 90 fewer calories for a large order. 90 calories. Is it even worth it? These fries are stupid, and BK's fries still suck.
GIBBY: Which one do you like better?
GRUNION: The regular ones dude. Too much tapioca starch in the Satisfries.
Tapioca starch? I'll be damned.
2 out of 10