Review: New Satisfries from Burger King

It was just around two years ago when Burger King decided to change their French fries.  The consumer reaction was mixed, but what BK really had going for them was that their fries were never really a stand-out anyway.  The leap to a new fry recipe for BK wasn’t a big risk like it would have been if a place like McDonald’s made an attempt to toy with a classic recipe.  Today Burger King introduces us to new fries yet again, but it’s a new product altogether and an alternative to their existing French fries.  BK is first out of the gate with what’s sure to be copycatted by the rest of the competition, new Satisfries.

BK SatisfriesSatisfries are described like this:

…a new great tasting crinkle-cut french fries with 40% less fat and 30% fewer calories. Satisfries are cut from real, whole potatoes and fried to tasty perfection – so they’re always crispy on the outside, and hot and fluffy on the inside.

Right off the bat when I first heard of Satisfries I thought, “they’re just crinkle cut fries”.  I’m sure many people had a similar reaction.  After having these Satisfries, I’ve come away thinking that they are still just crinkle cut fries with clever marketing.

I’m sure you can take a bunch of different styles of fries and cook them in the exact same way and get a wide range of fat and caloric values.  Other than the oil that the fries are being cooked in, the only other factor that stands out to me would be seasoning.  How are all French fries seasoned?  Salt.  Food science is absolutely nothing I’m familiar with so this is just my layman, fast food eater perspective.  Reading up on Satisfries I see that since they have a less porous batter, not as much of the cooking oil is retained in the fries.  So with that said, what is really so groundbreaking about Satisfries?  Again, it comes down to marketing.

Burger King New SatisfriesMy small order of Satisfries cost me $2.19 and 270 calories.  There’s around a 25-cent upcharge for Satisfries over the regular fries.  As I said before, don’t turn to me for the ins and outs of food science and the same can be said about fast food economics.  With that said, in my personal opinion I find it annoying that this “healthier” alternative has to cost us more.  I won’t fight over a quarter, but there’s heavy advertising for these as lower fat and lower calorie fries and all they are is crinkle cut style French fries that we can get at our local supermarket frozen food section.

SatisfriesI did find the fries to be pretty decent, but definitely nothing special.  There isn’t a craveability factor at all with Satisfries.  They were a little under-salted at first taste and I found they had better impact in bundled multiples.  My Satisfries were served piping hot and had a nice crisp exterior.  Even down to the very last fry, every one of my Satisfries was crisp.  A lot of my memories of bad crinkle cut style fries revolve around problems with soggy, limp texture and my batch of Satisfries didn’t suffer that same fate. The crinkle cut style fry is a thicker cut French fry so you’ve got a lot more to judge with the additional interior.  Described as “hot and fluffy on the inside” and I’ll have to agree there.  Along with the thicker fry you’re going to be treated to more of a starchy center so ketchup is your greatest ally here.

Satisfries BJKIn closing, Satisfries are expectedly just crinkle cut fries that benefit from less cooking oil saturation than the standard fries.  The mission to provide a healthier alternative fry is a great way to advertise, but don’t be fooled if you think there’s anything really all that special going on.  As stand-alone crinkle cut fries, Satisfries aren’t bad at all.  The marketing strategy sales pitch of less fat and fewer calories is indeed the bonus that will be its real appeal.

Pros: I love when my fries are served hot. All my Satisfries had crisp exteriors. Clever marketing as a lower fat/calorie alternative. There were a good amount of fries for the small size.

Cons: My batch seemed undersalted. No "wow" factor... they are just crinkle cut fries. The thicker interior makes it a fry that doesn't work without ketchup as well as regular fries. Upcharge.

Taste: 6.50/10
Value: 5.75/10
Grubbing on-the-go: 6.25/10
Price: $2.19 for a small, $2.49 medium, $2.79 large

Overall GrubGrade: 6.25/10

More Info: http://www.bk.com
Nutrition Facts:
Small: 270 calories, 11 grams of fat, 300 mg sodium  Medium: 340 calories, 14 grams of fat, 370 mg sodium, Large: 410 calories, 17 grams of fat, 460 mg sodium

69 comments on “Review: New Satisfries from Burger King

  1. JF says:

    Pretty much what I would have thought. I don’t do BK, and don’t see myself doing it anytime soon. But the reality of it is this. A french fry has to be fried, and that makes it unhealthy. Unless BK or someone else can figure out how to fry foods with water (or another 0 calorie oil). They just can’t improve them (without diminishing the taste).

    • ahecht says:

      Not necessarily. Many fried foods, if fried correctly, absorb very little oil. A donut from Dunkin Donuts, for example, can have as little as 11g of fat (including absorbed frying oil and whatever’s in the batter). That’s about as much fat as a side-salad from Wendy’s.

  2. JF says:

    BTW, after re-reading your review, I think the under-salted might be a part of their claim to be healthier (i.e. less sodium).

  3. Bobert says:

    One of the dumber names I’ve ever heard of. Satisfries?

  4. nutbuttap says:

    so you didnt officially say, are these fries better than their other ones? I don’t care myself about the fat/calorie content but if the fries taste better then to me it is worth the upcharge

    • Ryan says:

      Originals are definitely tastier, but I’ve always found bk fries to be middle of the road fast food fries anyway. If I was craving fast food fries I would still go for the originals.

      • nutbuttap says:

        good to know, thanks for the reply.. i do like trying new things, also i do like crinkle cut fries like culvers and white castle, so i will probably try them anyways. As their original fries being pretty bland i can’t see these being much worse ..

  5. Roger C. says:

    This was awful. What added insult to injury was the fact that Burger King charges more for these fries. All their fries are horribly inedible. I’d rather go to Five Guys. Their fries are amazing.

    • Bubbsy says:

      I’ve never understood the draw of Five Guys fries. Their burgers are delicious. But you order fries and they give you enough soggy, floppy, and thickly limp fries to feed a small nation. I have yet to eat at Five Guys where the workers understand that you can’t overcrowd the deep-fryer. And everyone is so excited about how they get 2 lbs of those horrible fries… I think because they are so wowed over by quantity.

      • Sarah says:

        I agree Five Guys fries are overrated. I too found them very soggy, but I still hear everyone around me talking about how fantastic they are.

      • FA says:

        When you just want to put the feedbag on and pig out, Five Guys fries make it happen. I do that with their free peanuts so much that I just skip the fries altogether!

  6. thehottoddy23 says:

    The name definitely sucks. Satisfries? Good grief.

  7. Shana says:

    They could save a lot more calories & fat if they fried them in olestra.

  8. Zach says:

    Satisfries = saddest fries

  9. Clay says:

    This is the second article where I’ve read that quote about the “less porous batter”.

    If these fries are just potatoes, oil, and seasonings, what does “batter” refer to? I don’t get it.

    • ChrisSh says:

      I would guess it has to do with the moisture level in the fries (the satisfies having a higher level), but I’m no food scientist either…

      • FA says:

        The old ones are too greasy and fat laden. I’m glad they’r cleaning things up. Of course they stuck the customers with the tab!

  10. Ray says:

    To me it would seem that if you say these fries are just like other fries, nothing special or bad, then they have achieved their purpose.

    Would it be better if they were really good, of course, but fitting right in has it’s value as well.

  11. Kenneth says:

    I agree with Roger in regards to Five Guys. Their fries are freakishly addicting. Probably why I haven’t had them in at least a year.

  12. Anthony says:

    They are awful – I would buy Ore Ida crinkle fries first. I pray at the BK altar, but these will be gone in 6 months. They aren’t crisp, have zero taste, and are more expensive. There’s nothing here that would possibly compel someone to buy them more than once.

    • Stephanie M says:

      I agree, these fries are truly awful. Your description was spot on. I absolutely love fries and could not finish these. I would never, ever buy them again.

  13. SaveFarris says:

    More importantly, can you put them on a hamburger?

  14. Jay J says:

    I ordered these today but the workers all called them crinkle cut fries instead of the absurd Satisfries name. They are an improvement over their normal fries but I was pretty underwhelmed by them. Tasted very similar to normal frozen crinkle cut fries but deep fried instead of the normal oven cooking. My order was also in need of additional salt, an oddity for fast food fries.

    I’m not sure why they insist on charging more for them over the normal fries but I doubt I will be back to BK just for these. Try harder, BK!

  15. Roger no initial says:

    Had these at lunch today w the Country Pork sandwich combo, 30 cent upcharge. The review was spot on. Very generic crinkle cut fries with a lean towards blandness. Yes, ketchup is your friend and I used every bit I had. It is not a fry that you will crave.
    On the plus side: As the sandwich came with the same toppings as a whopper, it was a mayo onslaught…so the plus thing is that the big crinkle cut frie made for a handy scraping tool to get the mayo off the top of the bun.

  16. Heidi says:

    Add a chemical to subtract some fat. Seems like a perfectly logical reason to call something “healthier.”

  17. nick says:

    or just eat less of their regular fries…

  18. MR. Gnarly says:

    I tried these today and I liked them. I think it’s step in the right direction, But I think they would be much better with seasoning salt.

  19. nik says:

    Hese fries are awesome I’ve literally been three times and have more visits planned for these fries…. this is what I call a ge changer. I’m sorry I disagree guys these fries are freaking cocaine in fry form I ordered two larges for a meal. I don’t think you’ve given them a fair chance because your mind would be blown like mine.

    My new favorite fastfood fry!
    Only rants and raves to say.

    • FA says:

      $6 on fries with your meal at a fast food place?! In what universe does that make economic sense? Get Tuscan Chicken Melt at Subway for that price! At least it’s protein and more filling.

  20. Jeanne says:

    Lame name.
    Should have called them “Fit Fries”
    Per my 13 year old.

  21. Jeanne says:

    Fit Fries might have been easier to order.

    • FA says:

      They can’t all be gems, even if it’s your kid. Love the Satsfries name.

      • TJ says:

        So I think Jeanne has a kid. Or maybe I didn’t just read that 5 times.. we get it lady lol

        • FA says:

          After many Satisfries helpings, I think your store must have messed up. They do sit together with the regular fries. I once had to return mine because I found 6 regulars. Frankly I hoped they’d give me an entire refill but the counter girl was feeling cheap.

          • TJ says:

            I did actually get one regular fry.. but that seems to be a fairly standard mistake. I get a random onion ring once in a while too. Variety is the spice of life lol.

          • FA says:

            @TJ- Yeah, but w/steep 30 cent surcharge you want all the value you can get.

          • TJ says:

            @FA I got them for free with the weekend deal so it wasn’t an issue for me.

          • FA says:

            Well, at least the screw up didn’t cost you anything! But pretty crappy product control there, TJ.

        • J says:

          TJ AND BRADEN: The comments were never directed to you therefore, why you would want to put your derogatory, uncalled for remarks in, is just amazing. Why do you feel as if you have to try to be mean to someone you don’t even know.? My comments were more or less directed to Burger Kimg. Or anyone that did not feel the name was appropriate and instead you…try…to be cynical to me? Hope it made your day.

  22. Paul O'Neal says:

    I guess none of you were “satisfried”….

  23. Brendan says:

    Jeanne, what did your thirteen year old daughter want to call these fires again?

  24. Brooke says:

    These look like Culvers fries….

  25. FA says:

    I love them. I miss the heavy McD sodium punch but if they jack up the salt they’d be less healthy. Catch 22.

  26. TJ says:

    After reading this I was expecting mine to be under-salted.. my local BK must have made a mistake (shocker) but I actually found them to be much saltier than their new regular fries. Other than that I basically agree with the review, so they were pretty good to me. I doubt I’d ever actually pay for them, but I’m glad I got some for free on Sunday.

    • J says:

      Is this because you work there?
      Let me repeat.
      Is this because you work there?

      • TJ says:

        I’ve never worked at any fast food place, I’m just a casual fan. I go to Burger King maybe once a month, far prefer Taco Bell, In-n-Out, and Jack in the Box, in that order. I know you won’t believe me. It’s cool

  27. […] Flatizza from Subway might be the worst name for a food product since Burger King came out with Satisfries.  The Flatizza is a new square flatbread pizza option that is hitting Subway locations nationwide […]

  28. FA says:

    @Kerig- ROTF!
    Remember Queen’s rap verse? “Flatizza’s had it up to here!”

  29. […] Review: New Satisfries from Burger King   Posted September 24th, 2013 […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>