[Villages PL]

I received a Burger King ad in the mail for lots of greasy, salty, starchy, low fiber products, as usual. They even manage to ruin healthy chicken and fish by breading and deep frying. But one item stood out from the rest.

It was a new item called "Satisfries". With a coupon you can get a large order of Satisfries for $1. They claim these fries have 40% less fat, and 30% less calories than the leading fry at McDonald's.

My question: Can a product be "good" simply because it has less fat & calories than a competitor's product? What are the chances they compensated by making it higher in sodium or something else?

Because something is better doesn't mean it's healthy, in my opinion. And you're probably going to have a high fat, high sodium, low-fiber burger with your fries. So the net effect is not that different. If you think you saved calories, you might be more inclined to order a dessert to go with your burger and fries. In that case you'd be worse off.

[delima2000]

They taste terrible.

[TomOB]

Comparing your "healthy item" to another restaurants higher fat item doesn't mean that it is healthy. I may be crazy, but I eat organic vegetables and on the rare occasion that I eat meat I go to Marion Meats and get grass fed, non antibiotic meat. It costs a little more, but it costs less than a heart attack or cancer.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by TomOB

Comparing your "healthy item" to another restaurants higher fat item doesn't mean that it is healthy. I may be crazy, but I eat organic vegetables and on the rare occasion that I eat meat I go to Marion Meats and get grass fed, non antibiotic meat. It costs a little more, but it costs less than a heart attack or cancer.