Funny stuff. One of the more interesting fast food commercials I’ve seen. There is some debate what country it came from, but appears to be Burger King of Korea. Make sure to crank up the volume, because the “Eat Like Snake” song is half the fun.
I was a little worried about trying this product. Now that it’s over, I’m just confused, and reaching out for the first piece of real meat available, in hopes of forgetting the whole unpleasant experience. Alas, somebody had to do it.
There are things called vegetables. They are rare in the fast food world, but they DO exist. Things like green beans, carrots and such. I’m sure most of us feel the lettuce and tomato on our burgers is enough vegetation, but sometimes it’s nice to eat some additional healthy grub. Personally, I suggest eating a serving of your favorite veggie on it’s own, as a side dish. Perhaps 2 or 3 veggies, why not. But some people feel that’s too complicated, so they decided to take their veggies, grind them up together, mix with a bunch of soy, and create their own blend. Next they took this blended substance and shaped it into the form of a hamburger patty.
I don’t even feel right, putting this in the “Burgers” category, but what am I going to do? That’s what it’s called, and that’s how it’s marketed. So that’s where it goes.
The meat — There is none.
The cheese — There is none.
The bun — It’s a decent bun, much like BK’s REAL burgers.
The toppings — Lettuce, Mayo, Ketchup and Tomato. The lettuce was crisp and tasted fine. The mayo was average fast food variety, the ketchup the same. There was no tomato included because of the current Salmonella scare.
The taste — If I cut a piece of the foam padding from my desk chair that’s currently poking out from a rip in the fabric, added a little bit of carrot, pepper and mushroom, I’d imagine this is what it would taste like. It’s the first fast food item I have reviewed, and for that matter can even remember, that I did not finish eating.
To be fair, if a person ever found themselves stranded on a deserted island with no other food source, they would eat it. I’m confident Gilligan, Skipper, Ginger, Mary Ann and crew would dive right in. However… foam padding isn’t very flavorful.
Where does the patty come from? It comes from MorningStar Farms, and this link will take you to what appears to be the exact product used by Burger King, for those interested in learning more about this unusually tasteless creation.
How is it cooked? It definitely was not flame-grilled like Burger King’s standard beef burgers. The manufacturer’s website says it can be microwaved or cooked in a regular oven. Considering the regular oven directions call for a 15 minute cooking time, I think it’s safe to assume that Burger King is using a microwave.
Here’s the official description — Savory vegetable and grain burger with a blend of carrots, mushrooms, bell peppers, black olives, brown rice and rolled oats.
Here’s a crazy idea — JUST EAT SOME VEGETABLES. Have some corn, beans, peas, spinach, mushrooms, carrots, WHATEVER. But eat them on their own. Don’t smash them up together to create a tasteless circle of fake-meat and call it a Burger. Certainly I do support eating as healthy as possible, and I also support those who choose to be vegetarians, but this is NOT the answer.
The Veggie Burger from Burger King is Bad, and not in a “good” way. Vegetables are awesome, but this is gross. Please make the scary “Burger” go away.
Price: $2.69 — Website: BK.com
Click here for rating system details.
Nutrition Facts - Veggie Burger from Burger King.
Calories - 420
Calories from Fat - N/A
Total Fat - 16 grams
Carbs - 46 grams
Saturated Fat - 2.5 grams
Trans Fat - 0 grams
Cholesterol - 10 milligrams
Sodium - 1100 milligrams
I have to give Burger King credit for being creative with their Chicken Tenders. Instead of copying the look and shape of McNuggets from McDonald’s, they added a bit of artistic flair to this otherwise boring segment. Plus, sometimes it’s just fun to play with food, and build things, like when we were kids. These bite-sized deep-fried chicken morsels are great for that purpose, and they make some cool photographs too.
But food sculpture aside, it’s hard to get too excited about them (or anybody else’s processed nuggets) because these products are basically the bottom of the fast-food chicken barrel. After they’re finished using the breast filets and top quality cuts for sandwiches, strips and salads, what’s left of the chicken meat gets chopped and mashed-up, then formed into the shapes we consume. There is real breast and rib meat involved, but it’s the left-over scraps. They also use Mechanically Separated Meat or MSM, which is a product and process used in the industry for over 40 years.
The Crown-Shaped Tenders are breaded, instead of battered like the McNuggets. The result is a looser, more bumpy grainy coating, complete with a few falling crumbs. There are nice sized chunks of black pepper laced thru-out the breading. There is not much of a crispy or crunchy sensation, but I wouldn’t call it soggy either. Just soft.
The chicken inside is similar to McNugget’s meat, with a texture that immediately identifies itself as being heavily processed. If you compare the close-up shot of the bitten Crown (below) with the close-up shot of the bitten McNugget, you will see they look almost the same. To me, they taste almost the same too, but the Burger King version might have a slight edge in seasoning. Keeping in mind both are bland.
This segment of fast-food is wildly popular with kids, but I don’t have any children of my own to ask for opinions. So instead I’ve recruited my good friend Ron James, a regular fast-food eater himself who’s fathered several of these miniature humans, and is working hard to keep them fed. I asked for their feelings, and the answer was short and sweet — they like McNuggets better than Tenders. RJ also shared a funny story with me about his youngest son. Sometimes he purchases the chicken sandwich at Jack In The Box, takes the chicken patty out of the bun, and tells his son it’s a Giant chicken nugget. Apparently he loves it, but has a tough time dipping the giant nugget into those little tiny containers of sauce. I laughed out-loud when he told me.
Anyway, in all fairness, I could probably ask another friend with kids and discover they prefer the Burger King variety. I really think it would go back and forth, because we are not comparing apples to oranges. These products are so similar, I feel it’s comes down to personal preference, more than a question of quality or value.
As with most nuggets and finger foods, these are perfect for dipping and offer a choice of sauces: Barbecue, Creamy Buffalo, Honey Mustard, Sweet and Sour, or Ranch.
NOTE: Burger King sold a product under the “Chicken Tenders” name before, and many people ‘think’ of that product when they see those words. The old Tenders were bigger, longer strips of chicken, not nuggets. BK discontinued them, and this current generation of crown-shaped nuggets inherited the name.
The Chicken Tenders (Crown-Shaped) from Burger King are a worthy competitor to the McNuggets. The fact is, they share far more in common than they differ. And quite honestly, neither taste ‘great’. They have a nice assortment of dipping sauces. I’m not a big fan of nuggets in general these days. My tastes have graduated to the more natural, higher quality strips and filets that are available. That said, I feel BK’s nuggets are every-bit as good as McDonald’s, but I don’t find them to be much better.
Fast Food Critic Score:
3 out of 5 stars.
Nutrition Facts - Burger King, Chicken Tenders (8 piece).
Calories - 370
Calories from Fat - N/A
Total Fat - 23 grams
Carbs - 18 grams
Saturated Fat - 6 grams
Trans Fat - 3.5 grams
Cholesterol - 55 milligrams
Sodium - 870 milligramsN/A = The company has not made the information available.
“Loaded with disappointment” should be the title of this review.
The folks at Burger King came up with the interesting and unusual idea of putting a baked-potato topping on their latest burger creation. What is a baked-potato topping? Tonight I found out, when I tried the new Loaded Steakhouse Burger with Angus Beef.
It turns out to be a thin paste of potatoes, with chives and bacon bits, spread over the top bun. It tasted like plain old mashed-potatoes to me. Anyway, mystery solved. That was boring, but it’s nothing compared to the overall disappointment I have with this product. At a price of nearly $5, I’m so unsatisfied — I want my money back.
After searching my soul all evening, I simply cannot find a more accurate description for my honest feelings and opinions about this burger. First of all, it’s ridiculous to call this burger “loaded”. There’s hardly anything on it. From the onions and bacon, to the A1 Thick and Hearty Sauce, and even the new potato topping — the portions were like something from a kid’s burger. The following exchange took place between myself and a good friend who was trying the new item with me today. This says it all.
My Friend: When you placed the order did they say anything about running low on toppings or ingredients?
Me: No. Nothing.
My Friend: Is yours like mine?
Me: Hell yeah, where’s all the stuff?
The “crispy onions” were almost non-existent, and what few I got were anything but crispy. They tasted good though, and very similar to the french fried onions served on green bean casseroles. The bacon is supposed to be thin and crisp. It’s thin alright, and I doubt it’s possible for them to give us any less. There was very little flavor from the bacon, and like the onions, it failed to meet the “crispy” claims. Both of these ingredients should have played important roles, but they were limp and soggy.
The baked-potato topping that’s created the buzz around this burger is nothing but a couple teaspoons of mashed potatoes with a few little green and brown flakes that represent chives and bacon. It’s got a pleasant enough ‘potato’ taste, but it’s dull, bland and I swear it’s stealing flavor from the beef, making the whole burger suffer. There was so little A1 sauce, it was barely detectable. “Thick and Hearty” my foot.
The only things of any decent proportion are the meat, cheese and bread. The meat is the only part of this burger that satisfied me. It’s not very thick but it’s large in mass, and it’s square instead of round. The 100% Angus beef patty has a good smokey flame-broiled flavor, and the texture and consistency felt like I was eating quality beef. It’s a shame the surrounding cast is so inferior in either quality or quantity.
The American cheese was average for fast food burgers, no better or worse than most. Basically that means it wouldn’t be a very satisfying cheese on it’s own, but has enough flavor and real-cheese content to make an acceptable topping. The bun was good, with a thin crunchy shell, soft center and dusted with ground corn. Take this beef patty and bun, start over with the other ingredients and you might have a good burger. As it stands now, I would never consider paying $5 to eat this again.
The Loaded Steakhouse Burger from Burger King gets credit for trying something different, but penalized for failing at it. The main things this experience gave me are the sad feeling of paying too much, and the heartburn that started 2 hours after eating it. Who would have thought a burger with such a variety of promising ingredients, and a large dose of fat and calories would provide such a lackluster and boring final result. With a price of almost $5 this is one of the worst values I’ve seen. This burger is not a jewel in the King’s crown, it’s more like a blemish or patch of rust in the shiny metal.
Fast Food Critic Score:
2.5 out of 5 stars.
Editor’s Update: I have tried this burger multiple times at multiple BK locations, and the situation was no different. They need to increase the toppings or cut the price.
Nutrition Facts - Burger King, Loaded Steakhouse Burger.
Calories - 970
Calories from Fat - Company has not published this info.
Total Fat - 55 grams
Carbs - 63 grams
Saturated Fat - 22 grams
Trans Fat - 2 grams
Cholesterol - 155 milligrams
Sodium - 2190 milligrams
