Some people love Burger King French fries, I’m not one of them. In fact, I believe it’s the third worst way for a potato to meet its end, right behind getting potato blight and being turned into Pringles.

As I’ve confessed in previous French fry reviews and to Ronald McDonald at knifepoint, I’m a McDonald’s fry guy and think they’re far superior than fries from other major fast food chains. They’re so far ahead of the competition, they’re like Tiger Woods before all the hookers.

Over the past several years, some of the major fast food chain have released new versions of their deep fried potato sticks. Jack in the Box has done it twice, Wendy’s did it last year, and now Burger King has introduced their new French fries.

What’s new about Burger King’s fries? According to the company, they’re thicker, have a better potato flavor, and have 20 percent less sodium than their previous fries. So what they’re basically saying in a press releases’ worth of words is that their old fries sucked. And they’re absolutely correct. They had a weak potato flavor, they weren’t salty enough, and, my goodness, what the hell was up with that starchy coating that made the fries seem a little unnatural.

But Burger King’s old fries are now in the past, joining their old old fries that were available until the mid-1990s. So what about Burger King’s new fries. Are they better than their old fries? Also, are they better than McDonald’s fries?

Well, I’m happy to say Burger King’s new fries are an improvement, but it’s slight. If you liked the flavor of Burger King’s old fries, you’ll enjoy these because they pretty much taste the same and they have the same starchy coating to keep them crispy and hot for longer. The potato flavor is slightly enhanced, but I really was expecting more. And, while having 20 percent less sodium than Burger King’s previous fries helps blood pressure, it doesn’t help with the flavor.

Also while I’m talking about sodium, can someone explain to me how it’s possible for Burger King’s fries to not have much of a salty flavor, even though they have significantly more sodium than McDonald’s fries, which have a wonderful saltiness to them. A small-value serving of Burger King’s new fries has 330 milligrams of sodium, while a small serving of McDonald’s fries has only 160 milligrams. Heck, a large McDonald’s fries has 350 milligrams of sodium. This blows my mind.

Perhaps the most noticeable difference Burger King’s old and new fries is that the new fries are thicker, which obviously makes them appear more substantial than other fast food fries. But I have a problem with Burger King putting their new bigger fries in the same Frypods and sleeves Burger King put their old fries in. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel kind of gypped getting less fries.

Burger King’s new fries are thicker, but are they better than McDonald’s fries? Oh, hell no.

The thing about McDonald’s fries is that they’re addictive, like potato chips. It’s hard to stop eating them. They have a flavor that’s robust enough that it doesn’t need ketchup. When I run out of McDonald’s fries, a part of me feels sad and wishes I had more. These are things I’ve never felt towards Jack in the Box, Wendy’s, or any of the Burger King fries, even these new ones.

But, again, I have to say Burger King’s new fries are an improvement over their old fries. It’s a slight improvement, but it might be enough for me to consider being turned into Burger King fries the fourth worst way for a potato to meet its end, right behind getting blasted into a wall with a potato gun.

(Nutrition Facts – Medium size – 410 calories, 18 grams of fat, 3 grams of saturated fat, 0 grams of trans fat, 0 milligrams of cholesterol, 570 milligrams of sodium, 58 grams of carbohydrates, 0 grams of sugar, and 4 grams of protein.)

Item: New Burger King French Fries (2011)
Price: Part of Whopper Jr. value meal
Size: Medium
Purchased at: Burger King
Rating: 5 out of 10
Pros: Thicker fries. A slightly improved potato flavor. Starchy coating makes the fries crunchy and hot for longer. There’s 20 percent less sodium than Burger King’s previous fries. McDonald’s fries.
Cons: Tastes almost exactly like their old fries. Doesn’t even come close to being as good as McDonald’s fries. Has less sodium, but still much more than McDonald’s fries. Starchy coating makes the fries seem unnatural. Potato blight

Smokey the Bear taught me only I can prevent forest fires. Bell Biv DeVoe instructed I should never trust a big butt and a smile. And, Chef Boyardee made me learn to not have high expectations when it comes to foods with the word “chef” in its name. So I’m a little skeptical about the new BK Chef’s Choice Burger from the Home of the Whopper.

Burger King’s latest burger is constructed using a flame-broiled 5.5-ounce burger patty, American cheese, thick hardwood-smoked bacon, romaine lettuce, red onions, tomatoes, BK’s original grill sauce, and a Brioche bun.

It looks and sounds good, but, to be honest, so does a big butt and a smile. Speaking of things that are round and juicy, perhaps the most interesting part of the burger is the beef patty, which, according to the BK website, is made using United States Department of Agriculture-certified ground chuck and is seasoned with salt and pepper.

The USDA certification kind of worries me, but not about the BK Chef’s Choice Burger. I’m worried about everything else on the menu. I might be mistaken, but it’s the first time Burger King has ever used the USDA card to describe their meat. So it makes me wonder if their other beef, like the flame-broiled patty on the Whopper, is USDA-certified.

The BK Chef’s Choice Burger was smaller than I thought it was going to be. It’s roughly the size of a McDonald’s Big Mac. Just like the recent BK Toppers, the BK Chef’s Choice Burger has a thick patty. The seasoned ground chuck was a good choice because it created a flavorful meat disc. The puck of ground chuck was a little dry and I couldn’t taste the salt and pepper, but it was good nonetheless.

The BK grill sauce had a really tasty peppery parmesan flavor. It reminded me of a caesar salad dressing. Just like the use of ground chuck, I thought it was a good choice to put on the BK Chef’s Choice Burger. The Brioche bun was soft, pleasant, and held together as my mouth made its way through the burger. The use of romaine lettuce was surprising and it’s definitely a step up from the pale, pathetic lettuce they use on their other burgers. But the tomatoes were the same old tomatoes and the cheese was the typical cheese. As for the red onions, they had a nice mild flavor that complemented the flavor of the ground chuck patty.

You might be wondering why I haven’t mentioned anything about the thick hardwood-smoked bacon. Well, let’s just say that little piggy didn’t go wee wee wee all the way into my burger, thanks to a Burger King cook. Am I disappointed there wasn’t any bacon? Of course. But even without the bacon, I think the BK Chef’s Choice Burger is really good.

However, I do have a problem with its price. I understand that it’s being marketed as a premium burger and it should have a price that matches, but when I look at the size of the burger, I can’t help but feel kind of ripped off. As I mentioned earlier, the BK Chef’s Choice Burger is about the size of a Big Mac, which in this day and age of Angus Third Pounders is kind of small. I paid $6.49 for just the sandwich, but even if I paid a dollar less, I would still feel like I’m not getting my money’s worth.

(Nutrition Facts – 650 calories, 40 grams of fat, 15 grams of saturated fat, 0 grams of trans fat, 100 milligrams of cholesterol, 1,330 milligrams of sodium, 40 grams of carbohydrates, 7 grams of sugar, and 33 grams of protein.)

Other BK Chef’s Choice Burger reviews:
Grub Grade

Item: BK Chef’s Choice Burger
Price: $6.49 (sandwich only)
Size: N/A
Purchased at: Burger King
Rating: 6 out of 10
Pros: Really good burger. BK Grill Sauce was really good. Ground chuck patty was good. Getting to quote Bell Biv DeVoe. Romaine lettuce is a step up from the usual pale lettuce BK uses.
Cons: Pricey for the size of the burger. My burger didn’t come with bacon. Never trust a big butt and a smile. Typical BK tomatoes. USDA certification for the meat in this burger makes me wonder about their other burgers.

Burger King loves coming up with product names that end with -er as much as I love watching Maru the Cat videos on YouTube. First, there was the Whopper. Then, Burger King released the Stacker. And now, there’s the Topper.

BK Toppers come in three varieties:

Deluxe – American cheese, lettuce, onions, pickles and Stacker sauce.

Mushroom and Swiss – Mushrooms, Swiss cheese and Griller sauce.

Western BBQ – Onion rings, American cheese and Sweet Baby Ray’s Spicy BBQ sauce.

All come with a 3.2-ounce beef patty, cheese, and a sesame seed bun.

If you find yourself having to choose one because you lack the funds to buy two or three, I’d suggest avoiding the Mushroom and Swiss one. Its mushroom flavor is definitely strong. It made my mouth taste like I just tried to get rid of a bag of psychedelic mushrooms by eating them while cops break into my bathroom, which has a toilet clogged from trying to flush my weed stash, hence the reason why I’m eating all those mushrooms. But what makes this burger the least appealing of the three is the Griller sauce. I have no idea what Griller sauce is, but whatever it is, it makes the burger a bit too salty. It’s as if I’m French kissing a mermaid.

Update: The new BK Chef’s Choice Burger also has the same sauce and I enjoyed it, so it’s pretty much the mushrooms that ruin this burger. Sorry, grill sauce.

Because my mind is like the World Book Encyclopedia of fast food, the first thing I noticed about the Deluxe and Western BBQ BK Toppers is that they both have ingredients similar to past Burger King burgers. As Grub Grade points out in their review, the Western BBQ BK Topper is basically a Burger King Rodeo Cheeseburger. As for the Deluxe BK Topper, it sounds like a smaller version of the discontinued BK Big King.

Anyhoo, unlike the Mushroom and Swiss BK Topper, both the Deluxe and Western BBQ BK Toppers were worth the $2.49 I paid for each of them. So it’ll be worth the $1.99 you’ll probably pay because you don’t live on a rock in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

If you enjoy the tangy, Thousand Island dressing flavor of a Big Mac, you’ll like the Deluxe BK Topper. The pickles and onions are larger than what you’ll find in a Big Mac, but it’s almost as messy as a Big Mac. It’s a tasty burger, but I have to say the Western BBQ BK Topper tops it. (Tops. Get it? I. Am. Lame.)

The BBQ sauce sets the Western BBQ BK Topper apart from the others. According to this article, Burger King is using Sweet Baby Ray’s Spicy BBQ sauce. While tasty, I wouldn’t consider the sauce to be spicy hot. However, the sauce’s flavor made me wish it came in Costco-sized tubs so that I could dunk the Mushroom and Swiss BK Topper into it to make it taste better. The onion rings gave the burger a little crunch and a bit of onion flavor that complimented the beef patty and BBQ sauce.

Overall, the BK Toppers are a pleasant addition to the Burger King menu. Well, the Deluxe and Western BBQ ones, but two out of three ain’t bad.

(Nutrition Facts – Deluxe – 420 calories, 26 grams of fat, 9 grams of saturated fat, 1 gram of trans fat, 55 milligrams of cholesterol, 820 milligrams of sodium, 30 grams of carbohydrates, 7 grams of sugar, 15 grams of protein. Mushroom and Swiss – 410 calories, 27 grams of fat, 9 grams of saturated fat, 1 gram of trans fat, 55 milligrams of cholesterol, 850 milligrams of sodium, 27 grams of carbohydrates, 4 grams of sugar, 16 grams of protein. Western BBQ – 400 calories, 23 grams of fat, 9 grams of saturated fat, 1 gram of trans fat, 50 milligrams of cholesterol, 720 milligrams of sodium, 39 grams of carbohydrates, 10 grams of sugar, 16 grams of protein.)

Item: REVIEW: BK Toppers (Deluxe, Mushroom and Swiss, & Western BBQ)
Price: $2.49 each
Size: N/A
Purchased at: Burger King
Rating: 7 out of 10 (Deluxe)
Rating: 4 out of 10 (Mushroom and Swiss)
Rating: 8 out of 10 (Western BBQ)
Pros: Western BBQ BK Topper is damn tasty. Deluxe BK Topper is tasty. Thick patties. BBQ sauce is pretty good. Inexpensive. Even more inexpensive if you get to pay the $1.99 price. Maru the Cat.
Cons: Mushroom and Swiss is the worst. Griller sauce is salty. Available for a limited time. Weed clogged toilets. Deluxe is kind of messy. Having to eat a bag of psychedelic mushrooms before the cops get you.

I’m disappointed with Burger King.

They’re the “Home of the Whopper,” not the “Home of Whole Grains and Fiber,” so their new Burger King Oatmeal puzzles me. Instead of clogging my arteries, the fiber in their new oatmeal is scraping away the stuff that shrinks my arteries’ passageways, some of which was put there by their food. By scraping away that plaque that lines my arterial walls, what they’re really doing is scraping themselves away.

I wonder if I just blew Burger King’s mind.

So Burger King should forget about oatmeal and get back to doing what they’re good at — making Whoppers, making other burgers and sandwiches that aren’t as good as the Whopper, and making crappy French fries.

But, if they’re really attached to making oatmeal, I’d suggest revamping their menu with nothing but healthier fare and changing their name to Garden King. Although, if they do, I’m pretty sure a bunch of Chinese restaurants will be upset with the name change.

But until either one happens, it’s going to be oatmeal and a whole lot of fried stuff on Burger King’s menu boards.

Oh, but their oatmeal isn’t just any ol’ oatmeal. It’s Quaker oatmeal, which means two things:

1. Burger King wants people to know they’re serious about their oatmeal.

2. I could make the exact same thing at home in 3-4 minutes.

Burger King’s oatmeal is quite good, if you get it with the dried fruit (raisins, golden raisins, and dried cranberries). While the oatmeal is sweetened with brown sugar, it’s easily ten times better with the fruit, which there is enough of to have a little dried fruit in every spoonful. The oatmeal does have a nice thick consistency, even though the picture above may show otherwise.

Although I really do like Burger King’s oatmeal, I prefer McDonald’s Fruit & Maple Oatmeal. Burger King’s oatmeal (7 ounces) is smaller than McDonald’s Fruit & Maple Oatmeal (9.2 ounces) and McDonald’s oatmeal includes fresh apples. Although McDonald’s uses fast food black magic to prevent the apples from turning brown. Also, Burger King’s oatmeal is only available during breakfast hours, while McDonald’s oatmeal is available throughout the day.

So now that Burger King has oatmeal, does this mean we’ll see more wholesome items on their menu board or will their oatmeal end up like the BK Veggie and just be a novelty stuck in the sea of saturated fats and grease on Burger King’s menu board.

(Nutrition Facts – 1 oatmeal with fruit – 270 calories, 4 grams of fat, 1.5 grams of saturated fat, 4 milligrams of cholesterol, 290 milligrams of sodium, 55 grams of carbohydrates, 29 grams of sugar, and 5 grams of protein.)

Item: Burger King Quaker Oatmeal
Price: $2.49
Size: 7 ounces
Purchased at: Burger King
Rating: 8 out of 10
Pros: It’s good. Uses Quaker oatmeal. Lots of dried fruit. Thick consistency. Burger King Whopper. Made using whole grain oats. Good source of fiber.
Cons: Only available on the breakfast menu. I could probably make it at home in 3-4 minutes. The number of King Garden restaurants. Fiber scraping away the Burger King inside of me. BK Veggie.

The Burger King California Whopper is not a new product.

In the United States, it’s been available exclusively at BK Whopper Bars since 2009 (Warning: Automatic music playing website), and last year it was available throughout the fast food hungry countries of Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

I find it a bit strange that California didn’t get to experience the California Whopper before the Scandanavians did. I’m not one for conspiracies, but it’s as if the United States-based Burger King, wanted to knock Sweden and Denmark out of the Top 10 World’s Healthiest Countries so that the United States, which is the 11th healthiest country in the world, can sneak into the top ten.

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

But, of course, a conspiracy to get the United States to move into the top 10 healthiest countries in the world can’t be true. Besides, the Burger King California Whopper is now available to all Americans, so just like a person who ate a large-sized Burger King Whopper value meal, the United States won’t be moving anywhere anytime soon.

To make a California Whopper, Burger King takes their regular Whopper; leaves out the ketchup, pickles, and onions; and replaces them with bacon, swiss cheese, and guacamole. The green Mexican dip made from avocados is the only ingredient that allows this burger to be called the California Whopper.

At first, I thought it’s called the California Whopper because guacamole is Mexican and there are a lot of Mexicans in California. But then I realized that might be a little racist. Thankfully, I found out California produces 95 percent of the country’s avocados and Fallbrook, California claims itself to be the “Avocado Capital of the World.” So the avocados in the guacamole is the reason why it’s called the California Whopper.

As for the amount of guacamole in the California Whopper, there’s a lot of it. So much so that if Ghostbusters 3 ever comes to fruition, Burger King should do a movie tie-in using the California Whopper, but renaming it to the Ecto Whopper, because with the amount of guacamole it has, it looks like it’s been slimed. But despite it oozing guacamole everywhere, its flavor is subdued enough that, at times, it’s almost like I’m eating a regular Whopper.

Taco Bell makes a better tasting guacamole.

Shit. I never thought I’d type that sentence above EVER.

That’s how little I think of Burger King’s guacamole. When one makes a guacamole that’s worse than Taco Bell’s, they should be running towards the border and past it…so that they can learn how to make a better guacamole. Perhaps add some onion flavor. Or a little more salt. Or a little bit of spice.

I sound upset, because I am upset. I really wanted to love this burger, because I love guacamole. I wanted to get fat from this burger. I wanted my doctor to tell me I should stop eating them. I wanted it to be my only source of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, along with saturated and trans fats.

Not even the other ingredients in the burger help. The swiss cheese doesn’t add anything. And the bacon is typical fast food bacon that, despite being called “crispy” in every promo, is never crispy and hardly brings any flavor. I really wish fast food companies would tinker with their bacon instead of their french fries.

Look, I know I just used the last 265 words to rant about the Burger King California Whopper, but I sort of liked it whenever I could taste a little guacamole. Do I feel like it could’ve been better? Oh, hell yes! But I also realize my expectations for it (Whopper = YUM! Guacamole = YUM! Whopper + Guacamole = YUM! YUM!) were probably too high and that I shouldn’t expect Burger King to make a burger that moves me as much as the San Andreas Fault moves California.

(Nutrition Facts – 1 California Whopper – 820 calories, 500 calories from fat, 56 grams of fat, 18 grams of saturated fat, 1 gram of trans fat, 110 milligrams of cholesterol, 1400 milligrams of sodium, 50 grams of carbohydrates, 4 grams of fiber, 8 grams of sugar, and 38 grams of protein.)

Other California Whopper reviews:
Tampa Bay Food Monster
Grub Grade
Fat Guy Food Blog

Item: Burger King California Whopper
Price: $5.99 (sandwich only)
Size: 1 sandwich
Purchased at: Burger King
Rating: 6 out of 10
Pros: I kind of liked it, but it could’ve been so much better. Smooth guacamole. Lots of guacamole. Flame-broiled patties. Avocados are a great source for poly- and monounsaturated fats. U-S-A!
Cons: Guacamole needed more flavor. Bacon was useless. Cheese was useless. Pricey for just the sandwich. Not being able to watch Ghostbusters 3. There’s a guacamole worse than Taco Bell’s. Saturated and trans fats negating the poly- and monounsaturated fats.