Burger King menu items you should never order

For a long time, before joints like Five GuysShake Shack, and Culver's hit the scene, people craving a fast food burger generally had two big national chains they could turn to: McDonald's and Burger King. McDonald's had the Big Mac and Burger King had the Whopper. But the Florida-based chain that's been serving up flame-broiled burgers since the 1950s isn't doing quite as well as it once was. It's been slipping a bit in the competitive fast food market and while industry experts seem to think a big reason is competitors' efforts to modernize with sleek dining rooms and lots of tech, there could be another culprit — the food.

The Whopper can really only carry Burger King so far, and much of the menu is just flat out dull — in addition to being unhealthy. Sure, BK got creative with the Nightmare King burger, but Halloween only comes once a year. The other 11 months of the year, Burger King is offering up multiple items that rip off competitors' products and often sacrifice taste in the process, while adding on the calories and sodium. Should you happen to be planning a visit to your local Burger King, do yourself a favor and don't order these menu items.

Burger King's Triple Stacker King is a calorie bomb

Burger King's Single Stacker King is a quarter-pounder topped with bacon, cheese, and a"special Stacker sauce." It's nothing too crazy at 700 calories. Its bigger brother, however, is that burger on steroids. The Triple Stacker King is huge, obnoxious, and has more calories than any other single item on the BK menu. It has three patties, multiple slices of cheese, and more bacon than any person should consume in a single sitting. Before we touch on its calorie count, take into consideration that in 2012, critics slammed Burger King for a 966-calorie burger. "This burger is the height of irresponsibility and, if left unfettered, the food industry will do nothing to help stem the current obesity epidemic," Tam Fry, a spokesperson for the National Obesity Forum, said at the time.

The Triple Stacker King laughs in the face of those critics with its 1,370 calories in meat and cheese. Considering just how many calories are in this burger, one would hope that each bite is beefy heaven, right? Well, Brand Eating didn't exactly give it a winning endorsement. The reviewer felt that the burger was good if you simply wanted a bunch of meat and cheese and "not much more than that," concluding, "this was a bit much for me." Considering that the burger has six slices of bacon, and studies have linked the pork product to colorectal cancer, it might be best to avoid this whopper of a BK burger.

Burger King's Big Fish might not be very fresh

The Big Fish is essentially Burger King's answer to McDonald's Filet-O-Fish… only more disappointing. There's no cheese, but you do get some lettuce, pickles, and tartar sauce to help you choke down the breaded Alaskan Pollock fillet that has, very possibly, been sitting around in a warming tray for who knows how long.

One former BK employee on Reddit went so far as to say that their store "had the same 2 or 3 fish fillets in the warmer for entire days sometimes." That seems like an exaggeration — or at least we hope so — but it's still indicative of the sandwich's poor popularity among customers. And if you're hoping that confession was just a fluke, well, sorry, other employees have made similar claims about the fish fillets being so unpopular that they're essentially fried seafood paperweights. "They also keep some surplus so they don't have to make it new each time someone orders it, so you may be getting old fish," said another employee on Reddit.

Let's say you do decide to go with the Big Fish because of its relatively low 510 calories — can you at least expect it to taste good? According to Business Insider, no. They reviewed seven fast food fish sandwiches, and the Big Fish came in fifth. "This fish is gray and sad, like the last lonely tuna at the fish market," wrote reviewer Hollis Johnson. This is definitely one fish you'll want to toss back.

Burger King's Ultimate Breakfast Platter is a bad McDonald's knockoff

The Burger King Ultimate Breakfast Platter is made up of scrambled eggs, hash browns, a sausage patty, a biscuit, and pancakes. Hmm, that sounds exactly the same as McDonald's Big Breakfast, which is made up of… you guessed it, scrambled eggs, hash browns, a sausage patty, a biscuit, and pancakes. This likely isn't a strange coincidence, as Burger King has been accused of ripping off the Golden Arches numerous times. The big difference here is that the Burger King version probably won't taste as good. (Though it does have a few fewer calories, which is a slight positive.)

USA Today singled out the platter in their opinion as the unhealthiest thing on BK's menu, highlighting its 2,550 milligrams of sodium. By the time you finish it you'll have already reached your recommended daily intake of sodium, sugar, and fat. Thanks, Burger King!

Health concerns aside, this meal is nothing special and falls short when compared to their McDonald's brethren. One YouTube review of the platter said that the pancakes tasted dry and straight out of the microwave, while the hash browns were "very greasy." "Price point you're getting a lot of bang for the buck, but overall… this is a little bit of a pass." So you're really not even getting a delicious breakfast with all that sodium. Thanks, but no thanks.

Burger King's Bacon King is king of calories, sodium, and fat

If the Triple Stacker King wasn't enough evidence that Burger King is adept at gratuitously adding bacon to its burgers, then look no further than this sandwich. The Bacon King is made up of two beef patties, a couple slices of American cheese, six strips of bacon, and topped off with ketchup and mayo. As pointed out by Paste, it's also an exact replica — albeit an inferior one — of Wendy's popular Baconator. For cryin' out loud, Burger King, you're now ripping off Wendy's too? Is there no honor amongst fast food chains anymore?

They're not just ripping off competitors, either. It seems that the only thing that differentiates the Bacon King from their own Double Stacker King is that they left off the "Stacker special sauce" and opted for the creativity of ketchup and mayo. BK did manage to bump the calorie count by a full 100 calories for the Bacon King, though. Way to go, Burger King!

In total, the Bacon King is king of calories, saturated fat, and sodium. It'll take you over two-and-a-half hours of cycling to burn off its 1,150 calories and 31 grams of saturated fat that account for 155 percent of the daily recommended diet value. No amount of bacon and beef is worth that.

Burger King's Chicken Nuggets are oddly spongy

Fast food is often associated with being easy on the wallet, but there comes a point when a deal is so good that one has to question the quality of the product. Case in point: Burger King and their chicken nuggets. In 2018, the company rolled out a promotion offering 10 nuggets for just $1. Not even Wendy's or McDonald's offer that sort of chicken nugget bargain. While 10 nuggets for a buck is arguably a good deal, it begs the question: Why would they sell them so cheap? Well, it turns out that Burger King's nuggets might might be a case of "you get what you pay for."

One Chowhound user (who paid $1.50 for their 10 nuggets) declared quite bluntly, "BK's Chicken Nuggets Officially SUCK!" before going on to explain, "They were flat (think half the thickness of a McD's nugget), tasteless, and the 'meat' was unidentifiable. They brought to mind the old Southern saying, 'if a man offers to sell you a diamond for ten cents all you end up with is a rock that ain't worth a dime' and that is what I ended up with, ten 'chicken' nuggets that weren't worth 15 cents each."

Burger King's nuggets didn't fare much better with Business Insider, who described them as "firm, but not crispy compared with other options," and disliked the "spongy texture that feels questionable."

To recap: Unidentifiable meat, questionable spongy texture, not worth 15 cents each. Ouch.

Burger King's Rodeo King is a super-salty nutritional nightmare

Burger King isn't winning any points when it comes to their burger creativity and the Rodeo King is yet another sad example. The burger is just the Bacon King, only they slapped on a few onion rings and swapped out the ketchup for barbecue sauce. That's it, folks, nothing more to see here. They did manage to jack up the burger's calorie count though, and at 1,250 calories, it comes in second only to the Triple Stacker King. We hope you like walking, because you'll need to walk for around for more than five-and-a-half hours to shed the calories packed into this burger. Yee-haw? Seems like a lot of work for a few extra onion rings and a little barbecue sauce, if you ask us.

Perhaps we're not being fair to the Rodeo King, though, and it's actually bursting with flavor that more than makes up for its calorie crimes? If only that were the case. GrubGrade's reviewer said they wished the burger had more bread to make up for the dominating saltiness, and a Burger King employee also told Reddit that they thought the burger looked like a stomachache waiting to happen. One thing's for sure — this burger is definitely no king of the rodeo.

Burger King's Double Croissan'wich with Sausage isn't the tastiest way to start your day

Burger King has relied on their signature Croissan'wich to lure early-rising customers through its doors since the early '80s. While the Croissan'wich can take on any number of iterations, today we'll be focusing on its "double" form, specifically the sausage-on-sausage variety. While this breakfast monster is available with ham and sausage, as well as sausage and bacon, those are relative lightweights when compared to the two sausage patty version. Both of the previously mentioned Double Croissan'wiches have just 580 calories. While that's still kinda hefty for a breakfast sandwich, the doubled up sausage version is a whopping 710 calories. It even has more calories than BK's signature Whopper.

If it's been years since you had a Croissan'wich, you may also find that a trip down fast food nostalgia lane isn't as tasty as it once was. Numerous people on Reddit seem to think that the sandwich's quality has gone downhill. "I had the Croissan'wich a few weeks ago and it was very underwhelming," said one Redditor. "I tried ordering one a few times in the past year or so, and I never finished them," said another person before adding, "And I just can't stomach their eggs anymore for some reason." Perhaps the Burger King in your town has their Croissan'wich game on point, but if not, a 710 calorie sandwich that tastes like garbage is a bad way to start your morning.

Burger King's Whopper Jr. is a risky order if you want a fresh burger

Sometimes, it's not the huge sodium bombs that you have to worry about, but the mild-mannered menu items. Let's say you stroll into your neighborhood Burger King to see if you still enjoy a Whopper as much as you did as a teenager. Perhaps you think that ordering the Whopper Jr. is the smart choice because it's a whopping 350 calories less than it's big brother. Not so fast. Whatever you do, don't order that Whopper Jr. because you'll surely regret it. Trust us.

Here's the lowdown on this seemingly innocent baby burger. It appears that the Whopper Jr. is an unpopular sandwich. If the Burger King menu were high school, the Whopper Jr. would win the superlative of "most forgettable" in the yearbook. Because it's not popular, that means that the patties used to make it are often not fresh. "Never never never buy the whopper junior, not enough people buy them so they just sit out and go bad," one BK employee claimed on Reddit. The employee went on to say that because they "take too long to make fresh" managers simply tell employees to "use the super old ones" that have been sitting around.

Eating at Burger King isn't doing your health any favors. So if you really want a Whopper, just go ahead and order the real deal. You have a better chance of getting a fresh burger that way.

Burger King's Grilled Chicken Sandwich is a total miss

If you want chicken, don't go to a restaurant called Burger King. It's not their specialty and you're likely to get something that leaves you disappointed. 

In a fast food grilled chicken sandwich showdown, Eat This, Not That! ranked the sandwich dead last, with the reviewer saying that the chicken taste was "dry" and "artificial," noting a "jarring floral nuance." Since then, BK has swapped out the mayo for honey mustard, but it doesn't appear to have helped much. One YouTube reviewer said the sandwich didn't have much flavor with only a "sparse" amount of honey mustard, noting that is also had brown lettuce and a too-thin tomato slice. People on social media seem to have similar opinions on this underwhelming sandwich. "I just tried the new grilled 'chicken' sandwich. I took one bite and almost vomited, for $5 you should be ashamed of yourself," said one unhappy customer. Other customers noted the sandwich had "more bread and lettuce than chicken," and that their chicken filet was burned

According to one BK employee on Reddit, it's also not the best idea to order the sandwich if you're in a hurry because the chicken is usually grilled only once somebody puts their order in, and that can take some time. Of course, even if it's hot, there's still the issue of taste. Like we said, you're at Burger King — order a burger. 

Burger King's Impossible Whopper isn't the healthier alternative you thought it was

Considering that the plant-based Impossible Whopper isn't even in every Burger King store yet (as of May 2019), adding it to the list of menu items not to order might seem a little premature, but we have our reasons. 

First off, it's probably not a bad idea to double check your burger patty when you order an Impossible Whopper, as there have been reports of one Brooklyn BK misleading customers into thinking they were getting a vegan Whopper, when it fact they were given regular beef Whoppers.

Then there's the issue of the sandwich itself. You might think that the Impossible Whopper is a healthier alternative to the beefy Whopper, but that's not necessarily the case. "Health-wise I don't think it makes much of a difference," Sharon Zarabi RD, director of the Bariatric Program at Lenox Hill Hospital, told Healthline, adding, "I wouldn't define it as healthier, I would define it more as ethical." While it does have a lower cholesterol level, it has more sodium than a traditional Whopper, with 1,240 milligrams versus 980 milligrams in a beef Whopper.

Social media seems to be divided when it comes to the Impossible's taste. While some have called it a "dry, bland garden burger," others seem to like it. Of course, everyone has their reasons for ordering an Impossible Whopper, but if you're only getting it because you think it's way healthier, you might want to pass.