Naturally, the summer ice cream cone price war between McDonald’s and Burger King induced us to attempt a taste test.
I loved the idea of holding one cone in each hand, alternating licks. Unfortunately, we never came up with a way to keep our 50-cent Burger King cones from melting before we could get to McDonald’s for the 59-cent competition, so this test was flawed right from the start.
We did, however, come up with some startling discoveries:
1. Though McDonald’s advertises its cone as “reduced fat,” it’s actually 10 more calories, half a gram of fat and one Weight Watchers point more than the Burger King version, which is advertised as simply a plain old soft serve ice cream cone.
(This was somewhat distressing because I eat a lot of McDonald’s cones and all this time I thought they were 4 points, but they’re really 5. Given that the BK cone is now 9 cents cheaper, and only 4 points, maybe it’s time to make a switch.)
2. Though Burger King doesn’t reveal the size of its cone in its nutritional information, it appears to be about the same size as McDonald’s 3.7 ounce cone. However, in recent samplings the BK cone has come equipped with “caves” of air pockets where the ice cream was allowed to overlap without completely filling the interior space. Whether this is simply inexperience or a sinister plot, I can’t say.
3. The nutritional data that I can’t get out of my mind: Burger King’s cone has nearly twice as much sodium as McDonald’s, 130 mg to 70 mg. That’s not exactly a lot of sodium, but I don’t like to think about ingesting sodium when I’m eating ice cream.
Nutritional info for both: McDonald’s cone is 170 calories, 5 grams of protein, 27 carbs, 4.5 grams of fat and no fiber, for 5 Weight Watchers points. Burger King’s cone is 160 calories, 4 grams of protein, 27 carbs, 4 grams of fat and no fiber, for 4 Weight Watchers points.