Anyone else think In-N-Out is incredibly overrated? (places, steaks)

[eevee]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

Refer to post above..

Ugh, I ordered my burger animal style and wasn't impressed. I've never been a huge fan of those type of secret sauces/1000 Island dressing style sauces. In some cases, it overpowers the taste of the meat (I didn't notice anything spectacular about the meat patty, but then again, I did just have it that once). I also prefer raw onions over grilled in most cases (I like the crunch, especially when paired w/ fresh lettuce and tomato).

[jeffredo]

Originally Posted by eevee

I went to In-N-Out one during my 7 week stay in Hollywood. The fries were woefully undercooked, but the burger wasn't that bad, especially for the price. Not really a "must go to" destination for me (ditto for Roscoe's Chicken & Waffles, despite the pleas for my ratings after having lunch there).

In-N-Out has a "secret menu" and if you know the options you can get most anything tailored the way you like it (like fries "well done" or even "extra well done" if you want them really brown). Same goes for "Animal Style". Sounds like someone told you to order it that way without you knowing what you were going to get. The standard burger with the raw onion isn't overly slathered with sauce.

[brian_k]

Been out here for a couple months. One of the first things I did was hit up In-N-Out. I was definitely unimpressed. Been back a few times since. Still didn't live up to the hype. Coming from Five Guys on the East Coast (though there is one in WeHo), In-N-Out just tasted more like fast food then a well-made, flavorful burger to me.

As far as chains go, Fatburger can't be beat. Get a medium with everything plus a fried egg. So good.

As far as chains go: Fatburger > Five guys (but it's close) > In-N-Out

But I would have to say Irv's Burgers in West Hollywood is probably the bet burger I've had in LA. It just has that old-fashioned taste you can't find in most fast food joints.

[gobrien]

I haven't read the whole thread and have never eaten at an In-N-Out because I don't live in a state that they are in. What I don't understand is if they are making the fries out of potatoes in each restaurant, why wouldn't they taste better? Seems like most of the posts say the fries are bad. That makes no sense to me if they are freshly made.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by gobrien

I haven't read the whole thread and have never eaten at an In-N-Out because I don't live in a state that they are in. What I don't understand is if they are making the fries out of potatoes in each restaurant, why wouldn't they taste better? Seems like most of the posts say the fries are bad. That makes no sense to me if they are freshly made.

Probably because they taste like potatoes without a lot of additives and preservatives so they're different from the usual, processed, fast food fries. Likely an acquired taste.

[jaypee]

Originally Posted by brian_k

As far as chains go, Fatburger can't be beat. Get a medium with everything plus a fried egg. So good.

This. I like In and Out but don't love or crave it as I do Fatburger (It's the artery clogging chili cheeseburger with fried egg for me).

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by gobrien

I haven't read the whole thread and have never eaten at an In-N-Out because I don't live in a state that they are in. What I don't understand is if they are making the fries out of potatoes in each restaurant, why wouldn't they taste better? Seems like most of the posts say the fries are bad. That makes no sense to me if they are freshly made.

A fresh fry makes as little sense and tastes as good as a fresh pickle. Some foods actually have to be cooked, cured, aged, dried, jerked, marinated, cooked in more than one way, etc.

"Fresh" in California appears to be more of a religion than sound cooking practice. Californians seem willing to accept worse fresh food than better food that takes longer to be ready for the table.

Fries like In n Out don't taste as good as other fries, because fries are supposed to be cooked twice, once at lower heat for the insides, cooled, then cooked once at higher heat for the outsides. INO skips an entire stage, and passes off a worse fry as better, because the Californians have this religious fondness for "freshness." INO saves time and money, and the Californians feel pious in having an inferior product.

[SmoothBBQ]

Worst fries in the fast food business, period.

[Big L]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

There's an excellent Fuddrucker's in Marietta. Go.
.

I work in Marietta right around the corner from Fuddrucker's. It's decent, but overpriced in my opinion. A few other Fuddrucker's locations in the area have closed down.

[TurcoLoco]

Originally Posted by eevee

Ugh, I ordered my burger animal style and wasn't impressed. I've never been a huge fan of those type of secret sauces/1000 Island dressing style sauces. In some cases, it overpowers the taste of the meat (I didn't notice anything spectacular about the meat patty, but then again, I did just have it that once). I also prefer raw onions over grilled in most cases (I like the crunch, especially when paired w/ fresh lettuce and tomato).

I have heard of doggie style but not the animal style. Regardless, the reason why I don't care for In-n-Out is because their burger patties are too damn thin! The meat cannot be tasty when it is that thin. It has to have some thickness to retain the juice inside it and also remain somewhat spongy.
That is why that other "heart attack" burger joints win over In-n-Out when it comes to taste.