Neither are good.
5 guys won't salt the meat and uses the dreaded burger smasher to make sure it is dry.
Shack is not much better.
Make a decent burger at home.
Five Guys is gross. I honestly don't get it. I think they only reason we know the name is due to Obama.
Shake Shack is good.. .It's your basic, common, stadium-style burger. They're overpriced but they're good little hamburgers. Nothing special but when you have that craving, Shake Shack would be an excellent choice.
Yeah, don't get the hype over Five Guys.
I've never been to either, but I don't think you can go wrong ignoring r1.
R1/R4, the OP didn't ask what he/she should chose between making a burger at home or buying one out.
The OP which is better... OF THE TWO.
I don't get you types who must push the passive-aggressive sanctimony on every topic from film to vitamins to food.
I think we're all aware we can make our own hamburgers; and most would agree that you get anything better at home when made yourself than you would anywhere else.
But a lot of people don't like to cook. Then again, some people, like the OP, just want an answer, an opinion relative to their actual question, not some irritating internet knowitall school marming them about cooking.
Now, go cook your own fucking burger.
Five Guys gives you so many fries, it borders on obscene.
Sorry, that should have been "CHOOSE" at R5.. Yeah, I know. Typos. Deal with it.
You're fucking nuts if you don't like Five Guys. Nuts.
OP neither are good, choose the cheapest.
Five Guys is too loud. Loud music, loud workers shouting orders, loud customers.
Indeed it's too loud
The five guys knock offs, like Uburger and others are all much better, tastier and more pleasant
[quote]Five Guys gives you so many fries, it borders on obscene.
First time I was there I had more fries than I could eat, and then I realized that the actual order of french fries was still sitting there untouched. I had been eating the fries that fell out and were loose inside the sack.
If you go to Five Guys with someone, order a single order of fries and split it. Huge portion as someone pointed out earlier.
Five Guys is pretty good and you can get anything you want on your burger at no charge.
Minnesota Ice Man
I like Fatburger or In 'n Out from trips to LA. Live in NE and 5 Guys popularity eludes me.
I'm almost certain the over generous fries thing won't happen here.
Red flag, quite frankly.
Yelp UK has mixed reviews for Five Guys. I tend to believe this one
[quote]The burgers are sloppy, greasy and completely unremarkable. The fries are good in terms of texture, but salty in the extreme. Price-wise it's a shocker... you'll probably end up around the £25 mark (if not higher) for two people. In terms of the surroundings, they're about as bland as the food; bare and obviously done on the cheap.
As someone else previously stated, at Five Guys, to save money and indigestion later SHARE an order of fries with someone else. I'm a big eatin' man and even I can't finish that massive sack of fries.
I actually enjoy the Five Guys burgers more than Shake Shack. It reminds me of the type of burgers you'd get at an old school beach boardwalk. It tastes like they use the, now banned, hydrogenated oil, which I know they don't. Hydrogenated oil, for all it's sins, was what made fast food taste good back in the day.
R17 you are full of shit.
The ingredients were better, ''back in the day' it was not the crap fat which did not become common til the 70's.
r5 got me hot.
Such hostility, r17.
Think of how better McDonald's fries were. I don't think it was because of the "ingredients". That was because they were using a hydrogenated oil.
It's why McDonald's fries still taste good in countries that hydro oil is still legal.
There are no Shake Shacks in L.A., but I had Five Guys when I visited a friend in DC and thought it was pretty good. I actually liked it a little better than the good but overpraised, In-N-out.
BEEF fat was what they fried them in, not hydrogenated oil.
Article about the switch from beef fat at McDonald's.
McDonald’s announced in September 2002 that it was voluntarily changing to a cooking oil with less trans fat and that the change would be completed by February 2003. However, McDonald’s encountered operational issues and the oil was not changed. Plaintiffs claimed in the lawsuits that McDonald’s did not take sufficient steps to inform the public that it had not changed the oil.
Outside of NY McDonald's still uses hydrogenated fat. You truly have no idea of what you speak.
Wait. Hydrogenated oil is banned?
I find it interesting that these chains are expanding to the UK but not the west coast of the U.S.
[quote]Think of how better McDonald's fries were. I don't think it was because of the "ingredients". That was because they were using a hydrogenated oil.
I don't know about the hydrogenated oil part, but McDonald's stopped using beef tallow to fry their potatoes in 1990. After this, I read that they used a food flavor that consisted of molecules that mimicked beef flavor. If my memory serves me correctly, there was a backlash from vegetarians (even though the fries contained no animal products) and that flavoring component was removed.
R25 these past couple of years Los Angeles got a handful of Five Guys shops.
I hate to see London infiltrated with this shit. It's like seeing a Walmart in Piccadilly.
Oh please, as if London isn't already up to its eyeballs in trash.
I enjoy both the McDonalds and the Starbucks on Fleet Street.
Not to mention shitty food, R29.
It's funny. This reminds me of when I was a kiddie and McDonald's first arrived in London. It wasn't considered tacky at all. Quite chic even. You'd see famous people in there...stuff like that and people would travel great distances to visit it.
Is it better than Wimpy's?
[quote] Is it better than Wimpy's?
& before places like McDonald's arrived, you'd have 'American-style' places with names like Olde Kentucky Restaurant. The food was vile beyond belief.
Are the lines as ridiculous at Shake Shack in London as they are in NYC? I man, it's good but it's not THAT good!
Get back to us when you get the cronut.
I love a good In 'n Out.
[quote]Are the lines as ridiculous at Shake Shack in London as they are in NYC?
If you call this ridiculous, yes.
Why would I want to patronize an establishment that tells me its food items are filthy?
The newer chains that seem to be expanding in California are The Habit and Smashburger.
Personally, I prefer Shake Shack to Five Guys. I like their Shack-cago dog, their cheesy fries and their shakes. The Shack-burger is good, as well. Five Guys burgers are good but those huge orders of fries are a bit much. One difference between Shake Shack and Five Guys, at least here in NYC, is that Shake Shack serves wine and beer. The workers seem a bit classier at Shake Shack than at Five Guys. Five Guys expanded too fast - two of the restaurants that they opened in Brooklyn have closed over the past year.
[quote]OP, if you happen to live in north London, Dirty Burger in Kentish Town is rather wonderful.
Rather wonderful? I made it to dirty burger. What a fucking dump! (see pic)
No wonder they call it Dirty Burger. They're not kidding. This isn't funky East Village in the '80s pretend funky dirty. This is rat infestation dirty.
The burger itself was...OK + too small. I like to feel stuffed after a burger, not hungry half an hour later.