During fine dining, a meal may consist of small portions that even when added up together total less calories than a large bag of theater popcorn which many people are quite capable of going through.
No one will argue that the popcorn taste "better".
Simply put the popcorn is less satiating but more addictive to eat.
Meanwhile the fine dining meal, if done well, will be incredibly satiating and not leave one wanting for more.
Hyper-palitability is a thing. There are foods that are hard to stop eating (e.g. potato chips), and that do not fill people up no matter the caloric content.
Starbucks frappes are another example. They can easily have over 1000 calories, barely be satiating, and yet people desire them again and again.
I hope no one claims frappes or potato chips are the best tasting foods in the world. But they are both addictive as hell to consume.
What exactly do you think "tastes better" means? If it's triggering more of the pleasure centers of the brain, then it tastes better.