Scale It Down

Fat Free, Reduced Fat, Low-Fat, Zero Fat…all the terms we've been marketed with over the last decade or so. The biggest lesson we learned? Reducing the amount of fat in foods does NOT automatically reduce the calories.

The label game is simple - pick a food product and start reading. Look for the overall caloric total per serving and then compare the same among the manufactured brands. Sometimes there'll be very little difference, but other times the differences will be HUGE. You'll be amazed at what products you always thought were low calorie alternatives and in reality which ones actually were.

We used to buy cookies and crackers by reading the front of the box. If it had reduced fat or fat free printing on it, we grabbed it. Then we started reading the back of the box. We were astonished - all those boxes of fat free Snackwells we were going through like water, had as many calories in them as regular cookies.

Chocolate Sandwich Cookies: Calories/Suggested Serving Size on package

3 - Oreos, 160 C
2 - E.L. Fudge, 120 C
2 - Snackwells, 110 C
1- Pepperidge Farm Lido, 90 C

Take a look at what happens when you eat the same number of cookies per brand

4 - P.F. Lidos, 360 C
4 - E.L. Fudge, 240 C
4 - Snackwells, 220 C
4 - Oreos, 213 C

WARNING LABEL: This comparison is an excellent example of what label games are all about. We find it amazing. (We're very tempted to call Pepperidge Farm and ask them if they really know anyone who can eat just one Lido cookie at a time.) The moral of the cookie label is: you have to count your calories on a cookie per cookie basis before you plunge into the bag. Granted, the rectangular shaped sized Snackwell sandwich cookie may be a shade bigger than an Oreo, but is there any contest there? Looking back, we can't believe how many cookie noshes we wasted on fat free brands, when we could have been having the real thing all along.

With regards to quantity, we find that by limiting our desserts and snacks to less than 250 calories a pop, we can have them once daily without sabotaging ourselves. Hence, the reasoning behind the 4 cookie comparison. On those days when quantity is more important to us than quality, we switch to smaller cookies (i.e. vanilla wafers and animal crackers).

Turning Point >>> To successfully buck the denial files, we had to accept the fact that knocking off entire boxes of cookies at one setting wasn't going to happen anymore and learn how to eat what we craved within some form of caloric limits (aka: normal sized portions). Analyzing what those limits should be and figuring out how much we could get away with, inspired us to make this change. For those who insist on Yeah-butting…if I can't have as many cookies as I want, I won't have them at all… we can't resist a good Yeah-buttal. The simple fact of the matter is at some point, when you're undeniably fed up with not having any cookies at all, you'll have lots and lots of them. Once we realized we could lose and maintain our weight loss with less cookies all the time, something unusual happened - our brains chose the trade-off instead. We're not sure if this cerebral awakening stemmed from the luxury of keeping cookies on hand or that we were actually making strides in portion control. In either case, it worked. This is exactly what we've been talking about when we say, 'thin people do things differently than overweight people do.'

Sometimes crackers just aren't all they're cracked up to be. 10 Ritz crackers can rack up more calories than a normal serving of some brands of potato chips. How many times have you gone the cracker route because you thought you were being good?

Small Crackers - Calories / Box Srvg.

16	Regular Wheat Thins	150C
17	Multigrain Wheat Thins	140C
16	Reduced Fat Wheat Thins	130C
60	Parmesan Gold Fish	140C
55	Cheddar Cheese Gold Fish	140C
40	Oyster Crackers	60C

Average Sized Crackers - Calories / Box Srvg.

10	Original Ritz	180C
10	BIG Wheat Thins	140C
6	Garden Herb Triscuits	120C
6	Reduced Fat Triscuits	120C
6	Reduced Fat Townhouse	70C
5	Saltines	60C

WARNING LABEL: We found 16 small crackers to be a serving size we could live with and that counting out 40 + tiny crackers, a cheap thrill. On the average size of the cracker coin, 10, was the more satisfying number. When we adjusted the other crackers' caloric totals up to a 10 piece serving size, we couldn't find any reason why we should stick with the reduced fat brands, can you? 10 Saltines and 10 BIG Wheat Thins are our favorite average cracker staples.

Someone recently told us, "I hate lite salad dressing." We said, 'no, you hate fat free dressing.' She said, "what's the difference?" We immediately opened our fridge and started pulling out lite dressings for her to sample. By the time she had tasted the third bottle she was convinced. Here's an example of some basic regular, lite and fat free dressings:

Italian
Wishbone Classic 140 C / 2 T
Kraft Zesty 110 C / 2 T
Seven Seas Viva Reduced Calorie 45 C / 2 T
Safeway (Dominick's brand) Lite Zesty 20 calories / 2 T

Vinaigrettes
Marzetti Balsamic 100 C / 2 T
Kraft Roasted Garlic 50 C / 2 T
Wishbone Free red wine 35 C / 2 T
Marzetti Free Rasberry 20 C / 2 T

Ranch
Marie's Creamy 190 C / 2 T
Seven Seas low fat 100 C / 2 T
Kraft Light Done Right 70 C / 2 T
Marzetti Free Peppercorn 35 C / 2 T

WARNING LABEL: The range of calories per serving is so wide with salad dressings, you can really pack on a lot of excess when you don't pay attention to what you're pouring. The store brand lite zesty Italian dressing we found was excellent at only 10 calories / T. If you have a tolerance for fat free dressings, the label game is easier. We don't, which is why we have at least 5 different lite varieties on hand at all times.

We like to call this, The Papa, Mama & Baby Bear Soup Can Line-up because visually, the heights and sizes of these cans made us think of them exactly in that way. We placed a can of Campbell's, Healthy Choice and Prego soup brands along side each other on the dining room table and began comparing…

Baby Bear

Campbells 10 3/4oz can 98% Fat Free Mushroom

Mama Bear

Healthy Choice 15oz Can
Old Fashioned Chicken Noodle

Papa Bear

Prego 18.6oz Can
Chicken & Pasta Duo

Servings/Can

2.5 1/2Cup - soup only

About 2,1 Cup each

Calories/Serving

With Water - 70 Cal

With Skim Milk - 112 Cal

No Water added-120 Cal

No Milk added - 120 Cal

No Water added - 110 Cal

No milk added - 110 Cal

Calories/Can

With Water - 175 Cal

With Skim Milk - 281 Cal

No Water added - 240 Cal

No Milk added - 240 Cal

No water added - 220 Cal

No milk added - 220 Cal

WARNING LABEL: The soup comparison is a great example of the types of label games the manufacturers play. We noticed several quirky things when we put this together. First of all, has anyone ever seen a 4 oz. soup bowl? Is Campbell's suggesting that soup should be consumed in ½ cup servings or are we to assume that once we mix the soup it becomes a 1 cup serving? Needless to say, we find the labels on condensed soups are confusing to begin with. When you think about it, you really don't know exactly how many actual servings you get, until you make it. It was only when we separately added the calories of the condensed portion to the calories in 10 ¾ oz. of skim milk to make an entire can's worth that we could figure out what the calorie counts would be. We definitely think condensed soup manufacturers need to break their labels down in more detail. And why does Prego list their 18.6 oz. size as only bearing "about 2 - 1 Cup servings" per can? Where did those other 2.6 oz. wonder off to?

…about Cream Soups. Okay, if you can really make any cream soup with water and still think you're having cream soup, there is no denial file to overcome there. We've never even attempted to make a reduced fat cream soup with anything other than skim milk and usually approach the regular brands in the same way. Keeping that in mind, Campbell's regular Cream of Mushroom soup is 130 calories per ½ Cup and our local store's brand is 90 calories per ½ Cup, before un-condensing them, so to speak. The caloric differences then between Campbell's regular and fat free is big enough to opt for the lower calorie choice. On the other hand, the amount of calories between the store brand regular and fat free choice, is not large enough to make a difference.

The great soup conclusion: opting for some of the ready-to-serve brands with more stuff in them is the most fulfilling choice. (Add canned mushrooms and any other low-cal extras you like to beef up cream soups as well.) Soup is a valuable low-cal food tool when you make it as substantial as possible.

Whether you're popping them into the office microwave or eating them at home, frozen entrées can be deceiving. We conditioned ourselves into thinking as long as the box had Lean Cuisine or Healthy Choice on it, we were safe. There is as much as 150 - 200 calorie differences among the varieties due to the types of food and portion sizes. Salt is a big factor if you need to be watching your sodium intake - and these entrées are loaded with it. Drinking lots of water will help defray the sodium affect in any case.

This square is dedicated to kids - and to all the Spaghettio Moms out there. We happened to notice one day, while shopping for quick-fix meals, that we had been ignoring the amount of calories we were piling onto our childrens' plates. If it wasn't for a sale on Kid's Kitchen microwaveable tubs, we might never have thought twice about it.

Kid's Kitchen by Hormel - Calories per 8 oz. serving - 1 tub Cheezy Mac n Franks - 310
Spaghetti Rings & Franks - 240
Beans & Weiners - 310
Noodle Rings & Chicken - 140
Gerber Graduates - Calories per 6 oz. serving - 1 tub
Spaghetti with Meatballs & Sauce - 150
Pasta Pick-ups: Beef & Tomato Ravioli - 70
( Even when you adjust for the 2 oz. differential here, Gerber still comes in lower.)
Other Brands: Plain Spaghettio's - 8 oz: 180
Chef Boyardee Meat Sauce Spaghetti - 7 ½ oz. tub: 220

WARNING LABEL: For toddlers, it's worth the extra dime to stick with Gerber and the one low cal Kid's Kitchen variety. We're really not trying to be mercenary here, but if your goal is to break the genealogical fat chain, it's worth the extra effort. ( Bite size flavored rice cakes are a great alternative to high-fat kidlet treats too.) There's no denying the fact that when time is at a minimum, we look toward the quick and easy meal fix - for our kids and ourselves. And there's no reason not to, if you take a little extra time in selecting which fix to buy be it snacks, sugary cereals or tub o' foods.

No label game is complete without a look at the battle of the bars…candy, energy, diet and granola. This category is the most fun to play because there are so many options to choose from. Making that choice comes down to one simple question: assuming you've decided to eat 250 calories, which source do you want to take those 250 calories in from?

Candy Bars

Milky Way

3 Musketeers

Hersey Whatchamacallit

Hersey Milk Choclate

Nestle Crunch

Size

2.00 oz

2.13 oz

1.70 oz

1.55 oz

Calories

270

260

240

230

Energy Bars

Fruit & Grain/Odwalla Super Protein

Oatmeal Raisin/PowerBar

Size

2.20 oz

2.30 oz

Calories

240

230

Diet Bars

Chocolate Mint/Metabolife

Yogurt Peanut/Jenny Craig

Rich Chocolate Brownie/Slimfast

Size

2.00 oz

1.97 oz

Calories

230

220

Granola Bars

Maple Brown Sugar/Nature Valley

Chewy Chocolate Chunk/Quarker

Snicker's flavor Kudo's

Size

1.50 oz

1.00 oz

.90 oz

Calories

180 (2 bars)

100

WARNING LABEL: At first glance the granola route is the caloric way to go; it also provides for the smallest serving size by volume. That being said, when you choose to eat a bar of anything, the number of bites you get aren't huge to begin with. The purpose of this comparison is to void the notion that candy bars and diets don't go hand in hand: you can watch your calorie intake and have your candy too! When you want to earn extra points for being candy calorie saavy, try these alternatives: M&M's Crispy flavor 1.50 oz. bag (that's ¼ Cup) at 200 calories and Tootsie Roll's 1.00 oz. package at 100 calories.

Store bought whip cream isn't as bad a calorie monger as some people may think. It's the ala mode on your pie that can rack up those extra calories quickly. We did notice something worth mentioning about our favorite cream of choice, Reddi wip. When comparing price, quantity and caloric content, there just wasn't a good enough reason to buy the Light variety on a tablespoon per tablespoon basis.

Reddi wip:

Cost

Size

Servings/Can

Measure of Calories
Calories/Measure
Calories from Fat

Total Fat
Saturated Fat

Original

$2.95

7 oz.

2 T
15
10

1g
.5g

Light
( 50% Less Fat)
$2.95

7 oz.

2 T
15
10

1g
.5g

The big dilemma here is: how do you actually measure out 2 tablespoons worth of canned whip cream and is this type of measure considered to be a dollop? The measuring part is easy, once you turn the can over, press the tip down and count, '1000-1', out loud, (in a normal paced speaking voice), you'll have 2 tablespoons worth. We prefer to think of this type of dispensing method as the, politically correct dollop - like the kind you get on top of cafeteria Jell-O. On the opposite side of the spectrum, there's nothing more inviting than a magazine dollop - doled out in glorious half cup increments to crown new dessert recipes. (Of course, these types of dollops should be reserved for special occasions only.) A dollop, really is what you make of it and alternatively, somewhere in between all those stainless steel cafeteria dishes and glossy dessert pictures, lies the best choice to make. Count to, '1000-2,' and find dollop contentment.

WARNING (FABLE) LABEL: Did you happen to notice something odd about the calorie and fat contents listed above between the Original & Light varieties of Reddi wip? We did: …if the Light variety has 50% less fat, then shouldn't the calories per serving be at least, a little less too?

We double checked the labels, and found that indeed, the fat and calorie contents were listed as being the same on the back of both cans in the Nutrition Facts box. However, on the back of the Light can, right above the Nutrition Facts box, are these statements:

2 T of Light Whipped Light Cream has 1 g. fat, 15 calories
2 T of Regular Whipped Light Cream has 2 g. fat, 20 calories

And then, on the side of the Light can, this statement:

50% Less fat, 25% Fewer Calories Than Regular Whipped Light Cream

There are several things that come to mind here. Should these conflicting statements be chalked up to a lesson on "truth in advertising", or just a major production line mishap made by the manufacturer? And, why do the fat and calorie statements made on the back of the Light can make reference to 'Light' & 'Regular' varieties? The front of the Reddi wip cans read, "Light" & "Original" - is there another can out there called, "Regular"?

The point of this warning label is not about caloric differences, (obviously, in this case, not worth pursuing to begin with), but about developing a keen eye when it comes to reading the back of a food container. A keen eye, and some common sense.

Congratulations! You finished playing the first of many, Label Games. When you start reading and thinking about this stuff, it really does become a game. Get the hang of playing it, and you'll make the caloric numbers work to your advantage more often than not.