As I walk down the snack food aisle my eyes are once again accosted by the myriad colorful and flashy signs from the product boxes. I always ignore the usual suspects like “Low Fat!”, “Low Carb!” and “0 grams trans fats!”, but lately I have been seeing a new suspect in the middle of the lineup.

It’s the new range of “100 Calorie Packs” that are sprouting up all over like the weeds on my lawn (long story). Kraft has its long line of 100 calorie packs like “Oreo Thin Krisps”and “Cheese Nips Thin Krisps”, Frito Lay has a line of “100-Calorie Mini Bites” of Doritos and Cheetos and other companies like Cadburys and Coke are also joining in the fray to capitalise on this new phenomenon that is apparently a big hit with consumers.

First let me list the few pros I see with these packs:

1. These packs are good for compulsive snackers if only because it restricts total calorie consumption.
2. They are easy to “grab and go” (another national phenomenon, given our innate inability to sit down in one place and enjoy a meal).
3. It takes the guilt out of eating unhealthy foods.

But now let’s consider their nutritional profile for a minute, shall we? As my recent posts show, I have been paying closer attention to the nutritional value in calories rather than going by total calories alone. So I thought I would take a quick look at a couple of these products to see what kind of punch they pack. They both, sadly, turned out to be lame ducks.

First, the much advertised Kraft 100 Calorie Packs. I chose their Oreo Think Crisp variety:

Just as I suspected: about as much calorific payload as a piece of cardboard (much better tasting, of course). For the 100 calories you eat, you get 1g of fiber, 1g of protein, no vitamins, no calcium and 9g of sugar (a lot of high-fructose corn syrup, thank you very much for asking). But atleast it has just 2g of fat and no partially hydrogenated oils, which is more than I can say about our next candidate:

Frito Lays 100 Calorie Mini Bites:

Don’t be fooled by the whole corn (yes that was a wholesome natural whole grain before it was doused in partially hydrogenated soybean oil and smothered with corn syrup solids). With 6g of fat and, again, no real nutritional value, this is as equally bad as, if not worse than, the oreos.

The nutrition issue:

“We are a nation on the go, looking for convenience and used the right way, there is nothing wrong with them,” said dietitian Julie Walsh. “Used the wrong way and you are going to pile on a lot of additional calories that don’t add a lot of nutrients to the diet. One of the downsides is that the serving size for 100 calories isn’t a lot,” Walsh said. “Now that may not fill up … too many people. “The problem with some of the snack chips is that there is not much nutrition, not much fiber,” Walsh said. “So you’re not getting anything that’s going to fill you up.”

-Via ABC News.

Barbara Laraia, research assistant professor in the Department of Nutrition at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health is particularly worried about the diets of children and teens. “They are already low in folate, zinc and iron, and these processed snacks don’t really help in combating nutrition problems,” Laraia said.

The cost issue:

[...] convenience comes at a hefty price: The 100-calorie packs are often more than twice as expensive per ounce as the products they mimic. Here is a price check: One grocery store is selling the 1-pound bag of Chips Ahoy for $3.49 (21.8 cents an ounce), while the six-pack of 100-calorie bags of Chips Ahoy Thin Crisps is $2.69 (55.3 cents an ounce.)

The taste issue:

Also, in meeting the 100-calorie limit, the snacks or sweets inside the packs are sometimes pale imitations of the originals. The 100-calorie Oreos, for example, are 20 mini “chocolate thin crisps” – that is, just the cookies without the creamy middle.

“It’s not an Oreo,” Guzzinati clarifies. “It’s a chocolate wafer cookie. We offer consumers the Oreo experience, but it’s not the same product.”

-Via San Diego Union Tribune

What else could you choose for a 100-calorie snack budget?

Food Channel answers this question:

• Half an apple with 2 teaspoons of peanut butter
• 10 cashews or almonds
• 1 cup of baby carrots with 2 tablespoons of fat free ranch
• 2 ounces of lean roast beef
• Half a small avocado
• 2 large graham cracker squares with 1 teaspoon peanut butter
• 6 ounces of fat free, sugar free yogurt
• 1 banana

The bottomline is that, while fads like 100 calorie packs probably have a small place in the pantries of compulsive eaters who would otherwise have no control once bigger snack bags are opened, the fact is that food manufacturers have not really improved the nutrition value of these products, but rather have simply sacrificed quantity and taste while increasing the price per serving.

But we are one step ahead of them and know better.

Don’t we?

Technorati Tags: health, fitness, nutrition, 100 calorie packs

Related Posts:

• FitnessMantra Weekend: Low-Fat Foods Are Not Always Low-Calorie Foods!
• Calorific payload and empty calories
• 5 links to calorie-conscious fitness