So, The Motley Monk perused the nutrition information label. Looked pretty good overall, as 11 pretzel crisps (what are accurately called “crackers” on the nutrition label) add up to only 110 calories. Consume 5 or 6 with an adult beverage. That works! Purchased 2 bags.
On a more recent trip to the grocery store, The Motley Monk noticed that Wheat Thins now have “Wheat Thins Even Thinner.”
“How’s that possible?”, he wondered. But, it’s true. After conducting a little research, The Motley Monk found that they’re 14% thinner, meaning one can consume 22 crackers rather than 16 of the original Wheat Thins for the same junk calorie count.
The Motley Monk also found Oreo “Thins.” Again, some research uncovering the fact that the original Oreo is 1¾ inches wide and 9 millimeters thick, while an Oreo Thin is 1⅞ inches wide and 5 millimeters thick. However, the original Oreo contains 42 junk calories each, while the Oreo Thin contains only 35 junk calories each. So, consuming 7 thin Oreo Thins would be the rough equivalent number of calories (245) of 6 original Oreo’s (242). Now that’s a lot of junk calories! So, consuming 2 or 3 Oreos—original or thin—is a wash except the originals twist best. Who consumes only 2 or 3 Oreos with milk in one sitting?
Notice what’s going on. Clever marketing people have figured out a way to get consumers to enjoy more junk calories. The idea is that consumers believe they can eat the equivalent amount of a “thin” product and feel less guilty for doing so.
Really? Who does that, as the opposite logic kicks into high gear because the product tastes so good. Consumers think: “I can eat more for the same number of junk calories consumed.” And, then a few more to boot, because “all of those extras have fewer junk calories than if I had consumed the originals.”
Let the discussion begin…