ABC News took a look at the issue, grabbing soundbites from Michael Jacobson from the CSPI as well as collecting rebuttals from the various snack-mongers.
The most important thought to take away? If you're fine with paying a premium for 100 calorie packs, make sure you don't eat more than one. ABC News says eating two 100 calorie Hostess cupcake packs means you've eaten more calories than if you ate 1 large Hostess cupcake, and paid a lot more for those extra calories.
Buy the big box and some sandwich baggies!
PREVIOUSLY:Like Those 100 Calorie Packs? You're Paying Twice As Much
]]>One person's lack of quality is another person's willful choice of fewer calories, sugar, and fat. Of *course* the Oreos in the 100 Cal Packs are dinkier than real Oreos. That's why we eat them!
People have listed all their reasons here why we buy them. We like the smaller chips, we like the smaller packages, they are a boon to those who have trouble with willpower and portion control. Why can people not respect others' personal choice? If I know what I'm getting then it's not a scam.
]]>If you don't mind eating the big cookies, but need the portion control, and you have time, then you'd be stupid not to buy the big bags and divide them up yourself.
]]>Incredulous reader: Doesn't the fact that they are in smaller packages mean that the production costs will be higher than if they were sold in bulk?
OP: "you're being had"
Incredulous reader: Not if I have even the most rudimentary understanding of economics.
]]>
The only reason I have any experience with these 100 calorie packs is because they're given on long Southwest flights.
The 100 calorie bags of Doritos contain PHYSICALLY SMALLER CHIPS, with less breakage and more individual pieces to nibble on. If I bought a jumbo bag and divided it into 100 calorie ziplocs, each bag would contain about 9 chips, which would quickly be ground to powder in my trunk.
I don't buy any other 100 calorie packs, and the Doritos are only for Treat Emergencies, but for me, they're worth the money.
]]>I did some comparison at Trader Joe's this morning; their 100-calorie packs of cheese crackers are actually a better deal, when you factor in the nutrition info.
And I do love biting off the heads of those little toucans...
]]>If you guy's want to make a stink about something, single serving packages to help us control our weight one of the last places to wage war.
]]>@Elijah-M: "How about just posting about stuff that people with triple-digit IQs don't already know?"
What, and risk losing the lucrative mouthbreather demographic? ;)
]]>Mixing. No, seriously. The mini-cans are the perfect size for highballs. One shot of your liquor of choice plus one full mini-can of soda is just about the perfect ratio.
]]>Where is the scam? The weight, nutrition information, and pricing is right on the package.
]]>I have always realized that the 100-calorie packs are not the thrifty way to go.
However, for people who have trouble with portion control ("Oo, I want just one more... and another... and, oh, what the hell, I'll eat the whole box") these packages can be a smart option. I know from experience that I am not going to sit there filling baggies with Wheat Thins from the econo-sized box. just as I'm not going to stop eating Wheat Thins! (hey, I buy the low-fat kind)
Most dieticians will vouch for the value of the 100-calorie packs for those watching their weight, and diabetics.
]]>Have you posted yet about how it's cheaper to buy a travel mug and make your coffee at home? Or about how a six pack of soda is more expensive than a two liter bottle?
How about just posting about stuff that people with triple-digit IQs don't already know? I would be amazed if anyone buying these 100 calorie packs is unaware that they're paying a premium for convenience. Obviously they've made an objective decision that it's worth it. End of story.
The only tangible result of your posting this information (TWICE) is the sophomoric flame war that ensues.
]]>@Die Eli Die: I think people are ignoring the psychological and physical satisfaction from eating more of the cookies even if they are smaller and have fewer calories.
]]>i think most people already know that they are paying more for less food, but they are instead paying for portion control and convenience. if people are too undisciplined to eat only a few cookies or sort them into smaller packages then this is good for them.
i have to admit, i bought some last week and the oreo ones are delicious, but the cheese nips ones kinda suck.
]]>As has been pointed out before, the Oreo and Chips Ahoy 100 calorie packs contain completely different cookies than the regular packages. So I can either eat 1 or 2 regular Oreo or Chips Ahoy cookies or I can have an entire package of the mini cookies.
]]>OTOH, it's a free country. If it takes little prefabbed baggies of cheese nips to get you to not eat the whole box, I'm not going to be the one to stop you.
]]>The nutrition info is right on every box people! It is your friend! Use it and save your money!
]]>A similar argument would be why buy a gym membership when all you need is basic, inexpensive workout equipment. For some people the act of having the membership is the motivation to exercise so as to not waste what they paid for it.
]]>Like Those 100 Calorie Packs? You're Paying Twice As Much...
]]>