I was in that exact situation last week. After a meeting I wanted to sit down and unwind with a coffee before heading home. The convenience store had a selection of 4 Mt. Rainier brand cafe lattes. Here they are!
Now, my question to you is, can you rank these drinks from lowest Calorie to highest? Take your time, I'll wait...
.
.
.
.
.
Let's check the labels and see how you did. Click the photo for a bigger size if you want to read the label yourself.

The lowest calorie drink is not surprisingly the Non-Sugar Caffe Latte. It has 32 Calories.

Next, coming in at 102 Calories is the Espresso Caffe Latte.

Third is the Tiramisu Caffe Latte, with 148 Calories.

And the heavyweight, the original Caffe Latte, with 166 Calories.
The calories from these drinks come from two basic sources, sugar and fat from the milk. The non sugar version has as advertised, no sugar and in addition a low fat milk. The original Caffe Latte has both high fat milk and a generous helping of added sugar. There's a 134 Calorie difference between these two drinks!
What's interesting is how these four beverages sit side by side on the shelf, they have identical branding except for some color variations and tag lines. I wonder how many people look at that Tiramisu version and think, "Mmm, looks good, but I'm watching my weight so I'll go with the regular Caffe Latte" not realizing they've actually chosen the most Calorie-dense drink on display.
I don't want to get mired in the details of this one beverage too much, my point is simply that most consumers are very poor judges of the Caloric value of food and drink. We make a load of assumptions based on package design and gut feeling about the products before us.
I think the mandatory inclusion of nutrition facts on food labels is one of the most empowering things to happen for consumers (believe it or not it was only made law in the US in 1994!). And as you've probably noticed with each passing year more restaurants are posting their calorie content as well. There have been a number of studies that show all of this has had a negligible impact on people's food choices, but that doesn't really bother me because I know it has changed how I eat.
Being able to find out the caloric content of any food in a supermarket or restaurant is a real gift. Not because it helps you choose this or that Caffe Latte but because armed with this information you can become Calorically Literate.
If you go to Italy and see the word "Uscita" with a man running to a door 100 times, you're going to learn that "Uscita" must mean "Exit".
Similarly, if you see that products containing mayonnaise consistently come in 100-200 calories higher than their counterparts, you're going to have an intuitive understanding that mayonnaise is a heavy hitting food.Keep up your label reading practice and in a few short weeks you'll start to have a rough picture of how food and calories are related, and you'll be making choices from a base of knowledge, not the color of the package. This doesn't mean that you never eat rich things that taste good, it just means that when you indulge you'll know you're indulging.
Ignorance is bliss, but it also ends up on your waistline. Take advantage of the fact that these companies have to tell you what's in their products, be one of the 5% of people paying attention and making better choices!
(Interested in reading more about my take on calories? Read this classic post!)
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteAre you still anti-beans and legumes? I remember during the original PCP you hated that you couldn't have them. Ever since then I've kind of shied away from them more than I used to, but I'm wondering if you've changed your mind since then, or if they really are not a good thing to eat.
Legumes are not a helpful TRAINING food, but for regular life and maintenance they're ok. Vegetables are still far better!
ReplyDelete