Thanks, I’m glad my five minutes is worth it, too. It makes life so much more pleasant when I don’t have to do things like stuff bulk cookies into sandwich baggies just to save a dollar.
This reminds me of the Milky Way Light bars I used to see about a decade ago. I believe they advertised that the light bar contained 1/3 fewer calories, although the bar was simply 1/3 thinner for the same price.
They have the 100 calorie packs in our vending machine at work, same price as the chips and other treats. Works for me.
I guess so.
If this is helping people learn what an appropriate portion is, I guess that’s good…
The makers of these packs are still laughing all the way to the bank though.
I’m just taking a guess here since I can’t prove it, but it’s my guess that the profit margin differential between the big bags and the little bags is not that large. The costs of making the actual cookie is probably fairly small compared to the costs of packaging, advertising and distribution. And those costs are fairly high proportionately for these small packs, I would think.
So I’m not sure that the makers of these are making tons more money on this than anything else.
Well, that’s nice. I’m laughing all the way to the scale. It’s nice when everyone gets to laugh.
Dear OP: You are an ignorant dipshit. Here is why:
Brian Wansink and SeaBum Park, “At the Movies: How External Cues and Perceived Taste Impact Consumption Volume,” Food Quality and Preference, 12:1 (January 2001) 69-74
Brian Wansink, James E. Painter, and Jill North, “Bottomless Bowls: Why Visual Cues of Portion Size May Influence Intake,” Obesity Research 13:1 (January 2005) 93-100
Brian Wansink, “Can Package Size Accelerate Usae Volume?” Journal of Marketing 60:3 (July 1996): 1-14
Brian Wansink and Matthew M. Cheney, “Super Bowls: Serving Bowl Size and Food Consumptio,” Journal of the American Medical Association 293:14 (April 2005): 1727-8
Priya Raghubir and Aradhna Krishna, “Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach?” Journal of Marketing Research 36:3 (1999): 313-6
Valerie Folkes and S. Matta, “The Effect of Package Shape on Consumers’ Judgments of Product Volume: Attention as a Mental Contaminant,” Journal of Consumer Research 31:2 (September 2004): 390-401
I can keep going.
Hmm… The OP’s an “ignorant dipshit” because s/he hasn’t read a series of technical articles on the topic? :dubious:
-FrL-
He’s ignorant because he doesn’t know.
He’s a dipshit because he was a jerk.
The OP could just read Mindless Eating, which would take about an hour. The articles backing up the pop science conclusions are just gravy.
The 100 calorie packs that I buy on occasion are redesigned snacks, too. You don’t get an Oreo cookie and a half, you get a big handful of flat wafers with Oreo flavor (no creme).
I’d be pretty pissed if I got the exact same thing but in a smaller portion size.
(I wish I could buy the Hostess ones, but they have beef fat! Oh well, trying to cut down on treat-like foods anyway.)
Perhaps, but I can put 75 cents in the machine for doritos or I can spend my same 75 cents for a 100 calorie pack of oreos. (Usually my 75 cents goes for a granola bar or spicy sunflower seeds, but I digress) Same 75 cents, better snack choice.
So what? They are under no obligation to keep their price per ounce constant across all package sizes. Most supermarkets have shelf tags that tell you the price per ounce, if you are interested. It’s common knowledge that you get a better price per ounce by buying a larger package.
Are product manufacturers also cheating people by charging more for a brand-name whatever than the store charges for a similar generic whatever?
When the consumers get what they want at a price they’re willing to pay, and the manufacturer gets a profit, it’s the free market working the way it’s supposed to.
I don’t know, according to Cecil that’s got to be like 1/2 a cup.
-Joe
How do you know the convenience cost is greatly inflated? For you, the cost may not be worth it. For someone else, the cost is. You can’t impose your value of convenience on others. Everyone gets to make up their own mind on it.
No, you aren’t really glad. You think that everyone should value their convenience as much as you do. You think that some people value their convenience too much. You don’t get to make that decision, though. That’s the beauty of freedom. If you don’t think something is worth the money, no one forces you to buy it. If someone else makes a different decision, they can choose to make the purchase. But to think that everyone’s time or convenience is worth the same amount of money is ridiculous.
So, what’s a 100-calorie-size portion of standard sized Oreos, for example? Or Doritos? If I were putting up my own baggies of 100 calorie snacks at home.
You don’t want to know. :rolleyes:
It’s slightly less than 2 Oreo cookies. 3 Oreos is one serving, and that’s 160 cal and 7 grams of fat (4 WW Points). 2 Doublestuf have 140 calories and 7 grams of fat. Doritos would be about 6 or 7 chips, IIRC. One 1 ounce serving has 150 calories and 8 grams of fat, and I think that’s about 11 chips.
The thing I like about this 100 Calorie fad is that not only is it good for learning portion control, but, once again, it’s not just Oreos shoved in a bag. It’s an Oreo-like food, which has most of the taste of an Oreo, but it’s made with less fat and it’s less calorie dense. Some snacks, especially those catering to Weight Watcher’s folks, are using more whole grains, or adding in dietary fiber, since fiber actually subtracts Points from a serving (but it doesn’t subtract calories, of course). So the snacks are, generally speaking, slightly healthier more satisfying versions of their classic counterparts. Are they as good as a bowl of carrot sticks and red pepper strips? Of course not. But they’re a step in the right direction.
2 oreos is about 100 calories, 100 calories of nacho cheese doritos would be 40% of one of the snack size bags or about 20 grams.
Ah! I didn’t know that.
I retract my “asshat” comment. :smack:
Great! And you will remember all those extra dollars you spent on saving five minutes when they repossess your house because you are unable to pay your mortgage.
Meanwhile, this goes for all of America. What people justify spending their money on! As if using coupons and spending my money wisely is a shameful thing? Shame on you for implying that being sensible about overspending is something to jeer about!