My wife brought home a bottle of Fit and Active Light ranch dressing. The bottle says it has 45% less fat than regular ranch and that you can use it “guilt free”.
But look at the ingredient list. 80 calories with 70 of those calories coming from fat:eek:. Is regular ranch dressing made from pure lard? How is something that is 87.5% fat healthy?
It isn’t, really, but I was surprised to see that it’s only 80 calories per serving. Is 2 tablespoons the serving size? I’ve seen ranch dressing with about 190 calories per serving, which is gross.
Who said it was healthy? Certainly not their webpage. Also, I doubt it’s 87.5% fat. It’s probably mostly water.
Yes, maybe it just “fits” in a standard refrigerator and grows “active” mold cultures when forgotten.
Feh, they’re Germans. For Germans, that’s light. 
Wife brought home some bleu cheese dressing that is branded something like “Litevalley Farms,” I think also from Aldi. Knowing my wife, of Central European stock, considers anything “lite” as poisonous I checked the ingredients and Escoffier himself could not make it less light. I guess it’s just a word with no meaning in the salad dressing world.
Exactly. Looks like much of the substance in the bottle is non nutritive, leaving the calories mostly from fat. Not that fat is bad, necessairly. I’m also pleased to see relatively little suagr in the dressing.
You can’t really say it’s not implied, though, since the product is called “Fit & Active,” described as part of “an exclusive line of healthier foods designed for today’s active lifestyles,” and the product page itself suggests taking “your veggies for a dip—guilt-free!” which one can assume might be followed by consumption of said veggies.
Please provide your address for my direct mail list.
Its not 87.5% fat its 87.5% of the calories that are from fat. I’m making up these numbers, but suppose the following scenario.
Your dressing contains 7 grams of pure fat, and 23 grams of misc. spices and filler. The fat has 10 calories per gram and the miscellaneous stuff has 0.5 calories per gram. As a result you have 70 calories of fat and 10 calories of other stuff.
Now if we consider the fat stuff, say 13 grams of pure fat and 17 grams of miscellaneous, you have 130 grams of fat and 8 grams of other stuff.
In neither case is fat the majority of the ingredients it’s just the majority of the calories. Now if you loaded it up with sugar in the miscellaneous ingredients, you could get the % of calories of fat down, but that wouldn’t make it any healthier.
ETA: for low fat dressing/dip I either use hidden valley ranch mix in yogurt, orWalden Farms calorie free dressing
You’re right, they obviously aren’t marketing it as a healthy product because the word “HEALTHY” does not appear in block letters on the label, nor does it state the number of healthograms contained in each serving. How silly of me and of the OP to think otherwise.
I’m surprised by that. Normally low fat means “We’ve replaced the fat in this food with high fructose corn syrup.”
**What is wrong with fat? Nothing in those amounts. 
70 fat calories are perfectly fine, if that is what it takes to enjoy a friggin’ salad.**
Get over it. Haven’t we beaten down the ‘fat is bad’ thing? I though we filed that under ‘Ignorance Fought’.
.
Exactly, the reduced calories are the good part. A lot of “diet” salad dressings will trumpet how low in fat they are, but they’re high in sugar (and have a lot more calories than the one in the OP) to make it taste good.
We are talking about ranch dressing here, after all. That’s a good calorie count for ranch, but most non-diet vinaigrettes that aren’t high in sugar will hit around that calorie count.
Seconded. A little bit of fat is hardly the boogieman a lot of people think it is. Fat = flavor and it also makes you feel full. Sign me up!
Mmmmm fat! It’s all good - particularly the fat that is in a nice salad dressing made from balsamic vinegar and olive oil. It’s about as healthy as you can get.
Everything in moderation.
Except hot wings. Lots of those. Lots and lots. Geeze - it must be almost dinner time…
“Lite” doesn’t mean it’s healthy, although it does imply it’s healthier than the regular version. And this is. A serving of regular ranch dressing has well over 100 calories (148 for Hidden Valley Ranch; more for whatever standard these folks are using), so 80 calories is nearly half.
Here’s what the FDA has to say about the use of the word “Lite”/“Light”:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuide/ucm064911.htm
(RACC means a reasonable and customary serving of the “regular” food, in FDA jargon.)
But remember, like “natural”, “healthy” and “guilt-free” are marketing terms, not health claims. They don’t actually mean anything at all.
Ok, sorry. I just assumed everyone knew that items marketed as healthy, aren’t.
For good low fat, low cal ranch; mix Tillamook fat free sour cream with some buttermilk ranch powder from the packet and a little milk to thin it down a bit.
No fat and a little over 20 calories per serving.
The only problem is that you have to make it in small batches because it doesn’t have the same anti spoilage ingredients as most salad dressings.
I believe Nathan Pritikin would like a word with you. Dean Ornish, too, perhaps.
Remember: When you’re studying diet, for every expert there’s an equal and opposite expert.
If we’re sharing recipes, I’m partial to this ranch mix: http://www.food.com/recipe/ranch-dressing-and-seasoning-mix-47249
I mix it with 1 part mayo, 1 part Hellman’s LowFat mayo (yes, brand matters on that one!), 2 or 3 parts nonfat greek yogurt and enough milk to thin it to preference and enough of the mix to taste good.
My son likes it really thick, almost gloppy, but I also like a variation where I add fresh lemon juice and a couple spoonfuls of sugar, and then a bunch more milk. I like that version fairly thin - just coat the back of a spoon thin.