Nope.
Here's the comparison:
Product | Servings | Fat grams per serving | Protein grams per serving | Carb grams per serving | Fiber grams per serving |
Bitersweet Chocolate Chips | 1.0 | 4.5 | 1 | 9 | 1 |
Total Calories | 77 |
% carb calories | 42% |
% protien calories | 5% |
% fat Calories | 53% |
Ketogenic ratio | 50% |
Product | Servings | Fat grams per serving | Protein grams per serving | Carb grams per serving | Fiber grams per serving |
70% dark Chocolate | 1.0 | 19 | 3 | 17 | 3 |
Total Calories | 239 |
% carb calories | 23% |
% protien calories | 5% |
% fat Calories | 72% |
Ketogenic ratio | 105% |
Back to expensive chocolate for me...
As a wandering side note, this analysis of 70% dark Lindt bar differs from my previous one. I've added some new fields to my calculator and wanted to include those, but it seems that the values have changed since my last analysis. This change was favorable, but it is a lesson to be wary and keep checking labels even occasionally on familiar products. I've definitely noticed this before when familiar products changed to more watery formulas, necessitating changing some old favorite recipes. This watering down of some canned/frozen products is why I use dollars per calorie as a measure of value between similar products. Water is really cheap per pound/volume, and the devaluation of the watered down brand is only reflected in the nutrition information panel.
No comments:
Post a Comment