A word about watchers of weight

I'll have you know, I do try to watch my carbs and fat intake. Sure, I don't have the derriere yet to prove it (working on that), but I do.

Take this morning - I was in the fridge section at the supermarket, checking the specials on cream cheese. The usual Philly CC wasn't on special but next to it, a known diet/weight loss company brand was on special. Ooooh, goody, 45c off! thought I. A saving is a saving, my mother of Scottish ilk always taught me.

So I checked the label to compare its fat/carb per 100g as I have been long programmed to do (it may be a girl thang, I don't know). And I discovered a most shocking thing.

Not only did the weight loss brand alternative have .1g more carbs per 100g (not huge, granted, and I would've given them that if it had only been the one tiny smidge more than the Philly), it had over 15g of fat to the 100g!! 15! The Philly cream cheese, in comparison, has just 4.7g per 100g (the light version of it, of course).

Now, call me nitpicky, but I just don't think that's cosher. You would expect this other company to have meals and options that are low in fat and/or carbs and to be the better option on the shelves. In many instances, I am sure they are. But I couldn't believe it! And what's more, I had to reeeeally squint to see it. The values label was black (faint and a very small, thin font) against a nice royal blue. Hmmmm. Bit tricky of them for starters. And the label also only highlighted the total sugars, not the fat content at all.

I've learned that if you get something low fat, the carbs (total - not just the saturated fats or sugars making up the carbs) usually skyrocket. If you get something that is low in carbs and reasonable in fat, then you're on a winner. For instance, that Philly CC: 8.4g carbs and 4.7g fat. Ok, so not ideal. But also not outside the realms of consumption if you're trying to watch what you eat.

But 15.3g fat and 8.5g carbs? That's just dubious.