Confessions of an Oreo Cookie

Oreos are a delicious and dangerous cookie. Dangerous in the sense that they test people's self-control on a regular basis. Throwing down half of a package in one sitting is the norm for many people including myself. Hello, my name is Mike and I'm a cookieholic. But this blog post isn't about the health aspects or people's aptitude for consuming large quantities in one-sitting, but rather is what they say on the package what you get?

'Double Stuf' Oreos aren't actually doubled stuffed. The black and white confectionary was called out in August of 2013 by Dan Anderson, a high school math teacher and his class. In their analysis, regular, Double Stuf, and Mega Stuf (implied as three times the filling) were weighed with the filling and without. The result: Double Stuf Oreos had 1.86 times more filling than regular, not 2 as the package would indicate. That's a 7 percent reduction in the advertised amount of stuffing, so even with a +/- error of 5 percent, that's a fail. The teacher's findings created quite the buzz around various media sources who picked up the story.

The Mega Stuf Oreos faired even worse. Instead of 3 times the filling, the cookies only had 2.68 the amount of stuffing compared to regular Oreos. That's over a 10 percent shortfall.

I'm willing to give the Mega Stuf Oreos the benefit of the doubt because nowhere on the package or website does it explicitly say 3x the filling. It's just kind of implied by some consumers. However, Double Stuf has no excuse.

This analysis by Anderson and his class was conducted about 18 months ago. A lot can change in 18 months. Perhaps Nabisco corrected the issue since then? Or maybe Anderson's sample was too small or flawed?

In order to draw my own conclusions, I bought three packages of Oreos  (purely for academic purposes ;)  ) - Original, Double Stuf, and Reduced Fat. I bought Reduced Fat because I let the Mega Stuf shortfall slide (3x filling wasn't explicit). However, I also wanted to test a new hypothesis about the Reduced Fat cookies. That hypothesis being that Reduced Fat often times means reduced quantity, not an actual change in the recipe/formula. Was Nabisco reducing the amount of filling in those cookies? To the experienced pallet or even eyeball, it sure seems like it.

So being a graduate student at a large university, I hopped over to one of the science buildings to access a digital scale to conduct my own analysis to answer those questions.

                                 

                                             Oreos being weighed

Oreo wafers and creme separated   

Weight of different lines Oreos 

My findings: Double Stufs were just slightly under-stuffed at a 1.95x multiple (2.5% below) vs his 1.86x (7% below). This is because the weight of the originals I weighed were on average .12 grams less than Anderson's (11.45g vs 11.57g). If my Originals weighed the same as his, the creme multiple would have been 1.88x, which would have been more in-line with his findings. Our measurements for the Double Stufs were on par with each other. Anderson also did a followup with larger sample sizes where he produced similar results. However, in both of his measurements, the original Oreo's weighed more than mine. Has Nabisco since reduced the volume of stuffing in their original cookies? This seems plausible, but not conclusive.

Reduced Fat Oreos were a different story. On average, they had 12% less filling than the originals. So it appears that Nabisco reduces the amount of filling (the fattier substance) in their "Reduced Fat" Oreos and do not necessarily change the recipe. This is an excellent example of how many CPG companies and brands use the Reduced Calories or Fat selling point on their package, but often times just reduce the volume.  

Confessions of an Ultra-Low Calorie Beer

Miller Genuine Draft 64

You're not getting what you pay for in that Ultra-Low Calorie Beer. You know those domestic brands that differentiate themselves by literally telling you how many calories are in the can or bottle by putting it in the name. I'm looking at you Miller 64 and Bud Select 55. Perhaps it's excellent brand positioning that makes the consumer feel good about ingesting a fraction of the calories, but not sacrificing on achieving the buzz you expect from throwing a few beers back.

According to Miller64's website,

"Miller 64 is brewed for the you that puts in work because it's worth it."  

 Similarly, Bud Select 55's about says,

 "Select 55 is brewed to complement the full-flavor of Select, but with only 55 calories. So you can be good, and still have a good time."

Obviously there's a common theme between the two brands who are pursuing the same customer segment -- the calorie conscious, active lifestyle, (most likely) younger demo 21-35 year old.

However, what these beers fail to communicate is that if you are expecting to achieve that same level of tipsiness from drinking the reduced calorie line extension, then you're in for a disappointing surprise.

In fairly easy research and simple calculations, one can uncover the calories and ABV % for various brands of beer. To no surprise, the ultra-low calorie beers have a lower ABV %, but do they pack a stronger alcoholic punch as a ratio to calories than their more well-known brand cohorts? From this information, a user can figure out the "efficiency" of their beer -- that is the amount of pure alcohol to the number of calories. All measurements are based on 12 Oz. servings.

Efficiency of Ultra-Low Calorie Beers to Brand Cohorts

Based on these calculations, these ultra-low calorie beers had the same "Efficiency" as their more caloric counterparts. If you ended up drinking two regular Miller Lites, you would consume the same number of calories and alcohol as drinking exactly three Miller 64s. A 3 to 2 ratio starts to add up when you begin to factor in the price you're paying. Even more extreme, for every two Budweiser Selects you drink, you would need to drink roughly 3.6 Bud Select 55s to achieve the same buzz.

So if "efficiency" is something you're trying to achieve, these ultra-low calorie beers are actually the same as their brand cousins on a alcohol to calorie ratio. To put it more simply, you'll eventually consume the same amount of calories to get the same amount of alcohol resulting in a wash. If you're willing to drink a couple of beers and are more calorie conscious, then go for the Select 55s or Miller 64s. But if you're trying to achieve the same schnockered feel with those ultra-low calorie beers, don't. Go with the more caloric options, it'll cost less, and you won't have to consume as much liquid.