<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.11.81 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:57:21 GMT--><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0"><channel><title>Little Calorie Side by Side</title><link>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/</link><description></description><lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:36:06 +0000</lastBuildDate><copyright></copyright><language>en-US</language><generator>Squarespace Site Server v5.11.81 (http://www.squarespace.com/)</generator><item><title>Classic Egg Nog vs. Lite Egg Nog</title><dc:creator>Jessie</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:07:27 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/2010/12/29/classic-egg-nog-vs-lite-egg-nog.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">208390:2139116:9858156</guid><description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><img style="width: 375px;" src="http://www.littlecalorie.com/storage/nogsidebyside.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1293650012932" alt="" /></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 120%;">Classic Egg Nog</span></p>
<ol>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Health:</strong> 250 calories per 1/2 cup, 110 calories from fat, 7 grams saturated fat, 100 mg sodium</div>
</li>
<li><strong>Versatility:&nbsp;</strong>drinking, flavoring coffee and cakes, spiking with rum </li>
<li><strong>Price:</strong>&nbsp; $1.99 to $2.49 per quart </li>
<li><strong>Taste:</strong> very rich and creamy, thick and delicious</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 120%;">Lite Egg Nog</span></p>
<ol>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Health:</strong> 130 calories per cup, 15 calories from fat, 1 grams saturated fat, 90 mg sodium</div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Versatility: </strong>use anywhere regular egg nog is used</div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Price: </strong>same as Classic Egg Nog</div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Taste:</strong> slightly less thick than classic egg nog, noticeably less creamy, very faint perfume fragrance and taste</div>
</li>
</ol>
<p>OK, this one was hard. The first time we tasted both Classic and Lite Egg Nog (or <em>NUG</em>, which is how I've pronounced it my whole life), we conducted a blind taste test, tasting one after another in no particular order. We quickly were able to detect the Classic Nog. It was much creamier and thicker than the Lite version. No contest, right? Even after reviewing the nutritional information (hello, Classic Nog has 6 more grams of saturated fat and 120 more calories than Lite Nog!), we decided that Nog is a splurge that comes only once a year. It was decided that Classic Nog would be declared the Side by Side winner. Or was it...</p>
<p><br />With our tummys filled up, we climed into bed, <br />Visions of sugar-plums dancing in our heads. <br />But then, the next morn, I heard a faint clatter. <br />Chris returned to fridge to check if the calories and fat really mattered. <br />Cups were filled, nog was downed (only the Lite version this time). <br />When it wasn't Side by Side, we thought the Lite tasted just fine. <br />So the winner of the contest was as clear as Egg NUG. <br />Pick the Classic for a one-year sip; Pick the Lite if you chug. :)</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="full-image-float-left ssNonEditable"><span><img style="width: 75px;" src="http://www.littlecalorie.com/storage/MilkNog_HG.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1293650462638" alt="" /></span></span>How does Milk Nog compare, you ask? Milk Nog is a 50/50 blend of Classic Egg Nog and Fat-Free Milk. It has 140 calories, 6 g fat (3.5 saturated fat), and 80 mg sodium per 1/2 cup. I've never tried it. Have you?</p>
</blockquote>]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/rss-comments-entry-9858156.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>Regular Skim Milk vs. Organic Skim Milk</title><dc:creator>Jessie</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:38:49 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/2010/4/21/regular-skim-milk-vs-organic-skim-milk.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">208390:2139116:7409166</guid><description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 120%;"><span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><img style="width: 400px;" src="http://www.littlecalorie.com/storage/milk.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1273027355750" alt="" /></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 120%;">Regular Skim Milk</span></p>
<ol>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Health:</strong>&nbsp;80 calories per cup,&nbsp;0 calories from fat,&nbsp;0 grams saturated fat, 120 mg sodium</div>
</li>
<li><strong>Versatility:&nbsp;</strong>drinking, putting on cereal, cooking, dipping cookies into, milk bath </li>
<li><strong>Price:</strong>&nbsp; $2.29 to $2.99 per half gallon </li>
<li><strong>Taste:</strong> 2 out of 3 tasters liked regular milk better, reporting organic milk had a bitter taste</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 120%;">Organic Skim Milk</span></p>
<ol>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Health:</strong> 80 calories per cup,&nbsp;0 calories from fat, 0 grams saturated fat, 125 mg sodium</div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Versatility: </strong>use anywhere regular milk&nbsp;is used</div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Price: </strong>$3.59 to $3.99&nbsp;per half gallon</div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Taste:</strong> 1 out of 3 tasters liked organic milk better, reporting it had less after-taste</div>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Many would argue that organic milk is better for you because no pesticides are used in the cow feed, no growth hormones or antibiotics&nbsp;are used on the cows, and the land and animal care is humane and sustainable. But we've been wondering, for awhile now, if organic milk tastes any better than non-organic milk. If it does, we thought, then&nbsp;there would be no contest. The taste + the politically correct reasons would be enough to push organic milk into favor (and into our cart). Unfortunately, the podium is not so clear. Two out of the three tasters in our group preferred the taste of regular milk. And because organic milk is considerably higher-priced, it puts these two on a level playing field. So I guess the question remains - how important is it that you put products in your body that have not come in contact with chemicals and contribute to a sustainable Earth? Also, please consider that a different brand of organic milk may taste better than the Wal-Mart Great Value brand we tested (I've heard good things about the organic milk at Target).&nbsp;So...&nbsp;the winner is&nbsp;<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Sorry Folks, More Testing is Needed</span>!</p>]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/rss-comments-entry-7409166.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>Fried Potato Chips vs. Baked Potato Chips</title><dc:creator>Jessie</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:53:00 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/2008/9/14/fried-potato-chips-vs-baked-potato-chips.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">208390:2139116:2277432</guid><description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="full-image-block"><span><img src="http://www.littlecalorie.com/storage/chips.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1221478586379" alt="" /></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 120%;">Fried Potato Chips</span></p>
<ol>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Health:</strong>&nbsp;230 calories per&nbsp;1.5-ounce bag,&nbsp;140 calories from fat,&nbsp;2 grams saturated fat, 270 mg sodium</div>
</li>
<li><strong>Versatility: </strong>snacking, dipping, breading, crunchy casserole topping </li>
<li><strong>Price:</strong>&nbsp; $0.80 to $1.50 per snack-size bag </li>
<li><strong>Taste:</strong> crispy, light and airy, buttery and oily taste</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 120%;">Baked Potato Chips</span></p>
<ol>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Health:</strong> 130 calories per 1.125-ounce bag,&nbsp;15 calories from fat, 0 grams saturated fat, 170 mg sodium</div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Versatility: </strong>use anywhere fried potato chips are used</div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Price: </strong>$0.80 to $1.50 per snack-size bag</div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Taste:</strong> very crunchy, thicker than fried potato chips, tasted like french fries</div>
</li>
</ol>
<p>And the winner is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Baked Potato Chips</span>! Just look at those stats. Though fried potato chips are a delicious, classic snack food, kudos to Lays for creating an alternative that is tasty and much healthier! The two kinds of chips are hardly comparable in taste - and Chris prefers the flavor of the original - but I'm stuck on baked potato chips. I really like how they taste and am thrilled that they contain a lot less fat and calories than their fried counterparts. Also, while I would be compelled to&nbsp;serve ranch or dill dip as a&nbsp;tasty complement to fried potato chips, I really don't feel the need to dip the baked version; they are so tasty on their own and I bet you can imagine&nbsp;all those calories I cut out without dipping during chipping. However, should you choose to dip them, the baked chips would probably stand up a little better to thick dips and salsas than the thin and crumbly fried chips.</p>]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/rss-comments-entry-2277432.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>Butter vs. Margarine vs. Other Spreads</title><dc:creator>Jessie</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:02:00 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/2008/8/8/butter-vs-margarine-vs-other-spreads.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">208390:2139116:2072039</guid><description><![CDATA[<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center></P>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span style="FONT-SIZE: 120%"><span class=full-image-block><span><img src="http://www.littlecalorie.com/storage/butter.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1218207512937"></span></span></span></P>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span style="FONT-SIZE: 120%">Butter</span><br></P>
<ol>
<li><strong>Health:</strong> 100 calories per tablespoon, 7 g saturated fat, 30 mg&nbsp;cholesterol, 90 mg sodium 
<li><strong>Versatility:&nbsp;</strong>cooking and baking, spreadable topping, melted over popcorn and pancakes&nbsp; 
<li><strong>Price:</strong> $1.77 for 16 ounces&nbsp;= $.05 per tablespoon 
<li><strong>Taste:</strong> salty but not too salty, hint of sweet cream flavor </li>
</ol>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span style="FONT-SIZE: 120%">Light Margarine</span></P>
<ol>
<li><strong>Health:</strong> 50 calories per tablespoon,&nbsp;1 g saturated fat, 0 mg cholesterol, 80 mg sodium 
<li><strong>Versatility: </strong>same uses as butter, adjust amount for baking 
<li><strong>Price:</strong> $0.79 for 16 ounces = $.02 per tablespoon 
<li>
<DIV align=left><strong>Taste:</strong> bland, almost tasteless</DIV></li>
</ol>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span style="FONT-SIZE: 120%">Vegetable Oil Spread<br></span></P>
<ol>
<li><strong>Health:</strong> 50 calories per tablespoon, 1 g saturated fat, 0 mg cholesterol, 85 mg sodium 
<li><strong>Versatility: </strong>same uses as butter for spreading and cooking, not recommended for&nbsp;baking 
<li><strong>Price:</strong> $1.88 for 16 ounces = $.06 per tablespoon 
<li><strong>Taste:</strong> salty, oily flavor, reminiscent of movie popcorn taste </li>
</ol>
<P align=center><span style="FONT-SIZE: 120%">Spray Topping</span></P>
<ol>
<li><strong>Health:</strong> 0 calories, 0 g fat, 0 mg cholesterol per spray; approximately 10 calories and 1 g fat for 12 sprays 
<li><strong>Versatility:</strong> cooking spray or topping for bread, veggies, pasta, and popcorn 
<li><strong>Price:</strong> $1.88 for 8 ounces = $.12 per tablespoon, less than $.01 per spray 
<li><strong>Taste:</strong> saltiest flavor, no oily feeling </li>
</ol>
<P>And the winner is <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Light and Trans-Fat Free</span>! OK, this was tough. To find the&nbsp;best choice in the butter aisle I had to take into account a lot more than the calorie count. The ingredients and fat content all play an important part in the choice, as well as the ultimate purpose for the product. In addition, there are not only butters to consider, but there are a plethora of dairy blends, non-butter spreads, and sprays to choose from (many more than what I have pictured above). You will save so much saturated fat by choosing a light margarine or vegetable oil spread instead of butter; however, be&nbsp;careful about&nbsp;avoiding the addition of trans fat. Many&nbsp;margarines and other spreads contain trans fat, which is a&nbsp;result of&nbsp;the partially hydrogenated oils that make those products spreadable. Look for a light version of margarine or vegetable oil spread that contains the least amount of trans fat as possible. If you don't want to compromise that buttery taste, try to find your lowest-fat option in whipped dairy blends and "light" options. Now, there are some exceptions: I would always use butter or margarine for baking purposes as opposed to using a vegetable oil spread, which will affect the rising and outcome of the baked good. For stovetop cooking and <span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><font color=#000000>sautéing</font></span> I would always use an olive oil or other hearth-healthy oil instead of butter or a spread, the later of which would introduce more saturated fat to the cooking. As a topping for bread, steamed vegetables, and popcorn, I really like I Can't Believe It's Not Butter spray. Even though the label says it contains an unbelievable 0 calories and 0 fat, that's not completely true. That means it contains <em>trace </em>calories and fat per serving (meaning, less than the FDA requires them to list), so it is best to use it in moderation. Five sprays are plenty to cover an English muffin half, and 10 to 15 sprays will put a good, light flavor on a medium bowl of popcorn. My grandma is probably rolling over in her grave at my endorsement of a "butter spray", but this stuff is actually very tasty. So, that was a long-winded answer to say there are special purposes for all types of butter and spreads. The best options are light, with little to no trans fat. Happy spreading! <span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><br></span></P>]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/rss-comments-entry-2072039.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>The PB Showdown</title><dc:creator>Jessie</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 01 Jun 2008 14:58:36 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/2008/6/1/the-pb-showdown.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">208390:2139116:1782548</guid><description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="full-image-float-none"><span><img style="width: 465px; height: 362px;" src="http://www.littlecalorie.com/storage/pbshowdown.jpg" alt="pbshowdown.jpg" /></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 120%;">Reduced Fat Peanut Butter</span></p>
<ol>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Health:</strong>&nbsp;180 calories per tablespoon, 110 calories from fat,&nbsp;2 grams saturated fat per serving</div>
</li>
<li><strong>Versatility: </strong>married to jelly on bread, over celery sticks, on apple slices, in recipes </li>
<li><strong>Price:</strong>&nbsp;$2.59 for a 16.3-ounce jar = $.16 per ounce </li>
<li><strong>Taste:</strong> thick and sticky, sweetest of all in the test</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 120%;">Whipped Peanut Butter</span></p>
<ol>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Health:</strong> 140 calories per tablespoon, 100 calories from fat,&nbsp;2.5 grams saturated fat per serving</div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Versatility: </strong>same as above</div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Price: </strong>$2.57 for a 14-ounce jar = $.18 per ounce</div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Taste:</strong> light and buttery, creamy medium sweetness</div>
</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 120%;">Low-Sugar, Low-Sodium Peanut Butter</span></p>
<ol>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Health:</strong>&nbsp;190 calories per tablespoon, 130 calories from fat,&nbsp;3 grams saturated fat per serving</div>
</li>
<li><strong>Versatility: </strong>same as above </li>
<li><strong>Price:</strong> $2.63 for a 17.3-ounce jar = $.15 per ounce </li>
<li><strong>Taste:</strong> similar flavor to natural without the oily or grainy texture</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 120%;">Natural Peanut Butter</span></p>
<ol>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Health:</strong> 210 calories per 2 tablespoons, 150 calories from fat,&nbsp;2.5 grams saturated fat per serving</div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Versatility: </strong>same as above</div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Price: </strong>$2.68 for a 16-ounce jar = $.17 per ounce</div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Taste:</strong> grainy, salty, oily, a little burnt flavor</div>
</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 120%;">Peanut Butter Powder</span></p>
<ol>
<li>
<div align="left" style="text-align: left;"><strong>Health:</strong>&nbsp;54 calories per 2 tablespoons,&nbsp;25 calories from fat,&nbsp;.55 gram saturated fat per serving</div>
</li>
<li><strong>Versatility:</strong> mix with water then use just like regular PB, can be used in <a href="http://www.bellplantation.com/recipes" target="_blank">recipes</a> too </li>
<li><strong>Price:</strong> $3.99 for a 6.5-ounce bottle = $.61 per ounce </li>
<li><strong>Taste:</strong>&nbsp;grainy and textured</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: left;">And the winner is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Whipped Peanut Butter</span>! Can you tell we love peanut butter? In fact, I've been on a mission to find the best possible peanut butter choice, especially after I realized there were more than 60 different kinds to choose from in my local grocery store! Of the five PBs in the test, I think the reduced-fat version had the best flavor and the sweetest taste. Chris liked the whipped PB the best. The whipped version was a good savings of calories, compared to the reduced-fat, low-sugar, and natural versions. The natural PB had the most impressive ingredient label (just peanuts and salt) but it just didn't taste very good, and the oil separation at the top&nbsp;was a little gross. If you're looking for a mostly-natural PB, the low-sugar and low-sodium one is a good option without the greasy separation. The PB powder is quite impressive. I had the chance to meet the inventor of PB2 at an in-store demo. It is significantly lower in calories than any other PB. The only downside is the very high price and the fact that you have to mix it up before eating it (just mix the powder with water), but I do like this product. So, it came down to the details. Considering all four test factors, the best choice for a flavorful, versatile, lower-calorie, reasonably-priced PB was the whipped version.&nbsp;</p>]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/rss-comments-entry-1782548.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>Regular Sour Cream vs. No Fat Sour Cream</title><dc:creator>Jessie</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 01:42:28 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/2008/5/21/regular-sour-cream-vs-no-fat-sour-cream.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">208390:2139116:1886866</guid><description><![CDATA[<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span class=full-image-float-none><span><img style="WIDTH: 397px; HEIGHT: 321px" alt=sourcream.jpg src="http://www.littlecalorie.com/storage/sourcream.jpg"></span></span></P>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span style="FONT-SIZE: 120%">Regular Sour Cream</span></P>
<ol>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Health:</strong>&nbsp;60 calories per 2 tablespoons,&nbsp;50 calories from fat,&nbsp;3.5 grams saturated fat per serving</DIV>
<li><strong>Versatility: </strong>dips, potato or soup condiment, salad dressings, appetizers, baking 
<li><strong>Price:</strong> $1.55 to $1.85 for a 16-ounce tub = $.09 to $.12 per ounce 
<li><strong>Taste:</strong> rich, creamy, thick </li>
</ol>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span style="FONT-SIZE: 120%">No Fat Sour Cream</span></P>
<ol>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Health:</strong> 20 calories per 2 tablespoons,&nbsp;0 calories from fat, 0 grams saturated fat per serving</DIV>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Versatility: </strong>use anywhere regular sour cream is used, but requires more stirring first</DIV>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Price: </strong>$2.59 to $2.99&nbsp;for a 16-ounce tub = $.16 to $.19 per ounce</DIV>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Taste:</strong> creamy, less thick and less rich than regular</DIV></li>
</ol>
<P>And the winner is <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">No Fat Sour Cream</span>! I have fallen in love with Daisy brand No Fat Sour Cream, mostly because it makes a fat-free version out of a normally high-fat ingredient, and also because it tastes good (better than other brands of light sour cream, in my opinion). However, I realize that it is a bit more expensive and the calorie savings per tablespoon is just 30. But when you look at the savings in fat, the scale tips toward the&nbsp;no- or low-fat version. If you really prefer a thick and creamy sour cream, go ahead and use a dollop of regular to top that potato or bowl of chili. However, I recommend going for the lighter version when using sour cream in baking&nbsp;or stirring into already-flavorful dips. You'll save quite a few calories and tons of fat without noticing a huge difference in taste. </P>]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/rss-comments-entry-1886866.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>Regular vs. Light Creamy Salad Dressing</title><dc:creator>Jessie</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:58:23 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/2008/4/23/regular-vs-light-creamy-salad-dressing.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">208390:2139116:1782547</guid><description><![CDATA[<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span class=full-image-inline><span><img style="WIDTH: 419px; HEIGHT: 331px" alt=mayo.jpg src="http://www.littlecalorie.com/storage/mayo.jpg"></span></span></P>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span style="FONT-SIZE: 120%">Regular Creamy Salad Dressing</span></P>
<ol>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Health:</strong>&nbsp;70 calories per tablespoon, 60 calories from fat, 1 gram saturated fat per serving</DIV>
<li><strong>Versatility: </strong>use anywhere mayonnaise is used:&nbsp;sandwiches, salads, casseroles
<li><strong>Price:</strong> $2.49 to $4.19 for an 18-ounce bottle = $.14 to $.23 per ounce
<li><strong>Taste:</strong> eggy, tangy, vinegar, fluffy</li>
</ol>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span style="FONT-SIZE: 120%">Light Creamy Salad Dressing</span></P>
<ol>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Health:</strong> 20 calories per tablespoon, 15 calories from fat, 0 grams saturated fat per serving</DIV>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Versatility: </strong>use anywhere mayonnaise is used:&nbsp;sandwiches, salads, casseroles</DIV>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Price: </strong>$2.49 to $3.35 for an 18-ounce bottle = $.13 to $.19 per ounce</DIV>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Taste:</strong> slightly stronger vinegar taste than regular</DIV></li>
</ol>
<P>And the winner is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Light Creamy Salad Dressing</span>! I realize some people have a huge preference for mayonnaise over creamy salad dressing, but I'm not one of those people that notices a huge taste difference between the two. Probably because I use it sparingly and, usually, as a binding agent rather than a flavor on its own. Chris likes to use creamy salad dressing as a tangy topping for his sandwiches, so we never really have mayonnaise in the house. With that said, I will always choose the&nbsp;light version of&nbsp;creamy salad dressing over the regular. The taste and price differences are not huge, but the calories saved&nbsp;per serving make it an easy decision. As far as I can tell, the only real difference in ingredients&nbsp;is that the light version uses less than 2% egg yolks. The ingredient list, by the way, is not very impressive: oil, high fructose corn syrup, vinegar, egg yolks, starch, salt, sugar, spices, cellulose gel, and sucralose.&nbsp;After all, mayonnaise and creamy salad dressing are just another form of fat. Real mayonnaise does not contain corn syrup, starch, or cellulose gum, but is much higher in calories and fat. There are light and reduced-fat versions of mayonnaise that are comparable to light creamy salad dressing in calories and ingredients. </P>
<P>As a side note, if you're a mayo fan and you want to make your own, check out&nbsp;Nicole's post about it <A href="http://pinchmysalt.com/2008/04/14/finally-some-homemade-mayonnaise/" target=_blank>here</A>. </P>]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/rss-comments-entry-1782547.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>Fat Free vs. Extra Creamy Reddi Wip</title><dc:creator>Jessie</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:23:43 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/2008/4/22/fat-free-vs-extra-creamy-reddi-wip.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">208390:2139116:1779111</guid><description><![CDATA[<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span class=full-image-float-none><span><img style="WIDTH: 332px; HEIGHT: 442px" alt=reddiwip.jpg src="http://www.littlecalorie.com/storage/reddiwip.jpg"></span></span></P>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span style="FONT-SIZE: 120%">Extra Creamy Reddi Wip</span></P>
<ol>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Health:</strong> 20 calories per&nbsp;2 tablespoons</DIV>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Versatility: </strong>topping for hot drinks, fruit, Jello, ice cream, pie, and your spouse</DIV>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Price: </strong>$2.99 per 7 oz. can = $.43 per ounce</DIV>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Taste:</strong> thick, creamy,&nbsp;coats the mouth</DIV></li>
</ol>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span style="FONT-SIZE: 120%">Fat Free Reddi Wip</span></P>
<ol>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Health:</strong>&nbsp;5 calories per 2 tablespoons</DIV>
<li><strong>Versatility: </strong>same as above
<li><strong>Price: </strong>$2.99 per&nbsp;7 oz. can = $.43 per ounce
<li><strong>Taste:</strong> sweeter and a little runnier than extra creamy version</li>
</ol>
<P>And the winner is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">It's A Tie</span>! I conducted a blind test on my family and they had some difficulty discerning the extra creamy from the fat-free version. We decided that taste was not a huge factor, as the results were split and no one had a strong preference for one over the other. Without any outstanding differences in versatility, price, or taste, this one came down the the calorie count. At 15 fewer calories per serving, the gap is not huge, but it could add up depending on how heavy your finger is. However, I was disappointed to see that the fat-free version is sweetened with corn syrup, while the extra creamy version contains sugar, but less than 1 gram per serving. For a compromise between the two, go for the Original version, which is 15 calories per serving and is not sweetened with corn syrup. Or, for a decadent treat, go for my favorite: Chocolate Reddi Wip, which is also 15 calories per serving. </P>]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/rss-comments-entry-1779111.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>Regular Syrup vs. Sugar-Free Syrup</title><dc:creator>Jessie</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:19:45 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/2008/3/30/regular-syrup-vs-sugar-free-syrup.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">208390:2139116:1725059</guid><description><![CDATA[<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span class=full-image-float-none><span><img style="WIDTH: 444px; HEIGHT: 332px" alt=syrup.jpg src="http://www.littlecalorie.com/storage/syrup.jpg"></span></span></P>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span style="FONT-SIZE: 120%">Regular Syrup</span></P>
<ol>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Health:</strong> 210 calories per 1/4 cup, 0 g fat, 52 g carbohydrates, 31 g sugars</DIV>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Versatility: </strong>pancakes, waffles, recipes calling for syrup</DIV>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Price: </strong>$2.50 to $4.00 per 27 oz. bottle = $.04 to $.07 per tablespoon</DIV>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Taste:</strong> buttery, smooth consistency</DIV></li>
</ol>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span style="FONT-SIZE: 120%">Sugar-Free Syrup</span></P>
<ol>
<li>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" align=left><strong>Health:</strong>&nbsp;trace (&lt;1) calories per 1/4 cup, 0 g fat, 0 g carbohydrates, 0 g sugars</DIV>
<li><strong>Versatility: </strong>use anywhere regular syrup is used
<li><strong>Price: </strong>$3.79 per 12 oz. bottle = $.16 per tablespoon
<li><strong>Taste:</strong> butterscotch flavor, noticeably sweeter than regular syrup, consistency of egg whites</li>
</ol>
<P>And the winner is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Sugar-Free Syrup</span>! While I actually prefer the less-sweet taste of regular syrup, the health benefits of a calorie- and sugar-free alternative outweigh any taste or consistency differences. Both make great-tasting toppings for breakfast foods, but I will choose the corn syrup-free kind any day. For my test, I used Walden Farms Calorie Free syrup. There are also sugar-free syrups that contain about 30 to 40 calories per serving and cost a bit less than Walden Farms. </P>]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/rss-comments-entry-1725059.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>Eggs vs. Eggbeaters</title><dc:creator>Jessie</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:52:40 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/2008/3/24/eggs-vs-eggbeaters.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">208390:2139116:1724938</guid><description><![CDATA[<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span class=full-image-float-none><span><img alt=eggbeaters.jpg src="http://www.littlecalorie.com/storage/eggbeaters.jpg"></span></span></P>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span class=sizeGreater20>Egg<br></span></P>
<ol>
<li><strong>Health:</strong> about 75 calories, 212 mg cholesterol, 6.3 g protein 
<li><strong>Versatility: </strong>hard-cooked, dye for Easter,&nbsp;juicy yolk, baking when yolk is necessary 
<li><strong>Price:</strong> $2 to $3 per dozen ($4 for organic) = $.16 to $.33 per egg 
<li><strong>Taste:</strong> original egg taste </li>
</ol>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><span class=sizeGreater20>Eggbeaters</span><br></P>
<ol>
<li><strong>Health:</strong> 30 calories for 1-egg equivalent (1/4 cup), 0 cholesterol, 6 g protein 
<li><strong>Versatility:</strong> omelet, scrambled, some baking 
<li><strong>Price:</strong> $5.95 per 32 oz. carton (equivalent to 16 eggs) = $.37 per egg 
<li><strong>Taste:</strong> no noticeable difference from original egg taste </li>
</ol>
<P>And the winner is <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Eggbeaters!</span> While Eggs are clearly more versatile than Eggbeaters (and therefore, the necessary choice in some situations), I would always choose Eggbeaters over Eggs when possible. In my opinion, the health benefits are worth the extra cost. Eggbeaters contain real egg whites, so there is no guilt about putting the good ol' chicken out of business.</P><br>]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.littlecalorie.com/side-by-side/rss-comments-entry-1724938.xml</wfw:commentRss></item></channel></rss>
