So these zero sugar oreos just came out, but the calorie difference from an original oreo is so tiny. A normal oreo is 53 calories, and apparently a zero sugar oreo is 45 calories.

I'm sure this is good for diabetics and some groups, but man I got my hopes up for nothing for calorie purposes.

by ambergirl9860

8 Comments

  1. this is most likely because the majority of the calories come from the actual filling itself, not the sweetener. the filler is just fats, and to my knowledge you can’t stop fats from having calories no matter how hard you try.

    the person who figures out how to make low-calorie fats will be a billionaire.

    it won’t be exactly the same but you could try making your own alternative with a sugar free cracker of some kind, and then using a filling of sweetened pumpkin puree.

  2. FunDependent9177

    Interesting I try it but I just eat the Oreo Thins instead if im not mistaken they are lower in fat and sugar.

  3. sleepyroosterweight

    Fat is more calorically dense than sugar, sugar alternatives are often stronger than regular sugar so to fill the same amount of cream in the cookie the cream would have to be more calorically dense

  4. Mesmerotic31

    I did the math on these a couple days ago to see if they would be worth it!

    The zero sugar cookies are a bit bigger (14g as opposed to a regular Oreo’s 11.3g). So if you compare the calories per 100g, you save 73 calories.

    100g regular Oreos = 471 calories

    100g Zero Sugar Oreos = 398 calories

    …which is a lot if you’re eating 100g of them. Probably a more realistic comparison would be eating 4 zero-sugar cookies compared to 5 regular cookies (both about 56g)–this would put you at 223 and 264 calories respectively, so choosing the sugar-free ones would save you about 41 calories.

    Still not a lot. Probably not worth the flavour difference, certainly not worth the price markup they’re bound to have. The only real benefit I can think of is for people trying to get less sugar in their diet, but it still has plenty of carbs so it isn’t diabetic-friendly, and it’s got so many sugar alcohols and over-processed ingredients is it really that much of an improvement over sugar?

    I want to try them anyway out of curiosity though lol

  5. THESE WILL MAKE YOU SHIT YOUR PANTS FOR A ZILLION DAYS. Just eat the regular Oreo. 

  6. Sufficient_Pin4290

    Is it for diabetics not weight loss? Or is it just a marketing tactic

  7. funkoelvis43

    Unfortunately the main sweetener substitute appears to be Maltitol. This is the sweetener you’ll find in most big brand sugar free products, like sugar free chocolate and whatnot. The problem is it spikes your blood sugar almost as bad as eating sugar itself. But it’s cheaper than the newer alternatives that are better for your blood sugar, like allulose, monkfruit, erythritol, etc, and most consumers don’t know the difference and just see “sugar free” and buy it anyway, so the brands have no incentive to change. I always check the label, and if it’s maltitol I keep walking