Can make own at home, with a blender.
Roast your own nuts of choice.
Roasted Almond. Great.
Roasted Almond with roasted Hemp kernels. Great.
Roasted Almonds with roasted Hemp kernels, walnuts, pecans, pistachios, brazil nuts, hazelnuts, with a dash of chocolate, chilli, turmeric and white pepper… Great.
Taking the junk from the corporation… Not so great.
Much more fun exploring what ingredients go in your food, rather than have the corporation choose for you. They don’t choose for you. They choose for themselves, at you. You end up with junk instead of food.
Much more fun making your own. Healthier, cost similar, more nutrition, and no where near as much nutrientless white crystalline addictants… unless you want that, and can add sugar back in if you want. (Roasting makes it sweet though. Top tip. Healthy sweet.)
Just almonds, roasted, then blended smooth at a medium speed. Try it. See which wins your taste test.
The sugar content of bakery and candies is high. More news at 6.
I am Italian and, living in Scandinavia, apart from being mostly disgusted by the other chocolate spreads, I am always very surprised to see the office managers, offering breakfasts on select days, defaulting to a teaspoon in the Nutella jar.
I grew up with a taboo for that and the only way I would ever have Nutella is by scraping some with a knife-side and spreading it thinly on a slice of bread.
It’s funny to see people do such things and then coming with the question: “you Italians have pasta, pizza and Nutella and you still manage to be so thin. How?!”
Check your portions.
Yeah as a Norwegian I’ve always been a bit weirded out when thinking about chocolate spread for more than two seconds. Tbf, I feel like you’re making it out to be more normal than it is (but idk how it is in Sweden or Denmark). Among adults I very very rarely see chocolate spread on bread. Among children however… Not great for their nutrition. I think most parents think “better they eat something than nothing” but I’d argue maybe that’s not always the case.
On another note: holy crap the regional chocolate spread (nugatti) is like 10 times better than nutella. Nutella households are weird.
I’m pretty sure a little sugar is better than starving to death.
Yeah I mean I agree, and I don’t judge parents for “giving in”. I was a really difficult kid myself when it comes to food.
There are more varieties of hazelnut chocolate spread in Germany than there are stars in the sky. Not all of them, but most of them, are better than Nutella.
To be fair I definitely think Nutella used to have better ratios because it used to taste better.
I make my own now with far more hazelnuts
Never considered that possibility. Do you have a recipe? Would love to try.
I can’t remember which one I used last but if you look up a “healthy” one it’ll usually give you a better ratio of nuts to sugar. There are tons of recipes out there for homemade Nutella, so it’s kind of a process of trial and error to play with the ratios to find what you like best
I find the homemade stuff tastes way better since it’s more like hazelnut butter with chocolate
Big agree on Nugatti. It’s so much better. I feel similarly about kvikk lunsj over kitkat.
I liked nugatti zero, but apparently it doesn’t exist anymore?
I think most parents think “better they eat something than nothing” but I’d argue maybe that’s not always the case.
yeah, it’s more a “we finally got them to eat something. calories are calories dammit” on our end.
Sjokade gjeng reis dere
Fuck no. That shit is vile
A jar of this would last years in my house as a kid.
There’s a Turkish supermarket near me and the hazelnut spread there is amazing. It’s 50% hazelnut and 10% cocoa with no palm oil
A bakery near me does their own “nutella” with less sugar and bo palm oil. It’s so much better
Chocolate hazelnut spread.
Good to know that there is at least some amount of real cocoa and hazelnuts in there.
Good thing I don’t just eat the stuff by itself right out of the jar and finish the whole thing in a single sitting.
Oh god who would do such a thing!?! Next you’d tell me some people would scrape their fingers all around the inside of the jar and lick them making sure they get every last remaining chocolate of that sweet sweet nector of the gods. And even stick their tongue inside, making out style with the jar, making sure no more chocolate taste left 🤤
brand new sentence
deleted by creator
Couldn’t be me
Loving the Matilda reference!
And even stick their tongue inside, making out style with the jar, making sure no more chocolate taste left
Ladies, are you having trouble getting your man to go down on you? Boyfriends hate this one simple trick!
All that sugar sounds like asking for a yeast infection.
Once read a thread where someone was asking the best way to eat it. There were suggestions like on toast, or with banana slices. But the best answer—and the one that had me laughing in tears—was:
With your whole hand.
Why the fuck does it cost that much?!
One of the biggest things about capitalism is that they charge what people are willing to pay in order to maximize profit. Capitalism encourages this behaviour.
Because people will evidently pay that much for it. No idea why.
Why the fuck does it cost that much?
most stores have a generic version which is almost identical
I’m actually not seeing anything especially surprising here. Does anyone eat a bite of it and not immediately know it’s got a ton of fat and sugar in it?
I think the surprising part is that this guy got a jar that was seperated and layered. Mine just comes as one consistant spread.
They might use a toxic emulsifier in it for that reason.
I think it’s a photoshop to show proportions.
not a photoshop
Some shopping prior to photo could be involved though.
How do you know this?
I can tell by the pixels
It’s for sure not nutella that just separated. I don’t see how it can be anything other than a shop.
ah yes. the only two options.
definitely not something someone has made as a prop to show the proportions
A photoshoot?
It’s clearly AI. How is the jar see through?
Glass?
/s I think lol
Doesn’t matter. If someone put time and effort into creating something it is disheartening to be accused of AI slop. If people actually care about reducing AI slop and protecting actual creativity and art, we shouldn’t make aimless accusations.
/s my friend. The calories moving my touchscreen were well utilized! Sorry for the confusion :)
They sure tried advertising it as a health food in the USA 20-ish years ago when it was relatively new to the market—“simple, quality ingredients like hazelnuts, skim milk, and a hint of cocoa.” They were sued for deceptive advertising and had to pay millions of dollars.
But yeah, one bite or a look at the ingredients and nutrition label should be enough to warn anyone. The first ingredient is sugar and more than 50% of the food’s mass comes from added sugar.
It’s amazing that anyone was fooled by this marketing. It shows you the power of it I guess.
The first time I tried Nutella I immediately knew what it was: chocolate hazelnut cake frosting. The fact that people slather it on their toast every day seemed as absurd to me as eating cake frosting every day.
North America has long had sweet treats as breakfast or early morning food so I’m surprised you’re surprised.
Things like Danish, donuts, pop tarts, toaster strudel, breakfast cereal… Etc etc
Hold up the Dutch straight up put chocolate sprinkles onto buttered toast and you’re coming at exclusively at the US? And Danish were named after somewhere. Strudel… that sounds awfully germanic… I think Europe is gaslighting us. Also I’ve had European milk chocolate, holy shit.
The danish aren’t all overweight though. 50% of white people in the US are now. 60% or more of the general population last I checked, and it takes an immigrant on average 7 years to become as overweight as the average American.
So something is different.
Sure but not a chocolate cake. Putting Nutella on a piece of bread is basically having a piece of chocolate cake for breakfast.
I mean we have a cereal that’s openly marketed as just a box full of mini chocolate chip cookies
Everyone knows those cereals are for kids and only as a special treat, not an every day thing.
If someone wants to have banana Nutella crepes for breakfast once a month I don’t think that’s a big deal. But having toast with Nutella every day (or cookie cereal) is not a normal thing to do.
Lol, the commercials for said cereal were always literally about everyone saying it was cookies for breakfast, and who doesn’t have the same breakfast every day? If there was a box of cereal, that’s what we were eating until it was gone and then you open the next box of cereal or switch to toast/waffles/pancakes/biscuits/oatmeal until that box is used up, and so on and so forth until it’s time to go back to the grocery store.
If your parents bought the cookie cereal (and there were apparently enough to keep it on the shelves for years) then you were eating it everyday as a normal thing.
Umm lots and lots of kids, and some adults, have that kind of cereal for breakfast most mornings
Everyone knows those cereals are for kids and only as a special treat, not an every day thing.
LOL, no, we really don’t.
Same in Europe in the late 00s/early 10s anyway - the ads here boasted about it being a good source of slow-release energy to keep you going til lunch
Knowing it has sugar is one thing. Seeing the volume of sugar relative to the other ingredients is still a shock
I guess I’ve seen so many of these things that I’ve stopped being surprised. This one was really popular for a long time.
That one can’t be real. There’s more sugar than could physically fit in the coke can. Like no liquid, just sugar, there’s more than 12oz of sugar.
There’s 39 grams of sugar in a a coke can. Sugar is water soluble and 90% of the can is water that can absorb the 10% of sugar.
Hmmm, look at the labels. They each say something something “100”.
Not the right language, but maybe something like per 100? Like per 100 grams of water? Or… something about volume?
IDK, it would be a weird way to do it. But something like that might explain why so much sugar, seemingly more than can fit in the can.
Sugar is heavy, there’s no way 39 grams is the same size as the can
Edit: gandalf seems to have the right idea here! https://sh.itjust.works/comment/24686999
Edit2: wait, a can has 300+ grams of fluid in it… So the sugar would be 1/3 of what the whole can would be. This actually makes the picture more confusing 🤔
Edit 3:
Behold, 39 grams of sugar. About one shot glass worth.
Here’s that glass next to a can. I don’t have any soda pop in the house.
Doing the real science! Thanks!!
thank you for your efforts 🌟
whoa, the Quoakka. I didn’t fact check your comment but upvoted anyway. Hopefully you aren’t wrong.
I hope I’m not wrong as well! I did my best research (I googled) and looked at the nutritional labels (100% 39g of sugar).
16 to 20 teaspoons of sugar or the equivalent, in a 16 oz pop I’ve read. Can you imagine putting 10 teaspoons of sugar in a cup of coffee?
Yes
Good god man, a single teaspoon in my tea is too much. If I do super strong tea or coffee, like 3 tea bags in a half cup, mixed with half whole milk, a full teaspoon is about right to taste.
10 is just too much, it’s horrible for you too, even if you don’t get diabetes, it crashes your energy level, cut it out for a couple of weeks then get a big dose of sugar and you will see what it does to you.
Yeah, even considering the angle, that seems off. I just did a search and plucked one of the first to come up; I wonder if that version has been messed with.
The sugar is liquidated dude, what are you talking about? 😳
Like, for solid food, 50% sugar is what’s typically in sweets, that means 50g sugar in 100g food. 10% sugar (that means 10g sugar in 100g liquid) is what’s in sweet drinks like soda.
The WHO recommends restricting your sugar intake to a maximum of 10% of your calories intake. So for solid food that would be 10g sugar per 100g food, assuming the rest of the food is calorie-rich. For liquids it would be virtually 0g sugar per 100g liquid as liquids contain essentially no other calorie source.
There’s a shocking number of people who see words like “hazelnuts” and think its healthy like plain hazelnuts.
“With natural ingredients”
Always my favorite
It doesn’t help that Nutella has been advertised as being “part of a healthy breakfast”.
I mean, hitting yourself in the face can be a part of an otherwise healthy routine.
Yeah, I have a healthy routine. Make myself a nice breakfast and eat it while I read the paper, take the dog out, have a shower, take the bus to work, jog at lunch, take the bus home, go for an evening bike ride, punch myself in the dick, have a healthy balanced dinner and in bed by 9.
For sure. Peanut butter isn’t much better.
I mean, even the worst peanut butter brands are still mostly peanut. Like, they definitely add sugar and soybean oil to them, but, not to that extent. And it’s fairly easy to find peanut butter that is only peanuts without being 4 times the price.
Around here, peanut butter is between 90% and 100% peanuts.
No comparison to Nutella.
I’m telling about the kind of peanut butter most people buy. For instance, according to the Skippy peanut butter site, two tablespoons of Skippy has 4g of added sugar, which is about a teaspoon. It’s not Nutella levels for sure, but it’s still a lot.
Roasted peanuts (91%)
No comparison to Nutella.
The sugar and fat is why I eat it
I’m fat and sweet. Eat me!
Only it wasn’t palm fat until recently. Shittiest oil on the planet, they’re destroying SO much rain forest and replacing it with palms.
Propaganda / marketing, but still interesting:
If I’m not mistaken palm oil is the best of the worst. It is fast growing in contrast to the alternatives meaning we’d clear much more rain forest if we were to boycott it straight away. We have to remember to have an alternative on hand every time we propose a boycott of something that’s not easily omitted from use.
Rapeseed (canola) oil doesn’t destroy rain forests. Sunflower oil doesn’t destroy rain forests. Palm oil is the worst.
It tastes like hazelnut cake frosting.
I’m not surprised by it any more, but only because I’ve known this for a while now. When I first saw this breakdown (and looked at other sources to confirm), I was caught a bit off guard by the realization that this stuff is well over 50% sugar. The palm oil is not exactly a plus, either.
Honestly, I’d have thought there’s more added oil/fat in it.
But it tastes SO sweet…
Well, it was supposed to be mainly a hazelnut cream with some sugar, cocoa and maybe a few other minor ingredients. And in fact, when it was new and conquering markets, that was what it was.
I think the decades starting with the early 1990s had desensitized a lot of us to enormous amounts of sugar, and in the end we didn’t even consciously notice anymore how sweet that stuff had gotten.
Many years ago I developed a weird food intolerance called Fructose Malabsorption. Basically, free fructose molecules mess me up, but sucrose (table sugar) doesn’t, so among other things I started avoiding things with much HFCS in them. I started getting unsweetened iced tea at restaurants and adding sugar. I was absolutely disgusted by how much sugar you have to add to make it as sweet as a soda or sweet tea. In a regular sized drink cup (american medium), I add three packets, and that is very slightly sweet. To make it as sweet as “normal” I’d easily have to add three times that.
I’m actually a bit surprised it has so much sugar in it and they haven’t tried to replace it with some sort of artificial sweetener or HFCS. The sugar has to be the lion share of the cost, maybe tied with the Coco.
The sugar also supplies a significant amount of the volume of the product. Artificial sweetener is significantly sweeter than sucrose, like hundreds of times sweeter, so just swapping the sugar for artificial sweetener would require them to use a bulking agent. The safest bulking agent that doesn’t change the flavor or texture would be sugar.
If you ever baked anything or made desserts this is no surprise. You always have to cut the sugar amount in half.
My mother always used to do that.
Are you my mother in law? She does that and her bakes are awful.
Lollll
I think it’s better just to make and eat desserts less frequently than try to mess with the sugar ratios, especially with baking. Like if you want something healthy maybe make a fruit tart instead of something that involves something like Nutella or cake icing where it’s supposed to be very sweet.
Naaah, it works alright.
In some cases fucked up amounts of sugar are integral for the receipt (e.g Kouign-amann), but in most other cases (e.g cheesecakes) it is there just because author thinks it is the right amount.
Bakery is a spektrum and less sugary bakery have even more rights to exists than over-sugared.
I use way way less sugar in anything I bake, especially like apple pies, of which I use zero sugar. Once your palette adjusts it tastes good, you can taste the natural sweetness of fruits and vegetables.
And everything can be lessened, with time. Even the amount of sugar in bakery.
You’ll get used to the changed taste.
(of course everything else will taste more or less like sugar only, when compared to own makings with less sugar)
Well ok yeah less sweet cheesecakes are alright
I don’t make them often because I don’t really care for sweets that much but I still cut the sugar when I make any.
I’m pretty sure they mix it up a bit…
No it’s a new food trend, haven’t you heard? It’s called “deconstructed food”, where they just throw the raw ingredients at you and leave it up to you to do the actual work. At the same time they sell it at a premium price brainwashing you into believing this is a new high end dining experience. /j
Deconstructed is a very popular way to do haute cuisine dishes. You have to do some of the work, and you only get a small fraction of what an entree would be, and you pay many times more. It’s brilliant.
So IKEA food?
Food does have ingredients, yes.
Palm oil is bad though. Besides that, I get what you mean
sugar is worse (to your health)
I am expendable, the planet isn’t. Don’t destroy our natural resources for palm oil production
Ultra-processed palm oil is bad.
Palm oil is bad because rainforest is burned down to grow more monoculture palm oil. https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/palm_oil/
This basically describes all agricultural:
- Clear wild land
- Implement monoculture
This has been discussed before. Clearing out steppes and prairies is different from clearing out rainforest with its extreme biodiversity.
Because it’s being used for mass ultra processed foods. I was really just referring to the difference between that and the palm oil that’s used in traditional African cooking. Its like soy or corn or any other crop that’s being used for capitalism rather than just feeding people.
I think this is a fair point. There’s palm oil in shit that has no reason for being in there lol
Also cruel to monkeys or something.
Well orangutans live in the forest that is burned down
Cruel to them then. Not monkeys.
The use of palm trees for palm oil is bad.
I eat only food that has just one ingredient, myself.
Are you turning yourself into an ingredient? Is this the future liberals want?!?
Wait until you hear about Soylent green
are you a plant?
“Food”
Is this a surprise to anyone? No one is buying Nutella for the health benefits…
Plus, this shouldn’t surprise anyone since we all read the label, right?
Maybe Kid Rock.
Strange…My hazelnut spread doesnt contain that…
Just as if Nutella is just cheap shit^(Sadly it costs three times as much for half the volume. But it tastes 10 times better)
Hazelnuts have ~60℅ fat, so that spread is still 35% suagr and 35% fat overall. Definetly better than the added palm oil in in nutella, but the health difference is pretty minor.
I’m fact if we go by calories per serving, yours should be worse since fat is more energy dense than sugar.
(But yes, the taste is definetly better and I would much rather have that at least contains mainly hazelnuts)
Nutrition is so confusing. Giving broad categories such as healthy or not healthy deserves way more nuance. Sure, if someone is sitting around all day every day, going crazy on a jar of this it’s usually unadvisable. But if you’re out hiking for the day, or going for a day’s mountain run, this would be an extremely good idea to take.
10% cocoa, 35% sugar.
Nutella prides itself on the low cocoa content, but the buttload of sugar is everywhere.
Hm…my spread (in the picture) says 60% hazelnut and 35% sugar…
The spread in the picture, as per the label, contains 60% hazelnuts, 10% cocoa and the rest must be sugar (~30%), but the percentage isn’t mentioned explicitly.
of 100g, 40g are carbohydrate of which 35g is sugar.
Aka 35%It doesn’t math. You can’t have 105% of the spread in the tub.
The label clearly says 60% hazelnuts + 10% cocoa. So that’s already 70%. How do you squeeze in 35% of sugar in there?
Something is wrong with that label. I don’t trust anything it says anymore. But more likely I’m just dumb at math and nutrition.
Does cocoa or hazelnuts contain sugar naturally and that’s why it goes to 35%, meaning 5% of hazelnut or cocoa content is actually sugar.
Nuts and cocoa also contain sugars, which make up the 5%. Those are the nutritional values, which state the total content - there is already some sugar in the contents before the sugar is added.
Math aint my strong suit either.
But it clearly tastes way better and other products in the same category (piemont hazelnut spread) taste very similar.
Thus I don’t care enough to not buy it. It’s not healthy to eat anyway and is bought for taste dn enjoyment ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Hazelnuts have about 4-5% sugar in them, so it maths out perfectly to 100% total with 30% added sugar.
Not sure if I’d trust a brand that can’t spell “Milchspuren”.
Italian brand that exports to Germany.
Probably not even meant for the german market but rather german speaking part of Italy and was imported.
Mine doesn’t either, because, yanno, it isn’t Nutella (it’s Nudossi)? This is about Nutella.
I am communicating that there are way better spreads to buy that arent 60% sugar and taste better.
Nutella is AI slop but for bread.
21 grams of sugar in a 37 gram serving, so >56% sugar by weight
no wonder it’s delicious 😆
European here. Sorry, but it is so ridiculous that labels don’t just show some standardized “per 100 g” so things are easily compared without math.
Imagine how we feel in the US being given numbers interchangeably in ounces and pounds. Nothing like dividing random numbers by 16 in your head in the store. Grams would be so much easier for this purpose.
Yeah same opinion here, guess they cant make it easy for people to know what they put in their bodies or they might start caring right?
I keep a spreadsheet with that information.
Here are the macros for nutella, per 100 g:
- 540 kcal
- ~30 g fat
- ~60 g carbs
- 5.4 g protein
- 2.7 g fiber
the problem with per 100 g is that some foods are eaten in much smaller quantities, so the “per serving” (if a serving size is accurate) is actually more helpful for knowing how reasonable it is to eat.
I would just like the per 100 g nutrition information in addition to the per serving information.
I think both “per serving” and “per 100g” should be required. Some foods/drinks come with “0g carbs” or “0 calories” in small enough servings, but only because the actual amount is negligible. The problem is that once the serving gets large enough, those things do start to matter, especially for instance carbs for diabetics.
Multiple times I’ve run into a “low carb” or “low sugar” drink that said something like 2 or 3g carbs per serving, and then had 2 or 3 servings per bottle, which ending up raising my blood sugar more than expected. Technically that’s on me for not checking the “per serving” and “servings per container”, and I’ve since learned my lesson, but it’s still annoying.
Add in a “per container” for things that are realistically seen as a single serving, like your drink example.
That way I don’t have to do the ‘per 100g’ figuring and I have a realistic assessment of that small can of soup that’s somehow supposed to be 2 to 3 servings.
I completely agree - we need both!
At 57% sugar, it is no longer a bread spread but a flavored sugar mix
Have you seen how much sugar jam needs to be preserve?
Fruit jam alone is usually 1:2 and at best for certain acidic fruits 1:3deleted by creator
1 part sugar to 3 part fruit
You don’t need any sugar to preserve, you just need to cook it at 15 lbs of pressure for an hour and a half.
Not how preserves work.
That is how any food works actually. You don’t need sugar to preserve things.
We’ll see when you catch botulism :)
And you’ll probably not make it 100% sterile.
You have no idea what you are talking about, pressure cooking kills botulism. You have never canned food before clearly. You are just luck louis pasteur isn’t on this thread.
