Foodsday Tuesday: Be Careful What You Wish For

When it comes to dieting, I really kind of suck. Unless it's imposed by my circumstances (the Unemployment Diet) or my religion (the "real" God Diet), I'm likely to fall off the wagon within a week. Maybe two.

But still, I at least try to eat right. No fried foods. (Well, French fries once in a while.) Poultry and fish. (Except for when I really want beef, which happened twice last week.) Coke Zero. (At home. It's not usually available when you're out.) And things labeled "low-fat/calorie," "reduced fat/calorie," or "zero fat/calorie."

Deep down, in my heart of hearts, I know that reducing the fat content of something doesn't mean that it's going to make me skinnier, especially because low fat doesn't always (hell, even usually) equal low cal. However, it's reasonable to assume that the lower-in-fat version of something isn't quite as bad for you as the higher-in-fat version, right?

Nope.

You see, I love blueberry muffins. Love them. But I know the amount of butter that goes into a batch, so I try to avoid them unless I'm feeling really naughty. But about two years ago, I discovered the wonder that is the Dunkin' Donuts Reduced-Fat Blueberry Muffin. "Finally!" I thought. "A way for me to have my cake, err, muffin, and eat it, too!" And I've been happily eating them on a semi-regular basis ever since. Until about two weeks ago, that is, when I was writing up Dunkin' Donuts' 99¢ latte deal. While browsing the DD site, my curiosity got the best of me when I saw the "nutrition" button in the upper right-hand corner—and I discovered that my beloved muffin, while much lower in fat than the non-reduced-fat version that it tasted so much like, packed a whopping 400 calories, only 70 calories fewer than the full-fat version, and 170 calories more than a glazed donut.

I wanted to hurl.

Then, I wanted to investigate.

Now, I'm not really a calorie counter, but I was stunned to discover that for fewer calories (ignoring fat content), I could get a medium order of fries from McDonald's, a WHOPPER JR. (sans cheese) from Burger King, or a serving and a half of Sara Lee Strawberry Shortcake Cheesecake. I could have eaten two and a half Duncan Hines Wild Blueberry Muffins or three Betty Crocker Wild Blueberry Muffins if I'd made muffins from a boxed mix. And those homemade muffins I was so worried about? Fewer calories here, fewer calories here, and far, far fewer calories here, here, and here.

So despite all my wishing for a lower-fat alternative to a favorite food of mine, I was actually ingesting about a third of what should be my average daily caloric intake (if I'm dieting) in one muffin. Buyer beware: next time you find yourself out shopping and you're tempted to reach for the low-fat version of something, check the calories against the full-fat version and make sure it's worth it. A little extra fat isn't necessarily bad for you (so long as it's not saturated fat), and, if you want the calories anyway, it's often not even worth sacrificing the fat unless you're on a special doctor-mandated, fat-restricted diet.

Of course, if you're actually trying to lose weight, like I'm supposed to be doing, it's probably best to reduce both fat and calories in your diet, and skip the muffin in lieu of a salad. (So long as it doesn't have bacon. Sure, everything tastes better with bacon on it, but for every three slices you add to your salad, you're adding over a hundred calories to your lettuce.)

Photo of some delicious-looking blueberry muffins via Flickr user Jennie R. F., complete with a recipe.