TEXT OF COMIC:
Until a few years ago, I didn’t realize that zero-calorie sweeteners were possible.
What? They’re everywhere. They have been for a long time.
But I always assumed they had the same number of calories as sugar.
Why would people want to eat them then?
I guess because they’re better for your teeth? It just didn’t make sense to me that they wouldn’t have any calories.
Because I’d see sugar-free candy with a label saying “Not a low-calorie food.”
Obviously that’s because there’s other stuff in the candy that does have calories.
But that stuff is also in the candy that has sugar. Logically, if they contain all the same other ingredients, a sugar-free version of a candy would have fewer calories than the sugary original. So I can’t see why it wouldn’t be considered a low-calorie food.
Maybe “low-calorie foods” are defined as having fewer than some official number of calories, instead of just being lower-calorie than the alternative?
I guess. It would be nice if these official numbers were listed someplace where people could find them.
I’m still waiting to find out the official definition of the difference between candy and fruit snacks.
MOUSEOVER TEXT: think globallorie, act low-calorie