Hacker News Reader

Comment by TwoBit | Hacker News Reader

I won't buy foods that say "lower sodium", "lower fat", etc. on the packaging. It's not because I'm illogical like the article suggests, but rather that 80% of the time such foods do in fact taste worse.

View on HN

It's not just that they taste worse. Sometimes manufacturers reduce fat but try to compensate by amping up sugar or artificial sweeteners.

How would you compensate less fat with more sugar? They taste totally different.

Here's a study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4742721/

> We found that the amount of sugar is higher in the low fat (that is, reduced calorie, light, low fat) and non-fat than ‘regular' versions of tested items

I hate these things too - invariably they also mean "more sugar", "more unsustainable palm oil", "more hydrogenated fat", "more corn starch", "more E-numbers", or just "more random old shit you've never even heard of!".

Same for me with "No MSG". MSG is excellent at adding flavor, so I subconsciously assume that an MSG-free product must taste bland.

Don't worry, it will probably have yeast extract or some other source of glutamates.

A little like “no added nitrates” foods often have celery extract in them.

I agree but I do have to buy low sodium products for personal reasons. Some things I’ve found are not as bad. Low sodium soups for example. Recently found out Kettle makes unsalted chips which has been huge for me.

I don't usually avoid "low fat" products (maybe I should, because most of them are unhealthy), but yes, "low sodium" is a sure telling that it will taste bad.

And cost 3x as much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com