Fitness chef reveals the shocking amount of calories in your favourite diet foods

Remember to check the labels!
  • We earn a commission for products purchased through some links in this article.
  • We may think we’re choosing the healthy option when we opt for a low calorie version of our favourite snack, but as The Fitness Chef Graeme Tomlinson has just revealed, the supposedly slimming treats often have even more calories than the original.

    With the festive season approaching, those of us trying to get that bit healthier before Christmas Day might be in for a nasty surprise.

    Diet foods are often more expensive than their regular counterparts, leaving Brits with larger food bills at this expensive time of year. Many also contain hidden calories, far higher than their full-fat counter-parts.

    Known online as The Fitness Chef, Graeme Tomlinson has now taken to social media to show followers that their favourite diet foods might not be quite as healthy as they thought.

    Posting on Instagram, Tomlinson highlighted both the diet and regular versions of some of our best-loved products. With comparison graphics, he revealed that some supposedly healthy alternatives to regular products may in fact be counterproductive when it comes to burning fat and losing weight.

    With many of these products containing more calories that customers expect, it makes the job of burning them off that bit harder. Featuring a range of products, from chocolate, to drinks and ready meals, the results are astonishing. 

    Weight Watchers bread 

    View this post on Instagram

    Though some may owe their success to Weight Watchers, for others it’s needless concept – conjured from the physiological simplicity that is a calorie deficit – means that fat loss progress is not possible.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ The system is designed in a way whereby one requires dedication to Weight Watchers to lose fat. Yet such dedication is void from any aspect of self empowerment or meaningful education.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ Though based somewhat on a calorie deficit, in the case of their ‘weight conscious’ range of meals and snacks, one may anticipate that they would create similar versions of calorie dense snacks and reduce caloric density – thus enhancing ones ability to reduce body fat whilst enjoying similar portion sizes of enjoyed foods. ⁣ ⁣ But alas, they have not. They have created products which not only copy the concept of the original treat, but that are virtually identical in calories per gram. They are also more expensive.⁣ ⁣⁣ The ‘low calorie’ claim is undoubtedly because WW’s suggested serving size would be hard pushed to feed an adolescent ant. In fact, just like the annihilation of science that is the weight watchers ‘points’ and ‘zero points’ systems, the existence of these items promotes a demonic notion that the original versions are not worthy for fat loss. But as with any food, they are. If enjoyed.⁣ ⁣⁣ Weight watchers is perhaps a fitting title. Because they collect vast sums of money whilst ‘watching’ an individual’s weight (by virtue of scale measurements and complicated algebra). But in terms of empowering an individual with the basic educational tools to change their lives, they fall short. ⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ These versions of adored foods are an attempt to capitalise on uneducated people trying to make supportive food choices. Yet the additional expense delivers no new fat loss benefit.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ Thus, for similar caloric value and less cost, consumers are better off enjoying the original, genuine, agenda free snack which doesn’t molest their wallet for no fair minded reason. 🙂⁣ -⁣⁣ -⁣⁣ #fatlosstips #weightwatchers #calories #caloriedeficit #biscuits #healthysnack #diettips #snacks #caloriecounting #cookies #dietplan #lowcaloriesnack #healthysnacking #lowcalorie

    A post shared by Graeme Tomlinson (@thefitnesschef_) on

    Using Weight Watchers bread as one example, he revealed that the diet version is 102 calories per 40g. He then compared it to Tesco bread, which comes in at 95 calories per 40g and is a third of the price. 

    Innocent smoothies

    View this post on Instagram

    When people claim that naturally occurring sugars are ‘better’ than refined, they are misinformed.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ Because these naturally occurring benefits are actually presented in the form of micronutrients and fibre – not sugar type. ⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ In this comparison, we can rationally establish that consumption of Coca-Cola on any level offers no nutritional benefit to our health, but that moderate consumption won’t offer significant detriment to our health either. And that excessive consumption of un-satiating, fibre-less calories over time could contribute to a calorie surplus.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ As for the heavily health branded innocent smoothie, it is actually very similar to the Coca-Cola. Whilst it’s inclusive micronutrients offer functional support, this is the only noticeable difference.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ One thing that has a secondary relationship with energy balance is fibre – because fibre slows digestion and helps us feel fuller for longer. One argument usually presented in favour of fruit and vegetable smoothies over fizzy drinks is inclusion of fibre. And given that these ingredients comprise of puréed fruit, one would assume that there would be moderate to significant amounts of fibre included, yet there is not. Thus, there is no logical argument for the smoothie filling us up for longer than the Coca-Cola. ⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ In fact, this lack of fibre and the similar sugar/calorie value means that the metabolization of calories (mainly sugar) will mirror that of the Coca-Cola. But crucially regarding body composition, less fat will be gained by consuming the Coca-Cola, because it contains fewer calories than the smoothie.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ This comparison shows us that the age old argument of fizzy drinks heavily contributing to being overweight must extend to all foods and all drinks, even those rich in nutrients… and marketing.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ Despite the clever use of uplifting, health based slogans, we are best placed to judge the merit of any food or drink on it’s raw facts within. ⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ Perhaps water is a better idea… 👊⁣⁣ -⁣⁣ -⁣⁣ #smoothie #fatlosshelp #fatlosstips #caloriedeficit #sugar #fatlosscoach #eatsmart #healthydrink #cocacola #losefat #fibre #nutrients #fruit #dieting #personaltrainer

    A post shared by Graeme Tomlinson (@thefitnesschef_) on

    In another even more shocking example, he highlighted how an Innocent smoothie has more calories than a bottle of Coke. The supposedly healthy drink has almost as much sugar as the popular fizzy drink brand too. 

    Weight Watchers chocolate biscuits

    View this post on Instagram

    Though some may owe their success to Weight Watchers, for others it’s flawed concept conjured from the physiological simplicity that is a calorie deficit, means that fat loss progress is not possible.⁣ ⁣ The system is designed in a way whereby one requires dedication to Weight Watchers to lose fat. Yet such dedication is void from any aspect of self empowerment or meaningful education.⁣ ⁣ Though based somewhat on a calorie deficit, in the case of their ‘weight conscious’ range of treat based snacks, one may anticipate that they would create similar versions of calorie dense snacks and reduce caloric density – thus enhancing ones ability to reduce body fat whilst enjoying similar portion sizes of enjoyed foods. But alas, they have not. They have created products which not only copy the concept of the original treat, but that are virtually identical in calories/macros per gram. They are also double the price.⁣ ⁣ The ‘low calorie’ claim is undoubtedly because WW’s suggested serving size would be hard pushed to feed an adolescent ant. In fact, just like the annihilation of science that is the weight watchers ‘points’ and ‘zero points’ systems, the existence of these items promotes a demonic notion that the original versions are not worthy for fat loss. But as with any food, they are.⁣ ⁣ Weight watchers is perhaps a fitting title. Because they collect vast sums of money whilst ‘watching’ an individual’s weight (by virtue of scale measurements and complicated algebra). But in terms of empowering an individual with the basic educational tools to change their lives, they fall short. ⁣ ⁣ And these versions of adored snacks are an attempt to capitalise on uneducated people trying to make a supportive food choice. Yet the additional expense delivers no new benefits. ⁣ ⁣ Thus, for similar caloric value and half the price, consumers are better off enjoying the original, genuine, agenda free snack which doesn’t molest their wallet for no fair minded reason. 🙂⁣ -⁣ -⁣ #fatlosstips #weightwatchers #calories #caloriedeficit #biscuits #healthysnack #diettips #snacks #caloriecounting #cookies #dietplan #cookielove #lowcaloriesnack #healthysnacking #chocolatechipcookies #biscuit

    A post shared by Graeme Tomlinson (@thefitnesschef_) on

    These bite-sized treats might be delicious – but they’re also only nine calories less than McVities. They’re also 31p more expensive. Whilst McVities charge £0.29p per 50g, Weight Watchers price theirs at £0.57p per 50g. 

    Special K Red Berries

    View this post on Instagram

    When the Special K ‘drop a jeans size in 2 weeks’ diet was at its peak in the late 90s, subscribers to it would have looked upon coco pops with the same righteous snobbery that the Duke of Maylebury inflicted on Del Boy and Rodney in that infamous only fools and horses episode.⁣ ⁣ Instead of understanding the many reasons which caused their weight problem, people were literally consuming Special K for breakfasts, lunches and snacks because they thought Special K would solve their problems. It was an easy solution. ⁣ ⁣ What was actually happening of course, was the consumption of bowls of cereal instead of meals – thus an aggressive, unsustainable calorie deficit. “Eat Special K” was the message, instead of “let’s look at the root of your problem.” “Let’s look at the host of variables which, over time, have caused you to become overweight.” ⁣ ⁣ The assumption is that in 100% of cases, Special K ultimately did not solve their underlying problem. Because those who did lose weight on this extreme diet did so because they simply ate fewer calories over time, not because of Special K. ⁣ ⁣ The thing is, during this time people would have literally been just as well off consuming equivalent bowls of coco pops instead of Special K – the very cereal that has been demonized as ‘unhealthy’, sugar laden and which inflicts all sorts of dietary evil on on it’s host. But it is in actual fact virtually identical to Special K Red Berries in baseline nutritional values such as calories and sugar. ⁣ ⁣ Whilst the Special K diet has nearly been erased from the catalogue of hopeless ‘fat loss fixes’, it’s ideals remain. It has been replaced by concepts which offer similar short term highs without addressing the root of the problem. Meanwhile, the world gets fatter and desperation to change becomes greater. But until we let go of our appetite for ‘the miracle’, we won’t make any meaningful progress in reversing our problems. 🤜🤛⁣ -⁣ -⁣ #thefitnesschef #specialk #cocopops #fatlossdiet #healthybreakfast #fatlosstips #nutritioncoach #sugar #caloriedeficit #caloriecounting #breakfast #flexibleseating #diet #fatloss #cereal #mealprep #losebellyfat #losefat

    A post shared by Graeme Tomlinson (@thefitnesschef_) on

    Comparing Special K Red Berries 50g serving with 200g of semi-skimmed milk against Coco Pops, it emerged that the supposedly healthier Special K has the exact same amount of sugar. It is also only 3 calories lower than the chocolate cereal brand. 

    Cadbury’s 30% less sugar Dairy Milk

    View this post on Instagram

    The intentions of Cadbury’s ‘response to the obesity crisis’ are commendable to an extent. But in this case, it’s not the thought that counts. ⁣ ⁣ The 30% less sugar bar does contain 15 fewer calories per 50g. It is also presented in 35g and 85g bars which simply result in consumption of less food than the original 45g, 100g and 200g bars. It contains nine times the amount of fibre, meaning it is more likely to satiate an individual than the original bar. ⁣ ⁣ But it’s branding directly points the finger at sugar being a cause of obesity. And that having 30% less of it is ‘working to tackle the obesity problem’. Except sugar is not a cause of obesity. A calorie surplus over time is.⁣ ⁣ Are we legitimately trying to source our fibre intake from chocolate? Is this going to provide a meaningful difference to an individual who consumes too many calories? Surely it is a better idea to address fibre intake across overall dietary intake – and recognize energy balance.⁣ ⁣ Perhaps a more impactful idea would have been to make a version significantly lower in caloric worth. With a significant increase in protein. Even a simple reduction in volume of the original such as a 25-30g serving. These changes would directly nurture calorie reduction without pinning hopes on secondary variables such as satiety or belief that sugar is the problem.⁣ ⁣ Cadbury’s (and other confectionary companies) are not to blame for the obesity crisis. Unfortunately their attempts at showing they do care don’t actively help the problem. Because a marketing slogan of ‘30% less sugar’ becomes meaningless unless it coincides with a significant reduction in caloric worth. And it does not. ⁣ ⁣ To conclude: the reduced sugar bar could result in improved behavioral traits, leading to overall calorie reduction. But then again, it may not. The salient point here is that sugar is once again the scapegoat, whilst the fundamental necessity of energy balance is ignored. ⁣ ⁣ No individual food is to blame for obesity. It’s high time we all accept that. 🍫⁣

    A post shared by Graeme Tomlinson (@thefitnesschef_) on

    This low-sugar chocolate bar only has 15 calories less than regular Dairy Milk. However, Tomlinson has admitted that it contains more fibre, which is more likely to fill us up faster and satisfy our desire for more food.

    Health coach Tomlinson has gained almost 800,000 followers by highlighting these hidden calories in popular diet products compared to regular versions.

    He has reportedly said that when it comes to Weight Watchers “empowering an individual with the basic educational tools to change their lives, they fall short. ⁣”

    Whilst he hoped to debunk diet food myths, he has admitted on Instagram that the healthier versions can sometimes contain more nutrients and less fat.

    He advises those who are looking to lose weight to focus more on their portion sizes rather than calorie-counting.  

    Amongst his diet comparison posts, Tomlinson also shared some highlighting that higher calories don’t always mean a product is worse for you.

    View this post on Instagram

    We really do rip people off in the fitness industry, don’t we. We take the simplest and most universally approved metric of consumable energy and we still manage to f*ck it up for everyone. – – A calorie is a unit used to measure the energy value of food. For anyone looking to alter body shape, understanding the relevance of calories and energy balance is the first and most basic step to changing their composition. So, claiming that one calorie is different from the next naturally confuses people. It is also irresponsible. Because anyone who has ever lost or gained fat in the history of human civilisation has done so from a calorie deficit/surplus. – – What these fact fabricating, pseudoscience maniacs mean of course; is that foods of the same calorie amount which have different nutritional make ups, automatically compromise the ‘value’ of the calories. Yes, inclusion of protein, micronutrients and fibre improves the outlook on one’s overall health. But when it comes to ‘what happens to the calories consumed’, an avocado will directly wind up the same way as a tube of smarties. The avocado may be more beneficial to overall health and satiate you for longer, but that’s nothing to do the the proportional calorie value of both foods and it’s direct effect on body composition. – – Whilst it’s a good idea to feel satiated and consume nutrients, the notion that ‘calories are not equal’ is based on pure subjectivity and assumption. Calories in an avocado don’t get refunded because they contain nutrients as much as calories in smarties don’t make you fat. In simple terms of energy balance, it doesn’t matter where the 175 calories derive from. – – No matter what the fitness industry does to confuse you, focus on what food factually represents for your goal. Whilst some foods offer more value in nutrients and possible satiety, remember that no matter what the food/drink is; a calorie is a calorie as much as breathing is being alive. 🤜🤛 – – #thefitnesschef #calories #caloriecounting #fatloss #nutritioncoach #fatlosstips #fatlosscoach #avocado #flexibledieting #fatlosshelp #diet #dieting #eatsmart #chocolate #losefat #flexiblediet #getlean #nutritionist #nutrients

    A post shared by Graeme Tomlinson (@thefitnesschef_) on

    He posted showing the identical calories of an avocado vs a tube of Smarties. Here, Tomlinson made it clear that choosing healthier foods is not always about the calorie count. Instead, the nutritional value is always key.

    The next time you do your weekly shop, remember to check the labels carefully.