InkAngel
Member
Hi
Was just wondering what people's thoughts were on this.
I thought I was being healthy (ish) by having a packet of snack a jacks yesterday instead of 'proper' crisps, but I got a bit of a shock on comparing the two nutritional values section.
I synned the snack a jacks at 4.5 syns at 91 cals for a 22g packet, but noticed the walkers crisps were only 130 cals for 25g packet (so 6.5 syns) but with significantly lower sugar content. I appreciate the fat content is much higher on the Walkers.
While I don't detest snack a jacks, I definitely prefer Walkers, and for the sake of 2 syns would probably go for them instead.
What's your thoughts?
Was just wondering what people's thoughts were on this.
I thought I was being healthy (ish) by having a packet of snack a jacks yesterday instead of 'proper' crisps, but I got a bit of a shock on comparing the two nutritional values section.
I synned the snack a jacks at 4.5 syns at 91 cals for a 22g packet, but noticed the walkers crisps were only 130 cals for 25g packet (so 6.5 syns) but with significantly lower sugar content. I appreciate the fat content is much higher on the Walkers.
While I don't detest snack a jacks, I definitely prefer Walkers, and for the sake of 2 syns would probably go for them instead.
What's your thoughts?
