Finding healthier alternatives - chips

Hello :)

Today I bring to you a new blog post, again a bit like a review and also on a health related topic. As most of you know, one of our promisses for the month was to try to be healthier and to also try new foods, so we attempted to put these two things together and went on the hunt to find healthier alternatives to regular potato chips. We found a few that we wanted to try out and now I'm going to bring to you the results.

We bought all of these from Marks & Spencer and in comparison to regular chips, they were all about twice as expensive.

In no particular order, the first one is Maple Bacon Hand Cooked Crisps (that's the Brittish word for chips, for those unfamiliar) They contained 524 kcal per 100 g, which is about the same as regular chips, but they contained a bit less salt (1,20 g). The difference isn't major, but one of the most important things is that they contain quite significally less saturated fats than regular chips, at least (3,5 g). Macronutrient wise it was 30,9 g fat, 53,1 g carbohydrates, 6,3 g protein. That's accordingly 53/41/6 % of Energy. (Recommended is 25-35/50-60/10-20) Taste wise they were quite nice, me and Kai had quite different opinions on the chips we tried this time around so we can't give a consensual rating to it, but I enjoyed them and probably would buy again.

Next up, Honey Barbecue Wholegrain Snacks. These ones were 504 kcal per 100 g, it had significally less salt (0,93 g) and also less saturated fats (2,2 g ). Macronutrient wise 26,1 g fats, 58 g carbohydrates, 7 g protein. Accordingly 47/46/6 % of Energy, which is slightly better. These ones were the least favourite for both of us, obviously they also weren't potato based, but they could be used as an alternative, I probably wouldn't buy them for their full price, but maybe I'd give them another try if they were on sale. They were ok.

The third ones were probably the least chip like, they were called Cheese Puffs. They had 445 kcal per 100 g, but in comparison to the previous two, they contained a lot more salt (2,35 g) and saturated fats (9,6 g), mainly because they contained cheese, which is rather high in both. Macronutrient wise, it's 15,3 g fats, 58,7 g carbohydrates, 17 g protein. That's accordingly 31/53/16 % of Energy, so when viewd from the macronutrient point of view, then this one is almost suitable, for example for those who follow a If It Fits My Macros kind of lifestyle, but it does have high salt and saturated fat content. These Cheese Puffs are also gluten free. Taste wise they were pretty good, Kai liked them a lot, not my favourites personally, tasted pretty much like cheese crackers and I'm not the biggest cheese fan, but I still liked them.

Next up Sweet & Smoky BBQ crisps/chips. These ones were marketed as low-fat chips. They had 472 kcal per 100 g, with 1,2 g of salt and 1,7 g of saturated fats, which is definitely better than regular chips. The macros were 21,1 g of fats, 60,5 g of carbohydrates and 7,8 g of protein, that's accordingly 41/52/7 % of Energy. They were on of my favourites, but Kai on the other hand didn't like them much at all. I would definitely buy them again, there were also other flavours to choose from, so if that one in particular isn't quite your cup of tea, then I'm sure you could find something.

Last, but not least, Onion Rings, these ones had 499 kcal per 100 g, of which 27 g was fat, 58,7 g carbohydrates and 3,7 g protein. They had a lot more salt in them 3,93 g and 2,2 g of saturated fats. Macronutirent percentage was 49/47/4 % of Energy. Taste wise they were rather good, but after eating a few of them they were a bit too salty for me, it didn't bother Kai though, otherwise I think they were fine. These ones were also Kai's favourite ones.

So alltogether healthier chips do exsist, but they're still not healthy per se. They're good as occasional snacks though and we recommend you just find one that you feel suits you the best.

Kaiela :)