Crackers are less fattening than bread

The whole truth about the total bread

It is an almost innate reflex, when you want to lose some weight and we embarked on a diet, you remove the bread. Many people believe in effect (wrongly) that the bread is perceived as a mere accompaniment of the meal is not necessary. But as we often cannot do without it, replace it with crackers.

Firstly, we must understand that no food is more fattening than another. Each food provides calories per gram and absorbed by the family to which it belongs, a number of carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, etc.. Not to grow, you have to eat everything in reasonable quantities and without absorbing more calories than you expend.

Everything is a question of quantity and variety. A small piece of bread during the meal is less fat than a packet of biscuits nibbled watching TV. Two Rusk in the morning with a knob of butter fat are less than one basketful of bread "to send" at the restaurant pending the entry...

Nowadays, almost everyone agrees that the bread is a healthy and necessary food. This is not the composition of the bread which is the origin of this "belief". If one seeks the side of calories either. Quite the contrary. Rusk is almost one and half times more calories than bread (380 cal per 100 grams of cracker against Cal only 280 to 100 grams).

But why eat crackers when you're on a diet? I ask you ... probably because they eat less. Not glamorous Rusk? Not madly to get the equivalent weight of half a baguette should be no less than twelve and a half biscuits. Suffice to say that even the big cravings subsided before having absorbed as much.