On July 13, a new product appeared on grocery stores shelves around the country: Oreo Thins.
Nabisco is famous for changing up milk’s favorite cookie. Whether it’s watermelon-flavored cream (ew), mini Oreos, or our favorite Double Stuf varieties, the company always finds a new way to try eclectic ratios and flavors.
But this time, Nabisco actually made a thinner cookie. Why?
According to the packages, Oreo Thins are “a thin, crisp, elegant take on the original.” With less calories and apparently the same amount of filling, Nabisco is trying to market the new Oreo toward a more mature and health-conscious crowd.
So, out of disbelief and curiosity, we had to try them.
First, let me give you the nutritional info that I know you reallyyy want to hear:
Original Oreo: Serving size: 3 – 160 calories; Total Fat 7g; Saturated Fat 2g; Sugars 14g; first three ingredients: unbleached enriched flour, sugar, palm and/or canola oil
Oreo Thins: Serving size: 4 – 140 calories; Total Fat 6g; Saturated Fat 2g; Sugars 12g; first three ingredients: sugar, unbleached enriched flour, palm oil
So basically the claim that there are less calories in Oreo Thins is true. One Original Oreo has 53.33 calories, whereas an Oreo Thin has 35 calories. The other two are about the same, except the original Mint Oreo has 140 calories for 2 cookies, and 140 calories for 4 Mint Oreo Thins.
But let’s be real: we don’t eat Oreos because they’re healthy, we eat them because they’re delicious. And when Nabisco tells us that they’re shrinking our favorite cookie, we panic.
But don’t worry, we tasted and compared them so you don’t have to. Here’s what we thought:
Original Oreo vs. Oreo Thin
“The Thins are so hard to take apart compared to the originals.”
“The Thins are like eating half an Oreo, almost kind of nicer that way.”
“Not the usual struggle biting into an Oreo Thin. I thought I’d be mad about it, but I’m not. It’s not bad.”
“A lot stronger than I thought they would be when I tried to open it.”
“They’re SO thin, but I like it better than the original.”
Golden Oreo vs. Golden Oreo Thin
“It’s crispy! It tastes like a little cake.”
“The ratio of cookie to cream is good for the Golden Thins.”
“The golden ones taste exactly the same, the Thins are just thinner.”
“I like it – it’s like one half of another Oreo.”
“I like the thicker ones better.”
Mint Oreo vs. Mint Oreo Thin
“These taste like weird Thin Mints.”
“The mint is so fake – it’s too sweet. But I like that it has less icing.”
“Tastes more like a Thin Mint and there’s an even bite of cookie and cream.”
“Who needs Thin Mints when you can have a Mint Thins? Although the aftertaste kinda sucks…”
“It’s less minty than the Mint Oreo and there’s more cookie than filling, which isn’t bad.”
Yes, that’s a word. Well, maybe it’s not, but we’re using it.
“I like the original dunked better. The cookie holds on to more milk.”
“Better to dunk the thick ones, for sure.”
“Loses its flavor when Thins are dunked. Not very dunkable.”
“Not recommended dunking these – only dunk the Double Stuf.”
“The key to the dunk test is if a lot of cookie melts in your mouth, and I feel like the Thins don’t really achieve that. I’d rather dunk a normal one for that melt.”
The original Oreos are much easier to take apart, but we feel like when we bite into them they’re more likely to fall apart than the Thins are. We love that the Thins are wafer thin because they have a better ratio of cookie to cream, making them less likely to crumble in our hands.
Obviously if you’re just into the cream, your best bet is to go with the original Oreos or Double Stuf. Although the Thins claim to have the same amount of cream, we just don’t see it.
Bold final conclusion: we actually like the Oreo Thins better than the original. We could probably (read: definitely) eat an entire package in one sitting. Don’t believe us? Go try ’em. #WorthIt