Tag Archives: double stuf

Are They Really Doubly Stuffed? [#MCTM]

I’m preaching the good word of Oreos to the people of Minnesota today (9:25 in Harborside 203, if you’re in Duluth this morning).

oreos - 01

Here is a link to the definitive collection of Oreo-related posts in the blogosphere. If you have others, send them my way and I’ll add them to the collection.

Here is my handout.

And here are the slides (download as .zip):

A couple of evaluations. A few called for more close ties to a classroom task. I get that, and I think it is reasonable for teachers to use this context and adapt for their own instruction (see reference above to my proposed licensure exam).



The comprehensive Oreo database

Here, representing many hours of data collection, including several notebook-equipped excursions to Cub Foods, I present to you the Comprehensive Oreo Database.

I would like to replace the present system initial licensure exams in secondary mathematics teaching with a single task: Design a mathematics lesson around some or all of this information, including answer key for all tasks.

Until this happens (at which point the information below will be embargoed for test-security purposes), I share it with you.

Oreo type Serving size (in cookies) Calories per serving Fat grams per serving Mass per serving Notes
Regular 3 160 7 34
Berry burst ice cream 2 150 7 30
Candy corn 2 150 7 29
Chocolate 2 150 7 30
Cookie dough 2 140 6 29 Sighted Feb. 3, 2014
Double chocolate fudge creme 3 180 9 36 One choc. wafer & one serving choc. stuf, coated in fudge
Double Stuf 2 140 7 29
Double Stuf Heads or Tails 2 140 7 29
Football 2 120 5 26 These are shaped like a football
Golden 3 160 7 34
Fudge creme 3 180 9 35 One choc. wafer & one serving van. stuf, coated in fudge
Golden chocolate 3 170 7 34
Golden Double Stuf 2 150 7 30
Halloween 2 140 7 29
Marshmallow Crispy 2 140 6 29 Spotted Feb. 3, 2014
Mega Stuf 2 180 9 36
Reduced-fat 3 150 4.5 34
Spring 2 150 7 29
Triple-double 1 100 4.5 21
Triple-double Neapolitan 1 100 4.5 21

Send your revisions, and additional Oreo sightings, my way via the comments or Twitter.

My Oreo manifesto

Math is powerful.

No one has demonstrated this more frequently and more convincingly than Al Sicherman of the StarTribune. In his Tidbits column, Sicherman keeps tabs on prices and variations of processed foods. A favorite category for him recently has been Oreos. Writing recently on the topic of the new Peppermint Creme Oreos (which he describes as toothpastey), Sicherman says:

All of that is not to say that there is no significant difference between Cool Mint Creme Oreos and Peppermint Creme Oreos: They are the same price on the shelf, but the package of Cool mint Oreos is 15.25 ounces (30 cookies), and that of Peppermint Creme Oreos is 10.5 ounces (20 cookies). So Peppermint Creme Oreos cost 45 percent more per ounce — or 50 percent more per cookie.

Whoomp! There it is! Math, baby!

Gotta love this guy. (But seriously, would it kill the Strib to dispatch a photographer with a camera that has more than 1 megapixel?)

Inspired by his example, I’m prepared to turn up the heat on Nabisco’s Oreo division. Are you ready?

Double Stuf isn’t double stuf.

Let me say that again…DOUBLE STUF IS NOT DOUBLE STUF!

How do I know? Math.

How should we do this? Reductio ad absurdum? Let’s assume it is double stuf. Then, according to Nabisco’s own data (found on the Nutrition Facts), one serving of Oreos is 3 cookies and 160 calories. Double Stuf is 2 cookies and 140 calories.

Let me translate that for you. One serving of regular Oreos has 6 wafers, 3 stufs and 160 calories. Meanwhile one serving of Double Stuf Oreos has 4 wafers, 4 stufs and 140 calories.

That’s hard to compare. So let’s consider two servings of regular Oreos (6 cookies, 12 wafers, 6 stufs, 320 calories) and three servings of Double Stuf (6 cookies, 12 wafers, 12 stufs and 420 calories).

Those Double Stuf Oreos account for 6 additional stufs and 100 additional calories (same number of wafers, remember). We conclude that each stuf is approx. 17 calories. And from this we can conclude that each wafer has approx. 19 calories.

What, you prefer the formal mathematical solution? Fair enough:

Let w be the number calories in a wafer and f be the number of calories in a unit of stuf. Then Nabisco’s calorie claims yield this system of equations:

\begin{cases} 6w+3f=160 \\ 4w+4f=140 \end{cases}

We can rewrite this equivalently as:

\begin{cases} 12w+6f=320 \\ 12w+12f=420 \end{cases}

And then solving by combination, we get:

6f=100 or f=16 \frac{2}{3}

You’re comfortable with that. No problem, right?

Tune in tomorrow for the dénouement.