"A serving of Unreal™ candy contains an average of 45 percent less sugar, 13 percent less fat, 23 percent fewer calories, 149 percent more protein and 250 percent more fiber. Impressively, all products are low GI (Glycemic Index)."
I don't eat sugar at all, but for others, I think the question still is, "what about carbs?" Carbs are what jack up our blood sugar, not fat or calories. As for me, "unreal" about says it; I'm not into "substitute" foods. When I stopped eating sugar, everyone offered me their favorite sugar-free foods and none of them tasted good enough to bother (and gave me cravings for "the real thing"). YMMV.
Oh, I guessed that was how they were using the word, Shawnmarie; I was just using the opportunity to air a pet peeve! And I found the original post a bit bemusing since it didn't mention carbs.
This is crap. The main difference between this candy, and real candy, is that it is in a smaller bag, so all the numbers are smaller. Here's a comparison I did of "Unreal" M&Ms, against Real M&Ms, using the same serving size of 42 grams:
Unreal Peanut MM vs Real M&M (using equal 42g serving):
Unreal M&M Real M&M cal 200 212 fat cal 100 101 fat 11 11 sat fat 5 4 carb 20 25 protein 6 4
Bill Gates is no hero of mine; and he certainly doesn't know anything about nutrition. He does know about hyping products to make lots of money - and he admits that he is pushing this candy in his blog because he has invested in the Unreal candy company.
If you're going to eat candy (I'm not recommending it), it seems to me you may as well eat real candy (at less than 1/8 the cost!!!), instead of "Unreal" candy.