Reply
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Every Tool's Nemesis MurphMan's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2001
    Location: Flaming Tools In The Steroid Section
    Posts: 940
    Rep Power: 32353
    MurphMan has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) MurphMan has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) MurphMan has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) MurphMan has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) MurphMan has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) MurphMan has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) MurphMan has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) MurphMan has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) MurphMan has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) MurphMan has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) MurphMan has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    MurphMan is offline

    Too Many Bars = Bad

    The subject of this thread is the ingredient in the chocolate coating on most protein supp bars: Partially Hydrogenated Palm Kernel Oil.

    I understand this stuff really clogs your arteries. Granted, we all hear to stay away from this or that, but consider for a moment how many bars do you eat per week? Or per day for that matter. I would agree with all who say that a little indulgence here or there in moderation of most anything won't kill you, but it's the things we do on a daily basis we really need to take a look at.

    I hear a lot of people talking about how they eat bars alot when they can't eat how they want or to stay away from junk food. I suggest that these bars, eaten on a daily basis, is a cause for concern. Once I realized they (most of them) contain Partially Hydrogenated Palm Kernel Oil I stopped eating them. I stick with my shakes now.

    Anyway, just want to hear what people have to say about this. Thanks to all who reply!
    Reply With Quote

  2. #2
    Registered User Manteca's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Posts: 2,066
    Rep Power: 26096
    Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Manteca is offline
    yet another reason why protein bars suck
    Reply With Quote

  3. #3
    Registered User Dante B.'s Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2002
    Location: Phoenix, AZ.
    Posts: 3,309
    Rep Power: 2405
    Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000)
    Dante B. is offline
    The average protein bar is nothing more than a twix bar with protein and a smidget of vitamins/minerals. As for the so called low carb bars, the majority of them use glycerin and/or polydextrose. They do not impact the blood sugar as much as sugar, but they can still be classified as carbs nontheless. Most, bars as well contain trans-fatty acids via partially of fully hydrogented oils. As for the occation, bars are not bad, but they are generally nothing more than glorified candy bars.

    As a side note, I think that Atkins spits against his own theory that carbs are the culprit, and therefore, should be kept low. If he was consistant in his theory, he would not use glycerin of polydextrose, since they can be classified as carbs, albeit with minor impact on blood sugar. So, as Atkins proves, but dares not say, it is not the carbs that matter per say, it is the TYPE and quantity that really matters.
    Reply With Quote

  4. #4
    Registered User Manteca's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Posts: 2,066
    Rep Power: 26096
    Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Manteca has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Manteca is offline
    I wouldn't so much call glcerin a carb, I relate it more with fats since it is a breakdown product of tri glycerides, is it processed like ethanol since it is an alcohol?
    Reply With Quote

  5. #5
    Registered User Dante B.'s Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2002
    Location: Phoenix, AZ.
    Posts: 3,309
    Rep Power: 2405
    Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000)
    Dante B. is offline
    Originally posted by Manteca
    I wouldn't so much call glcerin a carb, I relate it more with fats since it is a breakdown product of tri glycerides, is it processed like ethanol since it is an alcohol?
    I agree, which is why the majority of companies excluded it from their carb content,although glycerin does seem to have a small impact on blood sugar, which is why there was uncertainty as to its clasification. I am not for certain with regards to your last question ( process manner), so hopefully someone else may help us with this.
    Reply With Quote

  6. #6
    Registered User Timbo's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2002
    Location: Austin, TX
    Age: 43
    Posts: 1,684
    Rep Power: 4571
    Timbo is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Timbo is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Timbo is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Timbo is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Timbo is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Timbo is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Timbo is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Timbo is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Timbo is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Timbo is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Timbo is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    Timbo is offline
    Check out this link on glycerol by my man Dr. John Berardi:

    http://www.testosterone.net/articles/180app.html

    As far as the bars are concerned, I agree that most of them (well, pretty much all of them) are trash. I think you can do a lot better in terms of portable nutrition, but a bar here or there probably won't hurt.
    Unstoppable Confidence
    Reply With Quote

  7. #7
    Registered User British IronWrk's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2002
    Posts: 276
    Rep Power: 271
    British IronWrk has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0)
    British IronWrk is offline
    I used to use Pro42 bars. At 42 grams of carbs per bar I think they are a good source of protein.

    Why glorified candy bars?
    Reply With Quote

  8. #8
    Registered User Dante B.'s Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2002
    Location: Phoenix, AZ.
    Posts: 3,309
    Rep Power: 2405
    Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000) Dante B. is just really nice. (+1000)
    Dante B. is offline
    Originally posted by British IronWrk
    I used to use Pro42 bars. At 42 grams of carbs per bar I think they are a good source of protein.

    Why glorified candy bars?
    Because of the fact that either they use too much sugar, or for the ones that don't, they use glycerin, but glycerin is not bad, like sugar. So excluding the problem with sugar, there is also the problem with fat. Most bars use partially/fully hydrogenated oils, which, unlike their natural counterparts, are thought to exert bad effects upon the body (pro-oxidant damage, clogged arteries). That may be an unfound exaggeration, perhaps, but I have never seen a study which said that trans-fats (proccesed) where with health properties, like their natural counterparts.

    So either a bar has too much sugar, or too much bad fat. The Atkins bar is an exception, as it does have high fat levels, but not of the trans-fat variety. It with the Atkins bar, it is not helpful when you are looking for a good,clean , source of carbs. So, with most bars, there is not very much thought that goes behind it.
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts