2 replies to this topic

[jwilcox25]

Hi all,

I've been on a quest healthy yet convenient snack food for when I'm on the go. I generally follow a low-glycemic index / sort-of-paleo diet. Was wondering if anyone has a scientific opinion on the ingredients in these 2 bars (nutritional contents in links):

http://patient.desig...-Bar-Case-of-18

INGREDIENTS: Coating (maltitol, cocoa butter, milk fat, sodium caseinate [milk], lecithin [soy] [an emulsier], natural avor, vanillin,
tocopherols), protein blend (whey protein isolate, whey protein concentrate, rice protein concentrate, whey crisps [whey protein
concentrate, rice our]), almond butter, glycerine, maltitol syrup, isomalto-oligosaccharides (prebiotic ber), digestion resistant ber
(Fibersol®-2), coconut oil, MEG-3® Omega-3 powder (rened sh oil [anchovy, sardine], sh gelatin [tilapia]), soy lecithin, natural
avor, sea salt, L-glutamine.

http://www.extendbar...innamon-15-pack

INGREDIENTS: Soy Protein Isolate, Uncooked Cornstarch, Maltitol Syrup, Vegetable Glycerin, Inulin (fiber), Milk Protein Isolate, Resistant Maltodextrin (fiber), Evaporated Apples, Cocoa Butter, Sunflower Oil with Tocopherols, Rice Starch, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Soy Lecithin, Citric Acid, Salt, Malic Acid, Sucralose (Splenda®), Cinnamon, Caramel Color.

I like the PaleoBar for using almond butter / coconut oil (vs. sunflower oil in ExtendBar). The ExtendBar on the other hand is clinically proven for preventing hypoglycemia (it is marketed for diabetics). According to the website, the secret is uncooked cornstarch.

[niner]

I think you've covered the basics, looking at the type of oils and considering the sugar issue. I try to avoid industrial omega-6 seed oils like sunflower oil, so the paleo bar wins on that front. Neither bar has sugar or HFCS. The paleo bar gets its sweetness from maltitol, a sugar alcohol. Those are fine in small quantities; in larger amounts they might cause GI issues. The extend bar uses sucralose, which is ok with me, but some people avoid it on general principles. Since it's marketed as a "medicinal food", it probably costs a lot, and the effect that it has in non-diabetics is a question. The extend bar looks better on the fiber front. I would want to look at the standardized nutrition labels as part of the comparison, and also know what they cost and how big they are.

[jwilcox25]

Thanks niner! Found some more info about maltitol here: http://www.mendosa.com/netcarbs.htm. Glycemic index ~50. ExtendBar has some too, but relies more on uncooked cornstarch, which I'm inferring from the positive studies is superior for blood sugar purposes, but I don't really know. From the nutritional facts, I'm inferring the ExtendBar has 2g of omega 6 per bar, so trying to weigh pros vs. cons. Cost is not a big concern, since they are both cheap vs real food alternatives when outdors (ExtendBar is actually cheaper, being a more established brand / possibly cheaper ingredients).

You mentioned that the effect on non-diabetics is a question. Why might the effect be different? (I don't have a strong science background)

Study on diabetic bars:
http://connection.eb...ack-bars-review

ExtendBar:


PaleoBar:

Product Contains: Calories 180, Calories from Fat 70, Total Fat 8g, Saturated Fat 4 g, Trans Fat 0 g, Cholesterol 10 mg, Sodium 75 mg, Total Carb. 22 g, Fiber 6 g, Sugars 1 g, Sugar Alcohol 10 g, Protein 9 g, Vitamin A 0%, Vitamin C 15%, Calcium 6%, Iron 0%.