THE STATE OF PROTEIN BARS TODAY. GOOD OR BAD?
Nutritional/Protein Bars. Are they really good for you? What are you
really getting? In this article, we will focus on the multitude of
nutritional supplement bars out there, specifically we will look at the
recent trend of high protein, low carbohydrate bars being launched by many
of the major companies in the supplement world. Here, we will discuss one of
the most popular ways in which people are attempting to get their protein,
from bars.
Let me be blunt, bars are always a nutritional compromise. Why? It is nearly
impossible (and no one has really done it yet so maybe it is impossible) to
create a supplement bar that is high in good quality protein sources while
also containing few carbohydrates while being low fat. Certainly consumers
should not equate a nutrition supplement bar to a meal replacement powder. A
good MRP will be far better nutritionally than supplement bar. For example,
take a look at a 3 Musketeers. It has approximately 8g of fat. Think that is
a lot? It is a candy bar right? Well many of the supplement bars out there
that are high in protein and low in carbohydrates also contain nearly, if
not as much, fat as some candy bars. Granted most candy bars have more carbs,
simple sugars, and less protein but are nutrition bars really low in carbs.
How do manufacturers get their bars to be low in carbs?
When attempting to make a high protein bar it is necessary to incorporate
something that will keep the bars soft and pliable (read chewable) so they
do not become a protein brick necesitating a trip to the local dentist.
Glycerine is something companies seem to be using quite a bit. Glycerine and
glycerol are one in the same and represent the chemical backbone to which
one, two, or three fatty acid side chains are attached to create what we
commonly know as fat. Glycerine is generally used to make a bar stay soft,
in the face of ever increasing amounts of protein, by trapping water within
the bar. The government (FDA) clearly states in the Code of Federal
Regulations that glycerine is to be listed as a carbohydrate by
"difference". The government does this in order to classify glycerine under
one of the three macronutrient categories, fat, carb, or protein.
Glycerine is not fat since it has no fatty acids. Glycerine is not a protein
since it has no amine group (nitrogen containing portion). The only category
left is carbohydrates. Look at the label of your favorite high protein low
carb bar. Most of them will not be listing glycerine as a carbohydrate. If a
company does not list it as a macronutrient then how can a consumer keep
track of how much glycerine they are actually getting. Well first we must
ask about the fate of glycerine metabolically. Hopefully they are counting
the 4.32 calories/g within the total calories stated on the label.
Ok biochemistry fans, this part is for you. As for the rest of you, please
just grin and bear it as this will provide you with the basics of glycerine
metabolism. Don't worry it will be over soon. Glycerine can normally come
from food sources (via tri-acyl-glycerol a.k.a. fat, phosphosglycerides,
glyceryl esters, and other miscilaneous sources), supplements (bars,
beverages, or plain straight glycerine) and of course endogenously from the
fat liberated from your own personal storage (lucky you). The fate of
glycerine once it enters the body is highly variable depending mostly on
energy storage status at the time of consumption. Energy storage status is
basically how well fed your body is at any given point and time. This does
not mean that obese people are always in a high-energy balance. What this
does mean is that if you have been eating regularly, or overstuffed your
face at Thanksgiving, you are probably in balanced or positive energy
balance. The metabolic destinations are numerous and dependent upon this
whole energy balance business.
Some journal articles and textbooks discuss glycerol as a direct precursor
for both gluconeogenesis (production of glucose by your body (blood sugar))
and glycolysis (anaerobic portion of energy production within the body). It
is common practice for many bar manufacturers to state that "Glycerine is
not a carbohydrate but yields 4.32 calories/g", somewhere on their label.
Most of you are aware that carbohydrates yield about 4 calories/g, so if
glycerine does yield 4.32 calories/g there is only a small difference in
calories between regular carbohydrates and glycerine. So glycerine must be a
carbohydrate right, well sometimes. Recent research has shown that glycerine
does not significantly elevate blood insulin levels and only minimally
elevates blood sugar levels. Most interesting is that some of this research
was done following a 36 hour fast, and if glycerine really was gluconeogenic
you would think that blood glucose levels would have increased when
glycerine was administered after the fast. Fasting for 36 hours would lower
the bodies glycogen stores (as well as make you pretty cranky and hungry),
therefore since glycerine did not affect blood glucose or insulin levels it
is difficult to conclude that glycerine is a carbohydrate.
The research that is available is not conclusive with regard to the
gluconeogenic properties of glycerine. By definition glycerine is a
trihydric alcohol and is the building block of all plant oils and nearly all
animal fats. Glycerine can be incorporated into fat production by providing
the backbone for fatty acids to attach onto and create what we know as fat.
Another possible destination within the body is that glycerine can become
part of phospoglycerides (cell membrane compounds). Orally administered
glycerine has also been found in the urine meaning that some of it is
actually excreted without being utilized. Ok, so glycerine can be a carb on
occasion, a fat precursor on occasion, a phosphoglyceride precursor on
occasion, and it can simply pass through the body unused. Wow, that is a lot
of possibilities for one compound. Glycerine does have a few other
interesting properties worth noting.
When administered orally, glycerine has a hydrating/dehydrating effect. This
is based on the fact that glycerine has an ability to hold onto water.
Glycerine's water binding ability helps keep bars soft and also may be of
benefit to endurance athletes and bodybuilders alike. Endurance athletes can
utilize glycerine in conjunction with extra water prior to an event in order
to support hydration and therefore enhance performance. The recommended
dosage for accomplishing superhydration ranges and each individual should
experiment sufficiently prior to use during competition. For reference start
with approximately 1-gram glycerine per kilogram body weight along with an
additional 1.5L - 2.0L of water, consumed 1 - 4 hours prior to the event.
Interestingly bodybuilders might consider taking glycerine prior to their
stage appearance in lower dosages without consuming the additional water to
"dry out". Leaving the water out of the equation may cause a shift of
existing body water temporarily out of the tissues and into the blood. While
this may work to obtain the shrink wrapped look you should definitely test
it out prior to the day of the show to see how you react. Glycerine
supplementation will not help those who have failed to diet properly and are
covered by a small layer of blubber. Proper precaution should be taken if
you are going to utilize glycerine. Notify someone you know and trust that
is going to attend the show so they can help you if you begin to cramp up.
Enough digression back to the subject.
Now that you have a thorough understanding of the complex utilization, or
lack there of, as well as some of the unique useful ergogenic effects of
glycerine, what does all of this mean for the bar eater. Well as stated bars
are a compromise, and in the process of that give and take companies must
use things like glycerine to make their product palatable. The government
has yet to come after any of the companies not labeling glycerine as a
carbohydrate and may never. Unfortunately the consumer is left not knowing
how much glycerine they may be getting in their favorite bar. Hey, call them
up and ask if it you want to know and it is not on the label. Any reputable
company will gladly provide the info.
Is the consuming of glycerine a negative thing? No, not really, however for
those of you attempting to monitor your daily nutrient intake, you should be
aware of how glycerol can affect your individual body chemistry and most
importantly your goals. Consuming a bar once in a while when you are in a
hurry is certainly preferential to say a Big Mac, but bars are by no means
equivalent to a good meal replacement powder or a well balanced meal of (oh
my!) real food. There are other things to watch out for in your nutrition
bars. For instance, the type of sweetener and fat used in the bar. Often the
protein sources are far inferior to what you would get in a meal replacement
powder.
PART TWO: THE COMPROMISE ON SWEETENER, PROTEIN, AND FAT.
Ok, now that you know your supplement bar probably contains some form of
sugar alcohol, glycerol being the most likely of the bunch, what about the
other drawbacks I mentioned last month. Many companies are making bars that
taste almost like a candy bar these days, sure many are low in carbohydrate
as discussed last month, still others are not, and many probably contain a
compromise in the type of sweetener they are using. You might also have
noted that many of the labels for the so called supplement bars are sporting
a hefty 7 - 9 grams of wonderfully tasting fat. What about all this hype
surrounding the "high protein" content of these bars? Oh, I think you are
going to like this little ditty (this whole bar issue really peeves me
sometimes)
Let's start with the sweetener of the day. Fructose. Ah the lovely little
byproduct of corn production. Look around you. It is everywhere. High
fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, corn syrup solids, corn sweetener, sucrose
(½ fructose), fruit sweetener, etc. all of which when found on a label
should scream to you, "HEY THIS IS FRUCTOSE". Fructose is sweeter tasting
than regular sucrose (table sugar) and cheaper and sweeter than glucose
(which is a better choice for a human/bodybuilder to consume). In an effort
to sweeten their bar, and make it taste good, as well as keep costs down,
companies will often use some form of fructose in their bars. What's the big
deal you say? Allow me to elaborate a bit.
Biochemistry time again folks. You see your muscles cannot use fructose, at
least directly. When you eat fructose and it enters the blood stream the
liver is where it gets sucked up. Your liver has a love affair with fructose
and like the movie "Fatal Attraction" just has to have it all to itself.
Glucose is the preferred fuel for your working muscles. Once fructose is in
the liver is does not leave and is eventually either converted to glycogen
(long chains of glucose units that acts as long term sugar storage that can
be exported from the liver to the brain and muscles on demand) or go towards
producing cholesterol and fat. Well at least one of the three options,
glycogen production, is beneficial. Think one out of three isn't bad, think
again. The body is more likely to convert the fructose to fat and VLDL
cholesterol in persons who have filled their glycogen stores by eating
regular meals that contain other carbohydrates, because once your storage of
liver glycogen is full the fructose has no place else to go. So let us say
you eat a normal meal. The meal will likely have both complex and simple
carbs and may contain some fructose.
Those complex and simple carbs might just fill up your glycogen stores (your
muscles can and will take up glucose from the blood if they need it or their
glycogen storage is low) then you are left with fructose having nowhere to
go but towards fat and cholesterol. Scared yet? Well it is not all bad,
because the liver does like fructose so much so that it is better at
replenishing liver (not muscle) glycogen than glucose, about 50% better
(mostly because fructose is pulled out of the blood into the liver so easily
while glucose can pass on by and be utilized by the muscles and other
tissues). Therefore, fructose would be ok for someone who is an
ultraendurance athlete with very low glycogen stores that wants to replenish
their supply of liver glycogen. On the bodybuilding side of the coin, I know
some people that use fructose as part of their carbing up cycle (works for
some and not so much for others). Overall, if you are trying to lose body
fat, fructose is something you probably can do without.
The fat content of supplement bars is often as high or higher than some
candy bars. What do companies think we are dumbbells, "dah nope those are
them things we lift in the gym". Well some of us must either not care or
actually are dumbbells because these bars are selling and more are coming
out every day. Try this, next time you are in the checkout line at your
local feed store, pick up some of the "candy bars". Don't be surprised when
some of them have as little, I mean as much fat as your favorite supplement
bar. Not impressed yet, think that your supplement bar has "better fat" than
those candy bars? Think again. Often the fat in candy bars is from very
similar sources as to those found in your favorite supplement bar, cocoa
butter from the chocolate coating, cotton seed oil, fractionated vegetable
oils, fractionated palm oil, hydrogenated oils, etc. All of these are pretty
much on the bad side of the coin. Sure some use canola oil, essential fatty
acid mixtures and other fancy names for fat be it good or bad. Most of these
supplement bars that do contain some good fat still have more fat than you
will find in a good meal supplement powder. So here you are trying to get a
healthy, convenient, meal alternative, and they give you a high protein
"candy bar". This is one of the reasons I always say a bar is not a
replacement for a good meal supplement powder. Check out the labels for
yourself and then think twice about shoving a couple bars down your throat
when you are trying to stay lean or diet down.
Another issue worth mentioning is the cholesterol content of these bars.
Someone please explain to me how you can have a whey protein concentrate,
milk protein concentrate, or some other milk protein source and list 0mg of
cholesterol on the label. If the company is using a whey isolate or calcium
or sodium caseinate, both of which have fairly low cholesterol, for most
their protein I might understand, but some of the companies making bars
actually expect us to believe they have 0mg of cholesterol. Honestly, they
must really think we are stupid or something. While 0mg cholesterol looks
great on the label it is not and cannot likely be the truth. Some bars may
only have 5mg or 10mg but why lie about it and deceive consumers and those
keeping track of their cholesterol for health reasons. Sorry, in my book
that is just plain wrong. Call up the manufacturer of your 0mg cholesterol
bars and make them explain to you how this is possible. Send their response
to my email (listed at then end of this column). I just have to hear what
some of these folks will come up with to cover their proverbial hind sides.
The only logical explanation they could have is that they are really not
using very much of the milk proteins and are therefore they might be telling
the truth about the cholesterol content. Now that would be an honest and
probably unlikely response. If you do call them up and can't get a response,
or get an unsatisfactory response maybe you ought to find another companies
bar to purchase.
Many of today's supplement bars proudly proclaim "high protein" content and
herein lies one of the greatest of all compromises. Back in the day when
high protein bars were hard and chewy instead of the now soft and easily
chewed bars (some anyway), soy protein was often used to make up much of the
protein found in supplement bars. Today you will find such things as
hydrolysed whey protein (might be expensive might not), whey protein isolate
(fairly expensive), caseinates (a little cheaper than WPI), whey protein
concentrates (pretty inexpensive), soy protein isolates (ranges greatly but
about the same as WPC), hydrolysed protein (usually cheap low quality
protein most often collagen) and occasionally egg or beef protein.
Hydrolysed collagen is often used in bars because it is one protein that
does not get hard as the bar ages, is inexpensive, and does not taste bad.
Collagen is not a biologically high quality protein, meaning its' amino acid
profile is not optimal for humans.
So, one of the major protein sources in your bar might be collagen, or some
slightly hydrolyzed whey protein concentrate, better biologically speaking.
You might find some calcium caseinate, some whey protein concentrate, some
soy protein isolate, and a little of this and a little of that. Now pick up
your favorite meal supplement powder. If it is any good it will mainly be
composed of a whey protein concentrate or isolate and possibly some type of
caseinate. Incidentally, I recently read an article in a popular magazine
saying casein is inferior to whey and is a cheap way for companies to fill
in protein rather than using whey in their meal supplement powders. This is
far from the whole truth. While whey is absorbed more quickly into the body
and promotes protein synthesis better than casein, whey is also subjected to
higher rates of hepatic amino acid oxidation. The liver is partly
responsible for maintaining amino acid balance in the blood and when it
senses a sudden rise in blood amino acids it will start oxidizing them to
bring the level back to normal. Casein's amino acids, on the other hand, are
not subjected to as much liver oxidation because casein is absorbed more
slowly and the amino acids enter the blood at a slower rate. Recent studies
show a combination of whey and casein to act most effectively for promoting
protein synthesis while minimizing liver oxidation. Hey that's funny, cows
milk is a mixture of both casein and whey and baby calves grow like crazy on
the stuff. Hmmm? Sorry for the tangent but as I said some of this stuff
pisses me off and I felt it was necessary to clarify. The point is that your
supplement bar does not and probably cannot contain the protein profile that
is optimal (at least no one has done it yet). Your high protein bar is going
to have protein for sure, but it is going to be a non-optimal compilation of
protein sources that to date cannot match the quality of proteins found in a
good meal supplement powder. Keep that in mind when you reach for a good
tasting (usually because of the extra fat), high protein (not necessarily
high quality) supplement bar instead of a meal supplement powder.
The tale of the tape here is that supplement bars are definitely a
compromise on optimum nutritional content. Bars are a source of food yes,
but so is a Big Mac, fries, and a milk shake and you don't go out and eat
that, hopefully not regularly. Think of supplement bars as a healthy
alternative to eating a triple chocolate cake for desert. At least most are
fortified with a vitamin mineral premix. By the way some of these bars are
getting up their in size and therefore calorie content so you might actually
be getting a deserts worth of calories and fat in one of these supplement
bars. Just be aware that simply because the supplement bar has pretty
packaging that screams "HEY BOZO, I'M HEALTY BUY ME" does not make it so.
Read the label, call the company, know what you are getting and you will not
end up with a clown sized midsection in the process.