'Quest' low 'net carb' bars tested...
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Joined
·
1,891 Posts
No kidding! when i started this journey, i asked many people about these bars, and none had any real answers for me
Joined
·
61 Posts
Thanks for posting this, Beefy. So the questions this brings to my mind are, did they lie on the nutrition label or does it make a difference what type of fiber is in an item or is the whole thing about counting net carbs false. It would be good to see the results when testing a different food to have something to compare it with.
What about the protein? Is it possible that with that large amount of easily digestible protein that gluconeogenesis could have occurred in time to affect those readings?
For a good test, it would need to be ONLY carbs + fiber without anything else and measure the result.
For a good test, it would need to be ONLY carbs + fiber without anything else and measure the result.
Joined
·
1,891 Posts
i find it easier to just not eat things like that
Yeah, except this question doesn't just apply to "things like that". The concept of "net carbs", i.e., that actual carbs equals the total carbs (which includes fiber) minus fiber is the question at hand. It applies to all kinds of foods including natural ones.
An even more controversial one is subtracting sugar alcohols from total carbs like Atkins bars do. That, of course, doesn't apply to any real foods. Sugar alcohols in general are not metabolized like equal grams of carbs, but may be partially metabolized and maybe by some people more than others.
I still think a good test - without the possible confounding variable of lots of simultaneous protein consumption - would be valuable, but this wasn't it. It is not clear what, if anything, these results mean.
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
I tested out quest bars on myself and was disappointed with the 30pt spike in just 1 hour. I don't think that protein is converted THAT quickly into glucose, also only a portion of the protein would be converted in general and even then only a percentage of the protein comes out as glucose through gluconeogenesis.
I think there are 2 issues with the bars. One is that they use Splenda and as many of us know that does have a BG impact. They are working on a version using Stevia but it's not out yet.
The other issue is the type of fiber (Isomalto-Oligosaccharide) which they say is "almost identical" to chicory root. Just looking at the name, "-saccharide" I bet much more of that is converted to glucose than you would think under the benign category of "fiber". Not all fiber is created equal! That is why net carbs can get you into trouble at times.
They sure do taste good though!
I think there are 2 issues with the bars. One is that they use Splenda and as many of us know that does have a BG impact. They are working on a version using Stevia but it's not out yet.
The other issue is the type of fiber (Isomalto-Oligosaccharide) which they say is "almost identical" to chicory root. Just looking at the name, "-saccharide" I bet much more of that is converted to glucose than you would think under the benign category of "fiber". Not all fiber is created equal! That is why net carbs can get you into trouble at times.
They sure do taste good though!
Granulated splenda has maltodextrin added, to bulk it up. This should be incorporated in the labeling.
I think it is simply the ^%@#$~! fiber! BTW, a 30-pt spike is NOTHING compared to what I got -- I think I went > 200! so more like a 90 pt spike.
ETA, all cellulose fiber is just polymers of glucose. As are all starches. So saccharo- anything would be no surprise there. There are straight-chain and branched-chain polysaccharides. The question is whether and how rapidly our bodies can split the glucoses apart, which depends on our unique enzyme profiles, and just how those glucoses are bonded together. Some people are super-starch splitters -- and I think I am one!
I think it is simply the ^%@#$~! fiber! BTW, a 30-pt spike is NOTHING compared to what I got -- I think I went > 200! so more like a 90 pt spike.
ETA, all cellulose fiber is just polymers of glucose. As are all starches. So saccharo- anything would be no surprise there. There are straight-chain and branched-chain polysaccharides. The question is whether and how rapidly our bodies can split the glucoses apart, which depends on our unique enzyme profiles, and just how those glucoses are bonded together. Some people are super-starch splitters -- and I think I am one!
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
I was wondering if you had tried it. The first ingredient is a mix of whey and milk protein isolates which I thought you had posted about earlier and how they had such unexpected effects on your BG. I'm not surprised that you spiked like crazy on it.
misleading thread
As a prediabetic, one Quest bar only produces about a 10 mg/dl increase in BG, and it takes quite a while (over 1 hour) for that to occur. Other protein bars with more net carbs create much larger increases. (Also note that apparently the mother of the owner of the company is diabetic, and they have tested the bars on her.)
Note first that the much of the protein in the bar is of the type (unlike that in nuts or meat, for example) that is quickly digestible, meaning the it passes quickly through one's stomach and will have a big effect on BG if one is highly insulin resistant and prone to gluconeogenesis (conversion of protein to glucose). This is true for most diabetics, but not for most prediabetics, like myself. Also note that, contrary to what is shown in the video, one needs to account for protein in food when calculating insulin needs (see Bernstein's discussion).
Second, note that not all fiber is alike, and it is likely that some of the "fiber" in the bar is in fact digestible. The combination then of some carbs from the "fiber", plus a lot of easily digestible protein, plus subjects that have high insulin resistance (note the high starting BG of many of those reporting - often an indication of a high rate of gluconeogenesis), makes it not that surprising to see a large BG jump in some people after consumption of a Quest bar.
So, it is probably misleading to put the blame on "fiber", although certainly true that you have to test these things to determine their impact, and can't just rely on net carbs.
As a prediabetic, one Quest bar only produces about a 10 mg/dl increase in BG, and it takes quite a while (over 1 hour) for that to occur. Other protein bars with more net carbs create much larger increases. (Also note that apparently the mother of the owner of the company is diabetic, and they have tested the bars on her.)
Note first that the much of the protein in the bar is of the type (unlike that in nuts or meat, for example) that is quickly digestible, meaning the it passes quickly through one's stomach and will have a big effect on BG if one is highly insulin resistant and prone to gluconeogenesis (conversion of protein to glucose). This is true for most diabetics, but not for most prediabetics, like myself. Also note that, contrary to what is shown in the video, one needs to account for protein in food when calculating insulin needs (see Bernstein's discussion).
Second, note that not all fiber is alike, and it is likely that some of the "fiber" in the bar is in fact digestible. The combination then of some carbs from the "fiber", plus a lot of easily digestible protein, plus subjects that have high insulin resistance (note the high starting BG of many of those reporting - often an indication of a high rate of gluconeogenesis), makes it not that surprising to see a large BG jump in some people after consumption of a Quest bar.
So, it is probably misleading to put the blame on "fiber", although certainly true that you have to test these things to determine their impact, and can't just rely on net carbs.
Welcome aboard, warner. The crux of the issue is that all pre-diabetics are not alike, and all micro-nutrients are not alike either, in the way they affect individual people. The biggest thing you need to remember is YMMV - your mileage may vary. There are a few of us here who could conceivably digest sawdust, we're that good at converting "indigestible" components.
Please continue to give us the benefit of your experience & knowledge, but please don't rely on sweeping global statements which may or may not apply to the rest of us. We've been at this long enough to know that one size does NOT fit all.
Please continue to give us the benefit of your experience & knowledge, but please don't rely on sweeping global statements which may or may not apply to the rest of us. We've been at this long enough to know that one size does NOT fit all.
An unfortunate and inaccurate characterization (the entire post is about one size does not fit all). You should have addressed the content, not the tone. Probably best if I just leave you guys in peace and stop posting. Best of luck with the forum.
Joined
·
9 Posts
Thank you for these comments about the Quest Bar test we did in Boulder. -- Shelley
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
What a coincidence, Shelly! I just started a new thread about your recent interview with Ron from Quest. I love your site and that your group tests out different foods, sharing the results. Keep up the good work!
Joined
·
9 Posts
Thanks, Daytona, and I appreciate the logic and clarity you're bringing to this as well! These issues regarding citizen tests of food products that are advertised one way (sometimes even researched by scientists one way!), but work in our bodies another way are important to all of us, and I'm glad you think so, too.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Join the discussion
