Energy Bars

[Skidog]

Ingredients of a snickers bar,“milk chocolate (sugar, cocoa butter, chocolate, skim milk, lactose, milkfat, soy lecithin, artificial flavor), peanuts, corn syrup, sugar, palm oil, skim milk, lactose, salt, egg whites, artificial flavor.”

Im still not a fan of this lineup. Anything that has corn syrup and just “sugar” is a no go for me. Also palm oil...

In comparison the Lara bar in front of me has, “cashews, dates, apples, blueberries, vanilla extract.”

The Whole Lotta Clif Bar has “date paste, pumpkin seeds, almonds, cashew butter, pea protein, sesame seeds, coconut, virgin coconut oil, sea salt, natural flavors, cinnamon, ground ginger, cloves, rosemary extract, nutmeg”.

Both are gluten free, have more fiber than snickers, have only a few grams less of carbs, and close to equal amount of calories. Sugar levels are slightly lower but mainly due to the fact that these have neither corn syrup nor any added sugars. That’s fine by me.

you do realize your body has no idea if the sugar is corn syrup or cane right?

Mayo is probably wrong though....

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...p/faq-20058201

Now while i would rather have cane sugar as I feel corn syrup was only created to boost the stupid corn market from failure, the body still doesnt know the difference.

[Cozzey]

you do realize your body has no idea if the sugar is corn syrup or cane right?

Mayo is probably wrong though....

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...p/faq-20058201

Now while i would rather have cane sugar as I feel corn syrup was only created to boost the stupid corn market from failure, the body still doesnt know the difference.

After some research yes you’re right besides,
refined sugars not being substantial enough to make you feel full, whereas natural sugars do make you feel full do to having more fiber. I didn’t actually know that after the sugar reaches the small intestine the body knows no different so thanks for calling me out on that.

[PeachesNCream]

you do realize your body has no idea if the sugar is corn syrup or cane right?

Mayo is probably wrong though....

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...p/faq-20058201

Now while i would rather have cane sugar as I feel corn syrup was only created to boost the stupid corn market from failure, the body still doesnt know the difference.

True. But your body does know the difference between fruit sugar and artificial sugar due to the fiber that is associated with the fruit sugar. Now does this matter when you're instantly using the sugar while exercising? Probably not much. The question I ask myself is, was my body made to eat this 3,000 years ago? A bar made of nuts and fruit, ya probably. A bar made of caramel, chocolate, peanuts, and nuget, probably not. But once again, does it really matter when you're instantly using that blood sugar increase

[PNWbrit]

was my body made to eat this 3,000 years ago?

Spats?....

[Dantheman]

you do realize your body has no idea if the sugar is corn syrup or cane right?

Sucrose is 50/50 glucose/fructose, HCFS is nominally 55% fructose but can be as high as 65%. Fructose is a relatively poor source of energy compared to glucose, so while there isn't a huge difference there is a difference.

Now, to further complicate things "corn syrup" and HFCS are not the same thing. Corn syrup is corn starch that has been digested into glucose monomers, it contains zero fructose. As endurance fuel goes it's totally acceptable. Hammer claims polysaccharides like starch and maltodextrin are superior to mono- and disaccharides (glucose, fructose, sucrose) since they can be absorbed by the body as more concentrated solutions (https://www.hammernutrition.com/know...bohydrates-101). Of course, Hammer has a vested interest there since they make money selling maltodextrin-based products, but AFAIK that's sound science.

[Dantheman]

But once again, does it really matter when you're instantly using that blood sugar increase

It does not, and during endurance exercise fiber is just non/poorly-digestible bulk that is detrimental.

[PeachesNCream]

It does not, and during endurance exercise fiber is just non/poorly-digestible bulk that is detrimental.

huh, haven't heard this take before, but makes sense. So in this case Snickers is actually a better fuel source than lets say fruit?

[XavierD]

The question I ask myself is, was my body made to eat this 3,000 years ago?

You’re 3000 years old?

[PeachesNCream]

You’re 3000 years old?

Our genes are. But yes, yes I am

[Skidog]

True. But your body does know the difference between fruit sugar and artificial sugar due to the fiber that is associated with the fruit sugar. Now does this matter when you're instantly using the sugar while exercising? Probably not much. The question I ask myself is, was my body made to eat this 3,000 years ago? A bar made of nuts and fruit, ya probably. A bar made of caramel, chocolate, peanuts, and nuget, probably not. But once again, does it really matter when you're instantly using that blood sugar increase

Seeing the ingredients of the Snickers aside from the hcfs it's pretty natural. Sure we didn't know chocolate 3k ago but we do know it's potential benefits today.

This thread is about energy, snickers supply that. If you eat Snickers and sit on the couch, well not good.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app

[PeachesNCream]

Seeing the ingredients of the Snickers aside from the hcfs it's pretty natural. Sure we didn't know chocolate 3k ago but we do know it's potential benefits today.

This thread is about energy, snickers supply that. If you eat Snickers and sit on the couch, well not good.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app

Good point. All these diet trends have diet becoming more complicated than it needs to be. Eating easy quick energy (sugar) foods when heavily exercising, probably a good idea. Eating easy quick energy foods when sitting on the couch, probably not a good idea.

[the_flying_v]

Plug for local company: Taos Bakes

Formerly Taos Mountain Energy.

I see them all across the West in Whole Foods.

Gluten Free.

[Jacques Strap]

The rules are different when you're talking about actively fueling caloricly-intensive activities.

This is a point a lot of the twigs-nuts-and-berries contingent seems to be missing. The OP wasn't asking about what to eat if you're going to be sitting at a desk all day, but what to eat for athletic performance. Those are two very different activities with two very different nutritional requirements.

substantial enough to make you feel full

I'd argue that you probably don't want to feel "full" while exercising....

was my body made to eat this 3,000 years ago?

They didn't have coffee 3,000 years ago. Coffee's health benefits are extensive. And if you're going to deprive yourself of coffee because of some ill-conceived evolutionary requirement... well... go for it: "there is no Hell but the one we make."

They didn't have much 3,000 years ago. Let alone the fact that they sure as shit didn't live very long either. And depending on where they were 3,000 years ago, they would've had very different varieties of "not much". Are you going to eat a diet like someone in the African rain forest, the American plains, or the Norwegian coast, etc. etc. etc.? And, the "natural" food you buy in the supermarket didn't exist 3,000 years ago either, but now we're getting into GMO argument territory, so I'll leave that alone.

natural sugars...having more fiber

Fruit has almost no fiber. Fresh fruit is mostly water. The dried, packaged fruit you're thinking of for natural-feel-good energy on-the-go is almost all 1/2 glucose and 1/2 fructose (which is sucrose, which is table sugar, which, as Dantheman pointed out, is nearly the exact ratio of Glc:Fuc in high-fructose corn syrup).

[snapt]

I was the Sales Director for a medium sized energy bar company once upon a time. I eat Snickers these days...

[mrkbrnblm]

Sure we didn't know chocolate 3k ago but we do know it's potential benefits today.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app

We knew chocolate at least 2,500 years ago... but really... why is the length of time we've been eating things a good proxy for how healthy they are? Maybe it's a good heuristic if we say whole foods are good and processed foods are bad and there were no processed foods 3K years ago, but I'm not sure that I want to model my health practices based on a time when the average person lived to be like 35.

[TahoeJ]

I'm not sure that I want to model my health practices based on a time when the average person lived to be like 35.

Quoting this because it deserves to be quoted! haha.

[XXX-er]

Sucrose is 50/50 glucose/fructose, HCFS is nominally 55% fructose but can be as high as 65%. Fructose is a relatively poor source of energy compared to glucose, so while there isn't a huge difference there is a difference.

Now, to further complicate things "corn syrup" and HFCS are not the same thing. Corn syrup is corn starch that has been digested into glucose monomers, it contains zero fructose. As endurance fuel goes it's totally acceptable. Hammer claims polysaccharides like starch and maltodextrin are superior to mono- and disaccharides (glucose, fructose, sucrose) since they can be absorbed by the body as more concentrated solutions (https://www.hammernutrition.com/know...bohydrates-101). Of course, Hammer has a vested interest there since they make money selling maltodextrin-based products, but AFAIK that's sound science.

I hung out with a ultra runner/ultra running coach for a weekend, this guy said he was maybe top 300 in the world at the time, used to run 6 hrs every friday for his big training run and he was a big hammer user. He claimed it will keep you fueled without making you sick to your stomach in long events, he recommended marking a half litre water bottle with a sharpie into 1/4ers to make sure you go thru one an hr by hitting hit the lines every 15min

I seen buddy on the skin track and asked how ya doing, he looked at his HR monitor and exclaimed 82% of max heart rate ... great! he had this all down to a science !

Buddy skied up a blue run 36 kms, down 36kms the hard part cuz he was a shitty skier, while climbing 27500 ft in < 13hrs which was about 7 hrs faster than any normal ski tourer had ever done it

I found that I didnt crash at all on Perpetuim (kind of boring) whereas I had crashed 4 or 5 times the previous yr

[Dantheman]

but I'm not sure that I want to model my health practices based on a time when the average person lived to be like 35.

Life expectancy at birth can be a very misleading statistic....

[Jacques Strap]

We've been sucking Snickers dick pretty hard in this thread, but it needs to be pointed out that there's nothing special or magical about Snickers either (beside the fact that it is the most perfect candy bar in general). Most candy bars would do the trick: Milky Way, 3 Musketeers, Hersheys, Heath, Baby Ruth, etc. Butterfinger, Kit Kat, and Twix are fine nutritionally, but they aren't very impact resistant. Reese's is, of course, the most delicious, but shape and packaging make it a poor fit for this purpose. Payday is a little heavy on the nuts and a little light on the carbs.

[babybear]

snickers come in multiple sizes vs other candy bars- I think that's the biggest issue with them being popular. the ease
also the peanuts are nice.
Heath bar and Butterfingers are good too but they get caught in the molars- cavity city
Once ate paydays only on a long distance bike race and now can never eat one again (much like if you've had a bad alcohol experience ie tequila- never again)
Reece's are going to maybe my new go to- good call

[Ted Striker]

Also, a Milky Way is a Snickers without nuts. A Mars is a British and Canadian Milky Way. A Three Musketeers is a Milky Way without caramel.

[TahoeJ]

We've been sucking Snickers dick pretty hard in this thread

So is the entire Snickers bar itself the dick, or just part of it? Figured we'd need to clarify such a detail in this important thread.

[PNWbrit]

Also, a Milky Way is a Snickers without nuts. A Mars is a British and Canadian Milky Way. A Three Musketeers is a Milky Way without caramel.

Snickers used to be called Marathon bars.

[Jacques Strap]

the entire Snickers bar itself the dick

Makes you think twice about "Fun-Size".

[Buke]

I'm a little confused by this thread. How did it devolve into a debate over healthy vs non-healthy food. That's such a stupid topic. I read something a few years that stuck in my head. The question of healthy and non-healthy is the wrong question. What one has to ask is whether or not the food they're eating is nutritious. All food can become unhealthy. If you want to eat snickers, go for it. Don't give me some bullshit about them being healthy or unhealthy. An active person eating a snickers as a source of energy isn't a problem at all, a sedentary person eating a snickers in lieu of a nutritious meal every single day is probably a bad idea.

To the OP's question, I can't believe no one has mentioned Kind Bars (or maybe I missed it). They sell them at Costco. They're delicious, especially the basic ones which usually just have whole nuts, a little chocolate and some sugary syrup to stick it all together. Most days I have one in my lunch bag at the office because it's better than caving in and walking up the street to the coffee shop and spending $6 for a giant cookie and cup of coffee.

As far as other energy options, I like the Spring Energy Gels for distance running or long days in the skin track. In particular, the Canaberry and the Power Rush variety. They're really tasty, made with real whole foods, and they work like a gel should work. Unfortunately, they're really expensive.