|
 
Energy
Bars: To Eat or Not to Eat?
By Susan Mills-Gray, Nutrition Specialist
There I am sweating to the oldies. Through
the glass I can see others visiting following their aerobics class.
Suddenly one woman reaches in her backpack and pulls out something
to eat. The other women seem very interested – they even
take turns reading the nutrition label. Energy bars ... they’re
everywhere!
This is one hot market. Supermarkets, health
food stores, drugstores, - even gas stations — everyone
wants in on this $100-million-dollar plus business. You may think
choosing an energy bar is easy — it’s not. Whether
you realize it or not, when you pick an energy bar from the vast
array available, you’re making a statement about your personal
nutritional regimen: crunchy vs. chewy, high protein vs. high
carbohydrate, snack vs. meal replacement. At least one thing has
been resolved: energy bars have definitely proven that coating
something with chocolate won’t automatically make it taste
good. If something tastes like medicine it must be good for you,
right?
Energy bars basically come in four
types:
High carbohydrate
— This type’s goal is too keep you from running out
of energy during competition or a long training session. They
consist largely of high fructose corn syrup and fruit juice concentrate,
with added vitamins and minerals. Some brands add oats, nuts,
or dried fruit. Research has shown that as long as you’re
getting the same number of calories from carbohydrate rich foods
or energy bars, there’s no advantage to the bars — plus the bars are more expensive. Actually, only athletes doing
long-term exercise or events that last longer than 60 minutes
(i.e. marathons, cross country running or skiing) need additional
carbs during the event. The bar wouldn’t even have left
the gut at the end of 60-minute events or practices.
40-30-30 — This is the ratio of
carbohydrate to protein to fat. These are marketed to everyone:
athletes, those who want to lose weight, those seeking a meal
replacement option, and to seasoned adults who need additional
nutrition. There aren’t any published studies that show
how these bars affect performance. A 40-30-30 bar doesn’t
have enough carbohydrate for an athlete, but may be a better choice
for lunch than a Big Mac.
High-protein — These are generally
high in calories and size. Body builders are the typical users.
Although protein needs do increase with exercise, that doesn’t
mean that someone needs a protein bar. You can easily get the
extra protein needed from less expensive foods. Plus too much
protein is dehydrating and a strain on the kidneys.
Supplement — You’ll find
the same vitamins and minerals that you’d find in a supplement
pill. The main difference is that someone might take a pill along
with a bowl of soup or a salad, while most people using supplement
bars use it as a meal replacement. That’s not a great idea.
Keep in mind that these bars lack fiber and other valuable nutrients.
The commonality among all four types of bars is the fact that
the energy boost you get from the sports bar comes from the calories
it provides — period. There’s no magical or secret ingredient
that’s doing the job.
Sports bar buying tips:
- If you’re counting fat and calories,
avoid bars providing more than 250 calories or five grams of fat.
- Some protein is good, but more than 20 grams
is overdoing it.
- Most of the extras added to bars — vitamins,
minerals, herbs — are more than you need. A basic multivitamin
provides the same nutrients that sports bars offer and for a lot
less money.
- Bars too expensive? Don’t like the taste?
Plenty of other foods work just as well. Try a bagel, fig bars
or dried fruit. There are MANY high-carb energy food choices that
will save your wallet.
Archives
| Comments | Home SUBSCRIPTIONS
Subscribe
| Change Your
Address | Unsubscribe
Copyright © 2007 — Curators of the University of Missouri
DMCA and other copyright information.
All rights reserved.
An equal opportunity/ADA institution.
Published by the Mizzou Alumni Association
Questions? Comments? E-mail comments@mizzoualumni.org
Last Update:
November 15, 2007
|
