Are protein bars worth it?

July 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Are protein bars really a good substitute for a meal? So many seem loaded with sugar and calories and they're certainly packaged to resemble candy bars. I'd be grateful if someone could let me know whether these bars are nutritionally sound and if they are, which ones you'd recommend in terms of taste and food "value."
posted by quintno to Health & Fitness (16 answers total)

I use these ones and find them really good and tasty to boot
posted by patphelan at 3:35 PM on July 10, 2006

I like Clif Bars for a snack. Better for you than a candy bar, that's for sure.
posted by drstein at 3:44 PM on July 10, 2006

Protein bars are specifically for increasing protein intake and preventing muscle degredation. They aren't - IMO - great as a meal replacement unless it's immediately post-workout when you need to shuttle nutrients to your muscles asap. Yes, the suppliment manufacturers add a mix of vitamins to their products, but it can never replace natural, whole foods in terms of providing nutrition or satiety.

I suggest Meso-Tech, Nitro-Tech bars because they taste decent and have 35 grams of protein per bar.
posted by rinkjustice at 3:58 PM on July 10, 2006

I think you answered your own question:

So many seem loaded with sugar and calories and they're certainly packaged to resemble candy bars.

That said, I find them handy, and eat Clif Bars once in a while if i need something ultra-portable as a snack. I'd never use one as a substitute for a regular meal, though-- they're more if I am doing something where a proper meal is exceedingly difficult to have (ie if I have a long class that overlaps with a meal time).

Note also that I fairly religiously stick to six smaller meals a day.
posted by synecdoche at 4:24 PM on July 10, 2006

Alton Brown did an episode where he made his own. Cheaper, and probably better for you.
posted by dpx.mfx at 4:37 PM on July 10, 2006

AskMe questions 8216, 8964, 38982, and 39568 might also be of some help.
posted by yz at 4:42 PM on July 10, 2006

Seconding Clif bars, which are reasonably priced at Whole Foods.
posted by nj_subgenius at 5:12 PM on July 10, 2006

I've done a lot of research on this myself, and nutritionists seem to agree that bars are not really adequate meal replacements. That said, I think the occasional bar on the run is better than eating something relatively crappy for you. My favorite pick are Kellogg's AllBran Bars Comparatively less sugar, low in calories, and lots of fiber.
posted by theantikitty at 6:24 PM on July 10, 2006

It definately depends on the bar.

Bars that are very heavy in protein, as rinkjustice pointed out, aren't really meant to be a "meal" but a supplement to accompany an excercise routine. If you want something to serve as a meal, look for bars that are designed to be meal-replacements, not sports boosters or snacks.

And yeah, a lot of them are basically candy bars masquerading as something you can feel good about eating. I always look over the nutrition information really carefully on those things. Look for low ammounts of sugar, saturated fat, and trans fats. Look for fiber-- 4 or more grams is quite good. Look for a glycemic index, which tells you how much eating this will spike your blood sugar-- it should be below 40. Stay away from bars (PowerBars, for instance) whose first ingredient is high fructose corn syrup.

A really good meal replacement bar is probably better than what most people eat for a meal. But it's not the best thing you can put in your body-- that would be an actual healthy, well-balanced meal.
posted by bookish at 6:30 PM on July 10, 2006

I'd say no, but then I'm almost a religious zealot about not snacking. At all. I think snacks are the Great Satan. Do not eat between meals. Do NOT eat between meals. Eating between meals is one of many ways to get fat. Eat meals which suit your lifestyle and your level of physical (in)activity. But do not eat between meals. Never. At all. No no no. I tell you our grandparents were wrong about many, many things; but not this.
posted by Decani at 6:55 PM on July 10, 2006

Not eating between meals can lead to glutting at mealtimes, which can be less healthy than snacking.
posted by solid-one-love at 8:50 PM on July 10, 2006

Decani, that's not good advice. A more consistent intake of calories can be better for some people, especially those at risk for Type II diabetes.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 6:30 AM on July 11, 2006

Not eating between meals can lead to glutting at mealtimes, which can be less healthy than snacking.

Incorrect. Not eating between meals does not lead to glutting at mealtimes: eating shite meals does.

Decani, that's not good advice.

Yes, it actually is. The important thing is to make your meals appropriate to your age, level of fitness and level of physical activity.
posted by Decani at 5:16 PM on July 11, 2006

Incorrect.[...]Yes, it actually is.

My nutritionist says otherwise. What's your degree in again?
posted by solid-one-love at 10:46 PM on July 11, 2006

My nutritionist says otherwise. What's your degree in again?

My degree is in astrophysics. I realise this totally disqualifies me from knowing anything about anything but atrophysics. Thank God you put me straight, you stupid little stiff.
posted by Decani at 9:09 PM on July 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

Holy fallacious argument batman. Say no to appeals to authority.
posted by oxford blue at 11:00 PM on May 28, 2007