Snickers Marathon Protein Bar GI of 26

natiels

natiels

Board Supporter
Checking to see how many of you know about the snickers marathon bars and have tried them?

Invalid Link Removed

The caramel nut rush bar has 20g of protein and a GI of 26. The Big Lots where I live had a bunch of them on sale for like $0.69 each so I bought like 3 boxes. These things taste awesome, have a bunch of protein/vitamins/minerals, and the carbs are low GI. I have been eating them for breakfast every morning.

The sucky thing is i am running out. Does anyone know where one could buy these for a decent bulk price?

I have done some google searching but havent come up with much. If anyone has a good source post it.
 
The chocolate nut burst version has less fat (1g less), less carbs (5g), less sugar (8g) and more protein (6g) compared to the caramel rush. Just FYI.
 
BigSwede said:
I don't think I want to ingest anything called, "chocolate nut burst" but thanks... ;)
Click to expand...
hehe.

Yeah, i know the chocolate nut burst has more protein, how is the taste? really either of the two high protein ones would be good for me but caramel nut rush tastes so good and its the only one i have tried.
 
natiels said:
hehe.

Yeah, i know the chocolate nut burst has more protein, how is the taste? really either of the two high protein ones would be good for me but caramel nut rush tastes so good and its the only one i have tried.
Click to expand...
I agree... I love the Odyssey Caramel Nut, but the other [Odyssey] varieties are terrible. I've noticed that the higher protein bars in the product-line are usually the ones that taste like a dog's ass.
 
I buy them at wallmart, something like 9$ for a box of six. I like both kinds, but I work outside all day so the carmel ones dont last long in the heat.
 
The Caramel Nut Rush flavor tastes just like a regular snickers bar to me. Of course, I haven't eaten a regular Snickers bar in a while and I don't eat a lot of sugar or candy bars so the stuff might taste like cardboard to the people that eat candy regularly.;)
 
freaky said:
The Caramel Nut Rush flavor tastes just like a regular snickers bar to me. Of course, I haven't eaten a regular Snickers bar in a while and I don't eat a lot of sugar or candy bars so the stuff might taste like cardboard to the people that eat candy regularly.;)
Click to expand...
I completely agree man, justl ike a regular snickers.

I dunno though. Something that tastes this good cant be good for you. Theres 18g of sugar but supposedly its got an overall GI of 26? What about the polydextrose, how does that fit in?
 
Enigma76 said:
I completely agree man, justl ike a regular snickers.

I dunno though. Something that tastes this good cant be good for you. Theres 18g of sugar but supposedly its got an overall GI of 26? What about the polydextrose, how does that fit in?
Click to expand...
23 g of sugar in Caramel Nut Rush, I have one in front of me right now. ;)
I don't really know about the GI. Maybe it has something to do with the fiber. I mean, a regular Snickers bar only has 7 g more sugar!
 
I dunno though. Something that tastes this good cant be good for you. Theres 18g of sugar but supposedly its got an overall GI of 26? What about the polydextrose, how does that fit in?
Click to expand...
I know, I think they are better then a normal snickers actually. I have been cutting tho and sometimes eating two a day and still losing weight. I always have one for breakfast and then sometimes when i don't feel like cooking something or am in a hurry i will grab one.

Does the fact that it has 23g of sugar matter when its low glycemic? Pretty much all carbs eventually turn into sugar when broken down anyway(right?).
 
Has no one noticed that the majority of these snickers "health bars" have trans fatty acids? I have eaten a few because they taste so good, but wont continue as I try to avoid trans fatty acids like the plague. I think this is probably why they taste so good, aside from them being high in sugar and relatively high in other fats. But for those who need the taste (doesnt matter that much to me, Id eat a turd if it would help the overall bodybuilding equation), I guess they arent so bad.
 
z28man said:
Has no one noticed that the majority of these snickers "health bars" have trans fatty acids? I have eaten a few because they taste so good, but wont continue as I try to avoid trans fatty acids like the plague. I think this is probably why they taste so good, aside from them being high in sugar and relatively high in other fats. But for those who need the taste (doesnt matter that much to me, Id eat a turd if it would help the overall bodybuilding equation), I guess they arent so bad.
Click to expand...
The wrapper i have here says Trans Fat 0g. Are trans fatty acids different than "Trans Fat" and if so then how do you know they are in these bars?
 
See, thats what gets me about the food/supplement industries. For some reason they are allowed to put 0 grams trans fats on the nutrition label, but if you look at the ingredients, sure enough one of the ingredients is partially hydrogenated oils, this is your source of trans fats. The only thing I can imagine is that if the trans fat content is under a regulated predetermined amount, the producers can still list it as trans fat free. I just dont buy into that crap. If it lists any hydrogenated oils, I tend to :run:
 
If I'm not mistaken.. as long as a given product contains .9 or less grams of anything per serving.. they can claim 0%.. but I think it's bullshit too.

---

now to get my ass out of this thread.. Stuff looks to damn good.. :(
 
z28man said:
Has no one noticed that the majority of these snickers "health bars" have trans fatty acids? I have eaten a few because they taste so good, but wont continue as I try to avoid trans fatty acids like the plague. I think this is probably why they taste so good, aside from them being high in sugar and relatively high in other fats. But for those who need the taste (doesnt matter that much to me, Id eat a turd if it would help the overall bodybuilding equation), I guess they arent so bad.
Click to expand...
The Marathon Protein bars don't have any partially hydrogenated oils in them and contain 0 g of trans fat.

They hydrogenate the oils to make them last longer not to make them taste better so it wouldn't affect the taste, only the shelf life.
 
Enigma76 said:
Something that tastes this good cant be good for you.
Click to expand...

Who said protein/candy/energy bars are good for you?. Its the same crap as in the candy isle, just "with protein" and "Vitamins & Minerals"....Hahahahaha!. Treat it as a "cheat" snack. Its far from being "good for you"!.
 
T-Bone said:
Who said protein/candy/energy bars are good for you?. Its the same crap as in the candy isle, just "with protein" and "Vitamins & Minerals"....Hahahahaha!. Treat it as a "cheat" snack. Its far from being "good for you"!.
Click to expand...
It actually isnt the same crap tho. These have been formulated to have a really low GI and that is going to be much better for you then most anything else you pick up in the candy isle.
 
freaky said:
The Marathon Protein bars don't have any partially hydrogenated oils in them and contain 0 g of trans fat.

They hydrogenate the oils to make them last longer not to make them taste better so it wouldn't affect the taste, only the shelf life.
Click to expand...

I guess I havent looked at the marathon protein bars, but the other marathon bars Ive seen lists partially hydrogenated oils. I think they put these oils in the bars for longer expiration like you said but probably for taste as well. Alot of fatty, sugary snacks Ive seen contain atleast some trans fats, even the ones not put in individual wrappers where the concern would be longer expiration as it gives a better texture and flavor. If you look at regular PB like Jiff or whatever, the general public will tell you that tastes muuuuuch better than natty PB (I dont agree with this). This is due to the hydrogenation done that gives the consistency and flavor.
 
natiels said:
It actually isnt the same crap tho. These have been formulated to have a really low GI and that is going to be much better for you then most anything else you pick up in the candy isle.
Click to expand...
How do you figure that?. You think just because it has a lower GI, its "better for you"?. Oh well. Not gonna argue over the internet. To each his own..Glycemic index should be ignored in my opinion.
 
z28man said:
I guess I havent looked at the marathon protein bars, but the other marathon bars Ive seen lists partially hydrogenated oils. I think they put these oils in the bars for longer expiration like you said but probably for taste as well. Alot of fatty, sugary snacks Ive seen contain atleast some trans fats, even the ones not put in individual wrappers where the concern would be longer expiration as it gives a better texture and flavor. If you look at regular PB like Jiff or whatever, the general public will tell you that tastes muuuuuch better than natty PB (I dont agree with this). This is due to the hydrogenation done that gives the consistency and flavor.
Click to expand...
Hydrogenated oils are only used for shelf life, not taste. In foods containing no hydrogenated oils they still have the fat and oils in them they just aren't hydrogenated. Oreos still taste like Oreos whether they have partially hydrogenated oils or not. The difference is a 6 week shelf life instead of 6 months. The hydrogenated oils don't breakdown as quickly.
 
T-Bone said:
How do you figure that?. You think just because it has a lower GI, its "better for you"?. Oh well. Not gonna argue over the internet. To each his own..Glycemic index should be ignored in my opinion.
Click to expand...

can you elaborate as to why you feel the glycemic index should be ignored? just curious. i've been on a modified south beach diet for months now which follow the GI principle to a tee. it's working wonders for me.
 
Beelzebub said:
can you elaborate as to why you feel the glycemic index should be ignored? just curious. i've been on a modified south beach diet for months now which follow the GI principle to a tee. it's working wonders for me.
Click to expand...
The glycemic index implies that the type of carb is more important than the amount. There could be two different foods, one with a really high GI, and one with a really low gi, but one of the foods can be more carb dense...For instance carrots vs cookies. Carrots have a higher GI than cookies, but you would have to eat a shitload of carrots to get the same blood sugar response as eating a lot less cookies!. See my point?. Its Sugar vs Starch, not GI!. Starch will refill muscle glycogen, Sucrose is part glucose and part fructose. Fructose will refill liver glycogen stores, always pick starch!. Thats my logical viewpoint. Trust your own judgement, be your own boss. I am stubborn in my beliefs.
 
T-Bone said:
The glycemic index implies that the type of carb is more important than the amount. There could be two different foods, one with a really high GI, and one with a really low gi, but one of the foods can be more carb dense...For instance carrots vs cookies. Carrots have a higher GI than cookies, but you would have to eat a shitload of carrots to get the same blood sugar response as eating a lot less cookies!. See my point?. Its Sugar vs Starch, not GI!. Starch will refill muscle glycogen, Sucrose is part glucose and part fructose. Fructose will refill liver glycogen stores, always pick starch!. Thats my logical viewpoint. Trust your own judgement, be your own boss. I am stubborn in my beliefs.
Click to expand...
You know, I might be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that starch gets broken down by amylases (in saliva and the gut) into glucose monomers, while sucrose gets broken down into fructose/glucose in the liver.

It all gets broken down into glucose, or glucose isomers. I dont understand why starch would selectively refill muscle glycogen.

I dont feel like arguing, but I also dont understand why people like Bobo would push so much for low-GI carbs all the time if there wasnt any merit to them.
 
Enigma76 said:
You know, I might be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that starch gets broken down by amylases (in saliva and the gut) into glucose monomers, while sucrose gets broken down into fructose/glucose in the liver.

It all gets broken down into glucose, or glucose isomers. I dont understand why starch would selectively refill muscle glycogen.

I dont feel like arguing, but I also dont understand why people like Bobo would push so much for low-GI carbs all the time if there wasnt any merit to them.
Click to expand...
All CHO get broken down into monosaccharides(glucose, fructose, galactose) in the GI tract. Fructose is further metabolized in the liver since it is the only organ that contains fructokinase. I think sperm contains it also but do not play a major role. I am also pretty sure that you can store almost twice as much muscle glycogen after consuming glucose or sucrose than after eating fructose. Might have to do with the fact that fructose produces a lower insulin response, I am not sure.
Bobo is 100% correct in advocating lower GI CHO because they do not cause a spike in blood glucose, aid in satiety, loaded with phytochemicals antioxidants yada yada yada, soluble fiber... Just so you know there is an additional benefit to adding the oats to the protein shake above the low gi deal; it slows the transit time of liquid protein thru the intestines allowing for greater absorption. The farts that smell like something died in your ass can be caused from incomplete digestion of proteins.
As in a previous post the glycemic load must also be considered. GI is based on 50 grams of the CHO in question.
 
Enigma76 said:
You know, I might be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that starch gets broken down by amylases (in saliva and the gut) into glucose monomers, while sucrose gets broken down into fructose/glucose in the liver.

It all gets broken down into glucose, or glucose isomers. I dont understand why starch would selectively refill muscle glycogen.

I dont feel like arguing, but I also dont understand why people like Bobo would push so much for low-GI carbs all the time if there wasnt any merit to them.
Click to expand...
Well Bobo has his diet, others have other types of diets and so fourth. Anyway, Sucrose is a disaccharide that is part glucose and part fructose. Fructose is preferentially used to refill liver glycogen stores, whereas glucose is preferentially used to refill muscle glocogen stores. You just have to see the "forest through the trees" as they say. I'm sure there are arguments both ways, but the point being that you should always pick a Starchy carb over Sugar carb. Starchy carbs are going to be used used to fuel glocogen, whereas the sugar carbs are more effiecient at raising blood sugar. Carrots have a higher GI than some cookies, so are you telling me you are gonna have cookies with your chicken breast instead of carrots?. See my point?

Vermeulen A, et. at. Testosterone, Body Composition and Aging. J. Endocrinol Invest 1999;22:110

Snyder Pj, et al. Effect of Testosterone Treatment on Body Composition and Muscle Strength in Men Over 65 Years of Age. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84:2647

Colgan M. Hormonal Health. BC, Canada: Apple Publishing 1996, p. 199.
 
I don't really want to argue about this...So you guys should get back to the topic at hand....If you really want to eat Snickers Marathon bars, go ahead, once in a while for a snack I think its ok. Just don't make it into a habit or eat them in place of meals.
 
T-Bone said:
I'm sure there are arguments both ways, but the point being that you should always pick a Starchy carb over Sugar carb. Starchy carbs are going to be used used to fuel glocogen, whereas the sugar carbs are more effiecient at raising blood sugar. Carrots have a higher GI than some cookies, so are you telling me you are gonna have cookies with your chicken breast instead of carrots?
Click to expand...

Well said. While I agree that GI is a very important factor for choosing a carb, it is not the only one. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top