Strenua's World» Food

Win a Box of 9Bar Energy Bars

Strenua — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:14:14 +0000

Today check out our review of the new 9Bar energy bars and find out how you can win your own box of bars.

9Bar is a deliciously nutritious seed bar designed to get the maximum nutritional goodness from seeds in a convenient and tasty way.

To find out more visit 9Bar and read our review.

We’ve teamed up with 9Bar to offer Strenua’s World’s readers the opportunity to get their hands on a box from 9Bar each containing 16 nutritious bars of either pumpkin or original flavoured 9bars.

HOW TO ENTER

EMAIL

To win one of the boxes email 9BarComp@StrenuasWorld.com with the answer to this question:

How many different varieties of 9bars are there? (for a clue click here)

A. 3

B. 4

C. 5

Make sure you include which flavour box (original or pumpkin) you would like to win in the subject line.

TWITTER

To gain an extra entry follow Strenua’s World on Twitter and tweet:

‘To win a box of 9bar energy bars follow @Strenuasworld and visit http://strenuasworld.com/9BarComp UK Only‘

Also include either #9barOriginal or #9barPumpkin with your tweet to indicate which flavour box you want to win.

FACEBOOK

Or join Strenua’s World’s Facebook page and comment under the competition details which flavour box you want to win either original or pumpkin.

Terms and Conditions.

Competition open to UK entrants only.
You may enter by email, Twitter AND Facebook, but must only enter by each method once (i.e. three entries in total).
Tweets not including the tags #9barOriginal or#9barPumpkin indicating which box they wish to win will not be considered for either prize. Entrants must still be following @StrenuasWorld on the closing date.
Email entries not including ‘Pumpkin’ or ‘Original’ in the subject line indicating which box they wish to win will not be considered for either prize.
Facebook entrants must still ‘Like’ Strenua’s World’s Facebook page on the closing date. Entrants must comment under the competition post indicating which box they wish to win or they will not be considered for either prize.
Closing date for entries is 11:59pm 18th August 2010 and late entries will not be considered.
Prizes are to be donated by 9Bar and 2 winners will each win one box of either 16 bars of pumpkin or original 9bars
Prize winners will be chosen at random and notified by method of entry (i.e. email, Twitter, Facebook). If after 7 days the entrant has not responded with their contact details the prize will be redrawn.
Strenua’s World reserves the right to cancel or amend the Competition or these Rules at any time without prior notice.

GOOD LUCK

Review: 9Bar Energy Bars

Strenua — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:07:04 +0000

Hemp must be the new in vogue ingredient as after our recent review of organic hemp protein, this week I have been sampling the 9bar range, a new nutritious energy bar. Made from a mixture seeds the 9bar’s star ingredient is hemp as it contains all 20 amino acids including the 9 essentials our bodies cannot produce itself.

9bar is described as having been designed to get the maximum nutritional goodness from seeds in a convenient and delicious way’.

The bars are great for active people as the unique mix of seeds and other natural ingredients provide a valuable source of nutritionally dense energy for both physical endurance and immediate impact. The company has many endorsements from a variety of competitive sports people who claim that it is easily digestible and that they have no problem eating them during an event or training such as ultra running and triathlons.

As a sports person looking to refuel without empty calories a 9bar is great. Each 50g bar is free from egg, dairy, gluten, lactose, wheat, yeast, preservatives and artificial colours. It is also approved by the vegetarian society.

9bars come in five different varieties: pumpkin, organic, nutty, flax and original. As an example of the nutritional content here is the nutritional information for the flax bar:

262 calories,
8.7g protein,
16.75g carbohydrate
17.75g fat of which
- 5g saturated
- 4.8 mono unsaturated
- 7g polyunsaturated
- <0.1g trans fatty acids
- 0.6g omega 3 fatty acids
- 6.5g omega 6 fatty acids
- > 3g fibre
- <0.1g sodium.

With an average egg or 150g pot of low fat yoghurt each containing only 6g of protein a 9bar is a good hit of natural people protein to help rebuild muscle after competitive exercise or training.

The Taste Test

I have to admit that looking at the packaging it doesn’t look that appetising. I know this as before being asked to review them I received a bar in a post race goody bag and I chose to give it away. The description of a nutritious carob topped mixed seed bar with flax and hemp combined with the images or piles of dried seeds conjured up thoughts of seed bars we leave out for birds and did not seem appealing after a race compared with the post race food I had bought with me.

Fortunately for the benefit of our readers I agreed to give them a taste test and I am glad I did. Firstly 80% of the time cereal bars are hard, crunchy and dry which always puts me off or hurts my teeth. These 9bars are soft and chewy.

The second important discovery was carob. I had never eaten carob before and didn’t realise that it tasted like chocolate. In fact even when I was really concentrating on trying to describe the taste it could only come up with chocolate. As such a healthy alternative to chocolate I’m surprised that there aren’t more products using it.

Most cereal bars are made up of rolled oats and bran. But the mixed seeds in this 9bar comprised of sunflower, pumpkin, sesame, poppy, flax and hemp making a tasty combination. I was unable to distinguish great differences between the various flavours when I ate a different bar every day. Pumpkin may have been slightly sweeter although it did not have the carob topping and the Nutty may be slightly nuttier but fortunately the texture and chew-ability remains the same.

After this taste testing I certainly won’t be complaining if I receive any flavour 9bar in my next post race goody bag.

Overall

For active people who are looking for nutritious energy source 9bars are a great source of calories and protein, before or after exercise. They are easily digestible making them ideal for taking on long walks, cycles, runs, or paddles.

For those dieting I feel that a whole bar is quite high in calories, although half may be suitable when you are craving something sweet, without stocking up on empty calories and the fibre will help fill you up.

9bars are widely available across the UK and are stocked by health food stores, Holland and Barrett and all major supermarkets.

For more information you can visit www.9-bar.co.uk or find out how you can win your own box of pumpkin or original 9bars in our competition here.

Scientific claims about probiotic yoghurt misleading

Strenua — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:43:30 +0000

ASA claim this advert was misleading

Today’s upholding of a complaint by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) supports my view that you should investigate claims of health benefits of products you supplement your diet with, to ensure you don’t waste your time, money or even damage your health.

The TV advert in question is for Actimel, a pro-biotic drinking yoghurt intended to be consumed by every one of all ages. One viewer had challenged whether the claim by the ad voice-over that “Actimel was scientifically proven to help support your kids’ defences” could be substantiated.

In their defence to the ASA, Danone claimed that the health benefits of Actimel had been demonstrated in 23 human studies conducted on over 6000 people across different age ranges, with eight studies carried out on children up to 16 years of age.

Danone claimed that the health benefit of Actimel is through the support of the human body’s natural defence system, helping to protect against pathogens and harmful environmental factors, as some of the most important defence systems are located within the gastrointestinal tract. Danone said they had referred to Actimel as being “scientifically proven” in their ads based on a significant body of published scientific evidence that showed that Actimel supported the natural defences of different age groups, including children.

The ASA thought that the ad suggested through the image of an Actimel bottle jumping over a skipping rope and the sound of children laughing and playing implies that the product is intended for normal, healthy children of school age (five to sixteen years old). The ASA also considered that most consumers would understand the claim that Actimel “was scientifically proven to support your kids’ defences” to mean that the product would help defend those children against common, every-day childhood infections. Whilst Danone submitted scientific studies in support of the claims, they were not involving subjects who could be considered ‘normal, healthy children of school age’.

One study examined the effect of Actimel on hospitalised children in India suffering from acute diarrhoea another involved those receiving medication for chronic Helicobacter pylori. Both trials were considered to be unsuitable for use in support of a claim that was likely to be seen as referring to normal, healthy children.
Children in another study assessed the effect of Actimel on the occurrence and duration of a range of symptoms, including asthma, rhinitis, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, abdominal pains and fever, in children aged two to five years who suffered from allergic conditions. Again meaning the results of the study could not necessarily be applied to normal, healthy children.
Three other trials were on children between the ages of 6 and 33 months, much lower than the target group of school-age children suggested by the ad. The ASA understood that the developing immune systems of children under two differed from those of older children, and so did not think that it could be safely assumed that the results reported for the young children in these studies would be the same for school-aged children.
A further area of concern was the portion sizes used in the studies. The children in some studies were supplemented with portion sizes that were larger than the recommended serving size of one 100 g pot of Actimel per day. The observed benefit for Actimel in the clinical trials might not therefore, be representative of the effect of the product when consumed on an ‘everyday’ basis.

The ASA considered that the ad was making an absolute claim that Actimel would support the defences of children, and that the reference to “your kids” was implying to consumers that Actimel would benefit their child.

The ASA understood that some children would not see a benefit from consuming Actimel, and because were concerned that any observed effects for Actimel in the trials might not be representative of the efficacy of the product when consumed in line with the recommended daily serving. It was concluded that a serving of Actimel was not scientifically proven to support the defences of normal, healthy school-aged children against common, every-day childhood infections and that the ad was misleading.

The ASA have ruled that the ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. Whilst there is no suggestion that this product could damage anyone’s health, the findings of the ASA support my previous articles on supplement efficacy and safety: Even with claims of supporting scientific evidence, many products may only benefit specific groups of people. Before you waste your money on ‘healthy’ products, consider if you are actually deficient in the nutrients they are supplying? If they can cure illnesses, is it something you are suffering from? Do you fit the target group scientific studies have shown benefit in? If in any doubt consult a healthcare professional.

Chocolate Craving?

Strenua — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:22:43 +0000

Whilst I can resist most junk food, happily turning down crisps, cakes and fried food, like many chocoholics I do have a weakness for chocolate. But why do we crave chocolate so much?

Chocolate is an addictive drug and many of its ingredients can have an effect on the brains chemistry. It is well known that chocolate contains caffeine, which whilst found naturally in many products, is a highly addictive stimulant.

Other stimulants found in chocolate include theobromine and phenylethylamine, which is related to amphetamines and increases neurotransmitter activity increasing your ability to pay attention and stay alert. Phenylethylamine also has an anti depressant effect along with two other substances present called tyramine and tryptophan, which the brain converts into the feel good chemicals dopamine and serotonin.

This could be why people self-prescribe chocolate for depression. If you want to self-medicate with chocolate it is recommended that you should reach for cocoa – or dark chocolate, which can contain two to three times as much of these compounds, per ounce, as milk chocolate.

Chocolate also contains cannabinoids, the same compound that is responsible for the high of marijuana. But don’t worry the concentrations are too low in chocolate bars to cause an effect. Dark chocolate delivers plenty of cannabis related substances and compounds that stimulate the brain to release opiate like substances adding to the addictive nature of the chocolate. This probably explains why when we chocoholics crave chocolate, inexpensive, low-quality candy won’t do, we want very high fat, dark chocolate.

Aside from the feel good factor associated with eating chocolate the health benefits of dark chocolate have been researched considerably over the last few years and with each report new evidence reveals the many benefits of eating higher cocoa dark chocolate in moderation as part of a balanced diet. Some of these claims include:

Dark chocolate, eaten in moderation, can lower blood pressure.
Dark chocolate includes a substantial amount of antioxidants that reduce the formation of free radicals.
Dark chocolate is a rich source of the flavonoids epicatechin and gallic acid, which are thought to possess cardioprotective properties.
Dark chocolate may reduce the possibility of a heart attack when consumed regularly in small amounts.
A compound has also been found in chocolate which in the laboratory stops breast cancer cells from dividing.

Before you start self prescribing chocolate as part of you healthy diet, then make sure you are eating the right type. If we were to eat pure cocoa then we may be able to enjoy the health benefits however the majority of people eat processed chocolate. Cadbury’s Dairy Milk for example contains just 21% cocoa solids. Processed chocolate also contains a high percentage of less desirable ingredients such as extra sugar, corn syrup, milk fats and hydrogenated oils which may offset any health benefits achieved by eating chocolate.

To obtain the greatest health benefits you need the finest, plain dark chocolate, which contain at least 70% cocoa (both solids and butter). Milk chocolate usually contains up to 50% and high-quality white chocolate contain only about 33% cocoa.

Chocolate higher than 75% tends to be more bitter than sweet, and is classed as high cocoa chocolate but is not to all tastes. The higher cocoa content leaves less room for sugar however, high cocoa chocolate is popular for those wanting to reduce their sugar intake and also experience the many health benefits gained from the active properties contained within cocoa.

If you wish to experiment with discovering your own preferred level of cocoa you could try the Le Nauncier collection of 70 milk and dark chocolate tasting discs from Chocolate Trading Co. Each disc has varying cocoa contents from 33% milk all the way up to 99% dark chocolate. Readers of Strenua’s World can receive 8% off all purchases on their website before November 30^th 2009 by using the code AUTUMN8.

To celebrate National Chocolate Week (12-18 October), Thorntons are also encouraging you to indulge with 10% off – simply enter offer code ACW4 and enjoy a chocolate filled National Chocolate Week with Thorntons.co.uk.

Cut calories to live longer – Sensational headline or robust science?

Strenua — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:11:00 +0000

You probably have read the headlines this week ‘Eat less and live longer’. Most of these sensationalising headlines written in the press, appear to have been copied from the scientist’s own press release without the journalist even reading the actual research paper. Researchers from Wisconsin National Primate Research Centre have published research in the journal Science suggesting that consuming fewer calories leads to a longer, healthier life.

Even the study’s title is misleading ‘Calorific restriction delays disease onset and mortality in Rhesus monkeys’ as the authors conclude that overall when reducing calories in the diet mortality is in the predicted direction but not statistically significant.

The theory behind the study is valid. Since the first studies of caloric restriction in rodents in the 1930′s, scientists have been intrigued by evidence that reducing calories can effectively extend lifespan.

This study involved a colony of 30 female and 46 male monkeys over a 20 year period, who were introduced to the study when they were adults (7-14yrs old). Rhesus macaques have an average life span in captivity of 27 years which can reach up to 40 years old.

Initially the animals were allowed to eat freely from a low fat diet containing 15% protein and 10% fat. For 3-6months the baseline daily food intake was collected for each animal, with half the monkeys allowed to continue eating what they liked as a control for the calorie restricted (CR) subjects who had their diet intake reduced by 30%.

Of the original 76 animals, 37% (14 out of 38) of control animals died of age related deaths compared to 13% (5/38) of the calorie restricted animals, suggesting that free eating animals had 3 times the rate of death from age related causes compared to animals who were calorie restricted.

Seven control and nine calorie restricted animals died from what the scientists called non age related causes, with the effect of CR on overall mortality in the predicted direction but not statistically significant (p=0.16). These non-age related causes included complications of anaesthesia, gastric bloat and endometriosis. The problem with scientific studies is that you can’t just choose which results you want to include. If you are testing a drug to treat cancer but your subjects die from a heart attack you can’t just ignore those results from the study, you have to include all subjects you intended to treat no matter how or why they left the study. The deaths in this trial could be due to adverse reactions to the reduced diet, so shouldn’t be dismissed.

In addition, the study never mentions how many calories the monkeys ate and how it equates to a human diet. The control group didn’t eat a recommended daily amount for monkeys but were instead allowed to eat freely. How many calories would humans eat if they were allowed to eat freely and had no knowledge of the risks of over eating? Without knowing the recommended calorie intake for women, I’m not sure that I would restrict myself to 2000 calories a day, and looking around the street there are quite a few people who don’t restrict their diet. So it wouldn’t take much stretching of the imagination to think that a given a free choice a monkey could happily eat as much as the equivalent of 2600 calories. Maybe the study is actually comparing over eaters with those eating a healthy amount.

There are benefits that can be concluded from the study with the incidence of cancerous tumours and cardiovascular disease in animals on a restricted diet less than half that seen in animals allowed to eat freely. Also while diabetes was common in monkeys that can eat all they want, it wasn’t observed in any animal on a restricted diet. There are clearly benefits from the restricted calorie diet but whether it can be claimed it delays mortality may be stretching the study’s findings to date. What can be concluded is that before you believe all you read in the press, no matter how prestigious the publication, you may wish to read the scientific paper yourself.

Vindication of Vegetarianism

Strenua — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:20:07 +0000

'Appetizing' vegetarian food.

I have been vegetarian for 20 years, although I have issues with the way some animals are farmed, it wasn’t for any animal right belief. I simply don’t like the smell, taste or texture of meat, before I gave up meat I always had to disguise the taste with tomato ketchup or cheese. For me the worst smell (apart from fish) is the smell of roasting chicken behind supermarket deli counters, or the smell of bacon being grilled on a Sunday morning.

It’s hard to be a vegetarian. 20 years ago the only vegetarian products out there were nut roast or tofu and I really don’t believe anyone who says tofu is nice, no matter how long you marinate it for, or how you cook it. Eating out was a nightmare and you always felt an inconvenience to your host whenever you visited someone for dinner. Then vegetarianism became more popular and I had more options. Whilst I won’t eat soya products designed to imitate meat, restaurants began catering for us, as vegetable lasagne and macaroni cheese appeared on menus; normal everyday food that just happened to not contain meat.

All was well with being a vegetarian; I wasn’t considered an animal rights, hippy, do-gooder, where I had to justify my diet to everyone, up until recently. Chefs suddenly became adventurous, why make a simple mozzarella and tomato sandwich when you can make one with smoked goats cheese and walnut? Carbohydrates left the menu to be replaced by salads and nasturtium flowers. But worse times for the vegetarian were to come when it became the latest cause to get renewed celebrity endorsement.

Last month we were encouraged to have a ‘Meat Free Monday’ by Paul McCartney and friends. Monday, the day when most people are likely to have leftovers from their Sunday roast, but who can argue with practicality when you have alliteration. The Meat Fee Monday (MFM) website proudly list veggie celebrities, as if Gwyneth Paltrow, Joss Stone or Peaches Geldof are going to be role models you want to emulate. But the amusing idea behind MFM campaign is not to improve your health or reduce cruelty to animals but to slow climate change.

Sir Paul says that the livestock industry produces more harmful green houses gases than the transport sector. The transport sector which must be contributed to a lot by fellow campaigner Sir Richard Branson with his airline, or the transatlantic journeys carried out by many of the celebrities on hand on launch day. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, meat is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, more than transport’s 13%. Reading the messages on the online forums of Farmer’s Weekly, a leading UK farming magazine, the campaign has upset a few farmers whilst also tarnishing all us vegetarians with the same brush.

But today my vegetarian lifestyle has been validated with the publishing of research in the British Journal of Cancer. For more than 12 years 61,566 British men and women (32,403 meat eaters, 8562 ate fish but no meat and 20,601 vegetarians) were followed. During that time there were 3350 incidents of cancers (2204 among meat eaters, 317 among fish eaters and 829 among vegetarians). Adjusting the results for variables such as age, smoking, alcohol and physical activity, they found that some cancers may be lower in fish eaters and vegetarians than in meat eaters. They examined the relative risk (RR) of different cancer sites compared to meat eaters and found

Stomach cancer -RR of 0.29 in fish eaters and 0.36 in vegetarians.
Ovarian cancer -RR of 0.37 in fish eaters and 0.69 in vegetarians
Bladder cancer -RR of 0.28 in fish eaters and 0.47 in vegetarians
Cancers of lymphatic and haemopoietic tissues-RR of 0.85 in fish eaters and 0.55 in vegetarians.

Previous studies have found that a vegetarian diet is beneficial against colorectal cancer and breast cancer although, this study did not find the benefit to be significant.

So whilst I’d hate to become one of those people who preach the virtues of vegetarianism, I’m glad there are some proven health benefits to my diet. I’m sure there will be some carnivores, environmentalists and farmers who will disagree with my opinions, so feel free to leave your comments and opinions below.