Bushwalk Australia

Anybody tried them yet as a muesli bar replacement??
They were on sale at $1.60 each so I bought a few, but I haven't tried to eat one yet, I'll need to wait until I am hungry [ or starving] but the package claims to be reasonably complete nutrition; albeit for some-one on a calorie reduced diet

not the worst, not the best.... pretty chewy, sweet, not much different from your average muesli bar except they claim to have all the essential nutrients in them in the right balance
being the fussy bugger i am i won't eat them because they have coconut oil in them, almost always coconut oil added to food means hydrogenated fat.... no thanks... rice bran oil there too, and im not a fan of that either in processed food. but each to their own

I was thinking "Emergency Rations"

wayno wrote:almost always coconut oil added to food means hydrogenated fat..

Interesting.
Is that because they actually use Copha which is hydrogenated coconut oil?
Raw coconut oil (which I use a lot of) isn't hydrogenated.

dont know what they use, often food makers dont list exactly what type it is... the more they use the more likely it is its hydrogenated, otherwise theres too much liquid... a lot of vegetable oils go off in the processessing of teh food. although not coconut. i go for the bars that have butter further up the ingredients , dont think there was any listed in the one square meal...

wayno wrote:dont know what they use, often food makers dont list exactly what type it is...

Ok. Thanks.
I don't eat anything processed but do use raw coconut oil so was just curious.
(Apologies for taking the thread a bit off topic)

Moondog55 wrote:Anybody tried them yet as a muesli bar replacement??
They were on sale at $1.60 each so I bought a few, but I haven't tried to eat one yet, I'll need to wait until I am hungry [ or starving] but the package claims to be reasonably complete nutrition; albeit for some-one on a calorie reduced diet

I have these for breakfast probably twice a week on average. As for what's in them, the 'Sanitarium' brand is aligned with the Seventh Day Adventist religious movement, which is very keen on healthy, 'natural' food (they even model vegetarianism as a lifestyle preference). I think it'd be a safe bet that they're about as good as processed food can get.

All the best.

yeah, i wouldnt class all sanitarium food as real health food, a lot of cereals are highly sugared junk food,
i dont think sanitarium developed one square meal its sold by cookietime in nz , not sanitarium and it was developed in nz and is advertised here as 100% owned and operated in nz. I think they bought the rights to it, but it does seem to be on the whole a healthy food, nothings perfect... i wouldnt turn one down if i was offered one and was hungry.... i just choose alternatives for fussy reasons

They can be painfully chewy, depending on how fresh they are... mine usually go on a few walks before being utilised. I would place them in the category of emergency ration for those times when you are out a little longer than expected or are needing a little bit extra energy.

We usually take a couple with us, and pack them in for our kids scout trips as rations in case you have to stay out for an extra day (which has happened to them after being caught by flood waters)
Yes, agree on them being sugary and processed, but /shrug, you can eat anything for a day or so

(Wayno - have you read some books called Sweet Poison and Toxic Oil and Big Fat Lies by David Gillespie? I haven't yet, but intend to, only read bits so far
Here's a website i just found http://sweetpoison.com.au/?page_id=2
haha I like this quote 'The answer for good health is simple. Do not eat sugar or polyunsaturated oils and the rest will take care of itself. You will be thinner, healthier, happier and live long enough to annoy your children.'
I gree with the old Aussie marketing ad - 'butter is better')

I like the name
OSM....

Wayno would know. Popular in NZ. They are ok as general filler food, as bulk. Bit oily, not particularly healthy, I took a couple to the Five Passes last year as emergency tucker with an idea as maybe a quick lunch but the consistency and taste was mediocre.

wayno wrote:rice bran oil there too, and im not a fan of that either in processed food. but each to their own

Can I ask why? I use rice bran oil for cooking more so than any other oil, due to its high smoke point.

+1

I won't be buying any more. too sweet shelf life is too short and they taste mediocre at best

Strider wrote:

wayno wrote:rice bran oil there too, and im not a fan of that either in processed food. but each to their own

Can I ask why? I use rice bran oil for cooking more so than any other oil, due to its high smoke point.

has a fair bit of polyunsaturated oil in it, thats not stable when used for cooking especially frying, gets damaged and contriutes to health problems like hardening of teh arteries, theyve been found to contribute to clogging of the arteries, they make saturated fats more likely to stick to teh artery walls. saturated fat has taken teh rap all along , but more recently a closer look at clogged arteries shows polyunsaturates in there as well. they are often the fats that initially damage artery walls making the surface rough and let saturated fat and cholesterol stick to the walls....

Interesting!

wayno,
I don't want to be a spelling pedant however the E and H on my keyboard are well spaced so it should be possible to spell THE as that and not TEH,this really grates with me because when I was in grade 3 I got the Strap for spelling it your way what do you say bro ??
corvus

corvus wrote:wayno,
I don't want to be a spelling pedant however the E and H on my keyboard are well spaced so it should be possible to spell THE as that and not TEH,... ??
corvus

In the previous absence of a spell checker on the Reply page, those that are time poor may not feel the need to check all posts before submitting. As for being well spaced, it is, perhaps, more an issue of dominant hand. The T and H are right handed letters on a QWERTY keyboard (at least they are for me) whilst the E is left handed. I frequently manage to get the E before the H or whatever else may precede the E in correct spelling because my left hand is slightly faster than my right. This may be because my right hand does far more of the typing than the left though and has to cover more ground.

I do applaud the arrival of a spell checker (in full editor mode at least). Thank you. The spelling police may be able to relax a bit. Or perhaps they will go into overdrive now as there is "no excuse".

corvus wrote:wayno,
I don't want to be a spelling pedant however the E and H on my keyboard are well spaced so it should be possible to spell THE as that and not TEH,this really grates with me because when I was in grade 3 I got the Strap for spelling it your way what do you say bro ??
corvus

Its waynos trademark! Though I was shocked to not find a single "teh" in his article in the recent e-mag, I must admit

gaye is right, cack hander.....

love your work Corvus, keep up the good work..

wayno wrote:has a fair bit of polyunsaturated oil in it, thats not stable when used for cooking especially frying, gets damaged and contriutes to health problems like hardening of teh arteries, theyve been found to contribute to clogging of the arteries, they make saturated fats more likely to stick to teh artery walls. saturated fat has taken teh rap all along , but more recently a closer look at clogged arteries shows polyunsaturates in there as well. they are often the fats that initially damage artery walls making the surface rough and let saturated fat and cholesterol stick to the walls....

Yeah, my understanding is that monounsaturated are looked on pretty favourably by dieticians, polyunsaturateds less so. Saturateds are getting slightly less stick than they used to (in moderation), but trans fats are real, real ugly.

At least the research is now digging more deeply than just "fats are bad, carbs are bad".

Strider wrote:Can I ask why? I use rice bran oil for cooking more so than any other oil, due to its high smoke point.

Canola oil would seem to be a good oil for cooking - high smoke point, high in monounsaturated fats.

Avoid all seed oils. Canola, soya, linseed, sunflower, corn oil, vegetable oil' and polyunsaturated fats in general - avoid (esp increased cancer link) Avoid trans fats. Avoid hydrogenated fats. Limit omega 6 fatty acids. Don't eat margarine
Olive oil is monounsaturated, so doesn't need to be hydrogenated. Butter is definitely best! Fry in animal fat (basically lard). Our bodies have evolved to deal with these fats from an evolutionary standpoint. Seed oils have only come into use recently. The guidelines of the Aust Heart Foundation etc have got it so wrong.
The HDL vs LDL story of cholesterol is oversimplified. Pattern A vs Pattern B is determined by how much fructose is in your diet
The whole 'fat is bad' story is linked to sugar ( glucose plus fructose) story, and oxidization.
For more scientifically researched info (not what biased studies made by food producers) have a read of a book by Aussie lawyer David Gillespie called 'Toxic Oil'. Hard copy and digital versions.

OSM, I don't agree with what you are saying. Firstly, "Aussie lawyer discovers saturated fat is good for you" sounds like the dodgy web advertisement "mother of one discovered revolutionary new anti aging cream".
Of course, the book is not at all peer reviewed, not does the guy have a health science background. This is the equivalent of a plumber healing all forms of cancer, or a farmer discovering usable cold fusion.
He also has dodgy unsourced data, and ignores scores of studies that do not agree with what he says. (Meta-analyses include both sides of the coin). Following his advice has a huge probability of killing you much earlier.

i wouldnt say avoid ALL seed oils. but i would avoid processed foods containing seed oils.. you want to eat the raw seeds themselves , preferably soaked in water for a few hours for healthiest food, or get cold pressed oils, a lot of the vegetable oils at the supermarket have been damaged in processing and act as toxins in the body... light and heat damage a lot of oils,
coconut oil is excellent stuff, preferably not canned coconut milk or cream
dont cook with any seed oils. your body does need some polyunsaturated fat for good health but not a lot, a desert spoon max a day...
damaged vegetable fats contribute more to clogging of teh arteries than saturated animal fats, when you combine the two they become super sticky plus its the vege oils that damage the artery walls letting the fat stick to it in the first place.

friend of mine is a naturopath, anyone who comes to him who's been on long term low saturated fat and or low cholesterol diets is usually chronically sick or fast heading for it

http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-f ... ny-on-fats

weston price travelled the world studying traditional native diets and health, thats how he arrived at his conclusions about fats and what makes a healthy diet. the argument of cholesterol and saturated fats have been presented a bit back to front in western medicine,

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional-diets

Thanks wayno.
It's a bit like swimming against the tide. I've changed my diet a lot over the past couple of years. Cut out sugar, eaten the fats our body had evolved to deal with, lost 14 kg effortlessly without ever feeling hungry or restricting amounts of protein or calories. Totally avoided any 'low fat' or 'diet/lite' crap. My appetite control is working again, my bloodwork is spot on, BP normal and I'm fitter and have more lean muscle than I had 20 years ago.

yup. you have to be prepared for a backlash if you dare to suggest cholesterol and saturated fat are good for you and essential for good health. amazing how angry people get about the topic....
yeah i'm not superfit but at 45 my resting heart rate is in the low 40's blood pressure is fine and body fat at 10% same as it was when i was 30 years younger...

icefest wrote:OSM, I don't agree with what you are saying. Firstly, "Aussie lawyer discovers saturated fat is good for you" sounds like the dodgy web advertisement "mother of one discovered revolutionary new anti aging cream".
Of course, the book is not at all peer reviewed, not does the guy have a health science background. This is the equivalent of a plumber healing all forms of cancer, or a farmer discovering usable cold fusion.

He has never claimed to have discovered anything, nor to have written any scientific literature. Suggesting it would need scientific peer review or that his work is of less value because he doesn't have a health science background is a bit like saying that a medical experts opinion in a court case is invalid because the lawyer who called him in is not a medical expert.

David Gillespe's books are based on many sources that he has read, and one of the primary purposes of his books is to bring other people's research to common public knowledge. In most cases his sources are scientific research that has been peer reviewed. If anybody wanted to discredit much of what he has written, they would also have to discredit his scientific sources and the scientists who peer reviewed them. Of course there is bound to be some opinion in interpreting his sources, but I think that would be fairly easy for many readers to figure out which is which.

Much of what he says about sugar (rather than oils) is very simple and very obvious once you take the time to stop and think about it. Ie, everybody knows sugar is bad for us, most people know they eat too much of it, few people realise just how much they really are eating (due to how much is added to vast majority of packaged foods) and few people realise just how bad for us it really is.

He also has dodgy unsourced data, and ignores scores of studies that do not agree with what he says. (Meta-analyses include both sides of the coin). Following his advice has a huge probability of killing you much earlier.

From what I've seen, much of his data is well sourced and peer reviewed, but I guess that may not be the case for all his sources. It's not really up to him to present the other side of the argument. Remember this is not a scientific journal, but a book designed for the masses to argue a particular case. We don't expect a lawyer to present the case for the other side in court, either. It is up to others to present the other side of the debate - and many have - there are entire web sites dedicated to trying to discredit him.

There are many doctors who've read his books and fully agree with him. There are also many other scientists who have come to similar conclusions to some of his, but are not so well known because they have written for science journals and not for the public mass markets.

NB: I haven't read his books myself, buy my wife has, and has read and/or summarised much of it for me (I've just looked briefly at some bits and listened to a couple of interviews). She's been virtually sugar (fructose) free for just over a year and is much better for it.

On another issue...

Sanitarium would like us to think that they're a health food company, but they're not. Sanitarium add sugar to Weet Bix. A real health food company would not do that.

Similarly, the Heart Foundation "tick" is worthless. A Nestlé bar that is 70% sugar can get the tick. Clearly that is not good for the heart, or any other part of the body.

Basically, I reckon people should just eat a wide variety of raw, unprocessed foods and as little as possible of processed and packaged foods. No need to think too far beyond that for a healthy diet. However, it makes for a very expensive grocery budget and is not actually easy to do in our culture.

Trying to convince people that fruit juice is unhealthy is really, REALLY difficult. Took me quite a while to accept it myself. Trying to convince people that butter and lard is more healthy than margarine and most vegetable oils is similarly very difficult. Much of what we were taught in primary school about nutrition is wrong and was based on some very bad (unscientific and non-peer-reviewed) research. I suspect that many nutritionists and doctors have not yet caught on to more recent research that shows much of what they were originally taught about a healthy diet is wrong.

OK, I'd better get down off the soap box now. It's not mine anyhow - just borrowed it from the wife.