First time post, so hopefully I've done this right.
Appears to be a flash sale on Amazon that expires later today. I ordered 3 boxes to get the free shipping.
Good Cookies, have ordered them before.
CamelCamelCamel.
Great find, thanks. The bars are awesome too (though not on sale just now)
Double choco chip is on sale too. They are the best tasting cookies.
bought these last night. Great price.
Oos
Now back to $33 for me
Back in stock at $18.32.
any expiry date listed?
Highly recommended, they taste much better than any of the others like Lenny and Larry's. Just don't eat too many at once.
Don't tell me what to do
don't worry, your body will
Microwave these and they are out of this world.
250 calories per cookie is pretty hefty
It's not too bad actually.
If you compare it to Woolworths cookies from the bakery (like Dreamy Chocolate Chip ones), they are 286 calories per cookie and only 2.8g of protein (or if you are going per 100g, 424 cal vs 446 cal and 25g protein vs 4.4g protein). Yes there is more fat in there, but there is no sugar, and fat is more satiating that sugar.
Insulin stores fat in the body. Most of those calories are coming from fat. That fat wont require an insulin reaction and the body will use it as energy.
Thats on purpose, these cookies are meant to be high in fat and protein, but low in carbs.
If you want high protein, lower fat and carbs, then try a protein bar from Quest.
Is this for Keto diet cookie?
So much fat (17g) in one cookie & big calories 250k per cookie.
Keto doesn't worry so much about fat, it's the 4g of net carbs that would be more of concern. If you're trying to limit <20g, 20% of your daily intake on one snack is a fair bit. Compare that to an Atkins bar at ~1.4g.
so this is for keto diet people. not to normal people, well shouldn't be too harm to have 17g fat in one cookie.
they can have two cookies and replace meal
Dietary fat doesn't cause obesity. Sugar (carbs) does.
@studentl0an: Excess calories causes obesity, you can eat only sugar and loose weight as long as its under your daily dietary intake (would not recommend)
@Borris: Excess calories in a ketogenic diet have been shown to be burned by thermogenesis as a ketogenic diet increases fat burning brown fat and decreases toxic visceral fat.
A carbohydrate excess however does not spur additional thermogenesis due to the presence of insulin converting the carbohydates into triglycerides which get stored in fat cells.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3821007/
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/how-bro…
Calories are not equal. Eating excess calories in fat is much healthier to eat than excess carbohydrate calories. Carbohydrate consumption affect hormones such an insulin and ghrelin. Our bodies are not a furnace (as calories as measured by burning an item and seeing how much heat it produces in a fire) - they are a complex biological machines that produce hormones that change the way the body responds to the calories being digested.
You will have significant health issues if you only eat carbohydrates as all of our cells have a lipid (fat) membrane and require it to be eaten in diet for normal cellular lifecycles/functions. Sugar however can be completely removed from the diet as our body can produce the glucose it needs through gluconeogenesis.
Think about that for a moment. We can thrive without carbs because our body can make them from protein and fat, but we experience impaired cellular functions if we don't eat dietary fat.
Your way of thinking, the old way of thinking, is responsible for the diabetes epidemic, obesity epidemic, metabolic syndrome epidemic and many cancer epidemics we are plagued with in the modern world.
@studentl0an: Thank you sir! This information should be taught in elementary schools and shouted from the rooftops! But… vested interests and profit…
@findingbargains: I find it worrying the amount of people that upvote the comment saying calories are equal and downvote me for providing scientific studies that prove their statements incorrect.
It's very hard to change people's opinions, even when presenting them with recent nutritional science.
@studentl0an: Indoctrination in the "old" model is so strong that it will take years to correct it. My biggest concern is that it is also the medical professionals who are ignoring the latest science. Now that is akin to genocide, considering how many people are needlessly suffering and dying early with poor quality of life, including heart disease, many types of cancers, dementia, gangrene etc. over something that could be relatively easily managed and corrected. Don't get me started on statins…
@findingbargains: It's not their fault. In a lot of cases they went through medical school 30+ years ago and were presented with bad knowledge because we didn't the studies we now have today. People who considered themselves good students in school would study which foods they were told were healthy or bad and still believe that to have not changed.
They think they are helping others by slowly killing them with terrible nutritional advice.
Here's a few symposiums by doctors and professors in the nutritional science sphere which will help educate others on up to date nutritional science:
Professor Robert Lustig on is a calorie a calorie and how carbohydrates fuel cancer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxyxcTZccsE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpNU72dny2s
Dr Peter Brukner on inflammation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfy4jZLsY_0
Professor Thomas Seyfried on cancer cells being fueled from sugars:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06e-PwhmSq8
Dr Pradip Jamnadas on sugar being the cause of disease:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbR1QwJwwpo
Dr Paul Mason on low carb diets being the healthiest option:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBsnk2PtPeo
Dr Chris Knobbe on seed oils being highly associated with the rise of modern diseases:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kGnfXXIKZM
Science Journalist Nina Teicholz on Red Meat and Health: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9ZLJI-1ifs
Dr. Benjamin Bikman on how brown fat, fed by ketones, metabolises toxic fat into energy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t1JN0RgvO4
Dr Jason Fung on how fasting reverses insulin resistance/diabetes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUiSCEBGxXk
@studentl0an: Hi, nutrition researcher here. The downvotes are possibly due to the oversimplification of your comments. The biochemical mechanisms underlying the metabolism and storage of macronutrients are complex and some aspects have yet to be elucidated. View points such as "carbs bad, fat good" that are espoused by quacks trying to sell things aren't helpful. You can find studies to support almost every nutrition hypothesis out there. Have you looked at the studies? Have you looked at their design, their limitations? You can't just find a study that shows an association between, say, inducing nutritional ketosis and reduction in memory impairment, and state with certainty that ketosis prevents or even treats dementia (I recently completed a comprehensive lit review on the role of induced ketosis in treating Alzheimer's for an upcoming project and this research is still very much in its infancy).
The obesity epidemic isn't due to people just eating carbs. It is because people are eating too much generally. They're eating too much ultra-processed food and too little fruit and veg, wholegrains, legumes, nuts, seeds, lean protein. You can't blame the dietary guidelines. People do not follow the dietary guidelines. The Mediterranean diet has repeatedly been shown, with good, high quality studies, to provide the greatest health benefit across various populations.
Now, all that said, I am NOT opposed to a ketogenic diet. This is particularly true for patients with metabolic disease. I see some definite potential in using the ketogenic diet to treat certain diseases. But like I said, the research is still in its infancy. There is much more work to do before we start saying people should stop eating carbs altogether.
@Sabs: I didn't make oversimplifications in the comment that was downvoted though. I gave complex metabolic pathways such carbohydrates triggering insulin and ghrelin production which makes us store, not burn fat and still be hungry - and gave scientific studies to back those statements up.
The obesity epidemic, in my view which I backed up with studies, is caused by an excess of carbohydrates causing insulin to process carbs into visceral body fat in the form of triglycerides. We can see this by controlling for carb intake (ketosis) and giving a caloric excess. The results are not an increase in body fat but rather an increase in thermogenesis which can be traced to brown adipose tissue mitochondria being flooded with transcription factors that increase their metabolic rate: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3821007/
Yes that is mice and not humans, but we are much more closely related to a mouse than we are to a furnace which is how calories are measured. I'm not sure if you were arguing that a calorie is a calorie as the comment I was replying too - but surely as a nutritional scientist you know that different food calories are processed using different pathways/enzymes/cells/transcription factors. That pure sugar will cause a spike in ghrelin and insulin leaving you above your caloric intake, hungry, tired and storing those calories as fat rather than burning it?
I think going forward we are going to see a lot more positive studies in regards to ketosis being the best preventative disease controlling measure at our disposal that is cheap and effective.
The studies which show low carb diets being around the same as low fat diets do not control for ketosis. In some of them the low carb diets were described as being around 100g of carbs a day, which is more than double what a large person should be having in ketosis.
Studies do show that the Mediterranean diet is effective at controlling blood glucose, but it's not as effective as ketosis as I'm sure you already know. While the Mediterranean Diet has been shown to be one of if not the healthiest diets - the levels of diabetes is increasing, not decreasing in the Mediterranean. Of course there's confounding variables there - that is the diet isn't causing diabetes but rather most likely their increase consumption of processed foods such as grain and pasta and having less lean protein and healthy fats.
At the end of the day the most important studies are the ones were n=1, that is us. Until you experience keto it's just words and studies. I strongly advocate for anyone who hasn't tried keto to give it a shot for 2 months - 2 weeks to taper into no carbs with higher than normal sodium intake to prevent 'keto flu' and then 6 weeks of clean keto with no processed food. Once you experience the plateau of energy and no hunger it's hard to look back.
@studentl0an: Great advice there at the end. 2 months is not going to harm anyone (for those who are still worried that ketosis is dangerous) as an experiment, yet could be positively life changing for many. The only issue is that a lot of people may think they are in ketosis, whereas they may not be, because it does require cutting carbs down quite low. It may require some initial calorie counting (easy with the apps such as "My Fitness Pal") to get a feel for just how much carbs they need to eliminate. It is not easy to measure ketones cheaply and accurately in a home setting, unfortunately, but getting some urine sticks (e.g. Keto-Diastix) may be of help.
@studentl0an: Good points, I don't know enough on keto to comment on much but I was talking about general Calories In/Out in regard to weight loss.
Obviously having a nutritionally balanced diet is extremely important but it doesn't change the fact that for the average person if you eat less calories than you use you loosing weight and vice versa. I'm also very conscious about sugar but there's a lot more to consider.
Here's some information that could be interesting for people.
Fat loss is not different between low carb or low fat diets during controlled feeding studies when calories/protein are matched:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28193517/
Dietary carb & sugar intake has DECREASED over the last 2 decades while obesity has continued to rise:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25623085/
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23676424/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4175294/
Dietary Fats are the biggest contributor to increased caloric intake over the last 50 years:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/13/whats-on-yo…
Sugar does NOT cause fat gain unless also accompanied by an increase in calories:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23321486/
Low Carb Diets do not cause more weight loss than low fat diets when calories and protein are equated:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16685046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6893678/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27385608/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25007189/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26768850/
Insulin levels do not appear to predict future weight gain:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17130851/
@Borris: I highly recommend that people watch Fat Fiction its free to watch on YouTube which explains and supports @studentl0an comments. Thanks!
@Borris: Sorry but you are making such a pointless point, why even bother?
Yes you can lose weight eating mars bars if you don't mind starving yourself and killing yourself.
Yes calories in/out are all that matters for weight loss, but only if appetite, nutrients and everything else doesn't matter.
Asking a hungry person to stop eating despite being hungry just because they only want to eat carbs and sugar is not going to happen.
You only have to look at all the overweight people to realise that just beacuse something is technically true, it doesn't mean anything useful.
The whole point of low carb is because it allows your body to properly tell you have eaten enough where mars bars and pizza shapes do not.
@samfisher5986: I agree completely, I mentioned nutrition being impartment multiple times, it's just some people believe they need special diets and calories in/calories out isn't a factor.
I support any method of lifestyles that helps people getting healthier but in the end 99% of the equation in regards to weight is CICO.
I only took it to the extreme of 100% sugar weight loss diet to disprove @studentl0an statement of "Dietary fat doesn't cause obesity. Sugar (carbs) does"
Which remains a very broad and incorrect statement.
If your interested in these topics you've probably already looked into your own diet enough to know what is bad and good, nutrition science is still disagreed upon in so many areas so if you can find someone that you trust to listen to and it works for you, that's all that really matters.
I only took it to the extreme of 100% sugar weight loss diet to disprove @studentl0an statement of "Dietary fat doesn't cause obesity. Sugar (carbs) does"
No because he's right, you just don't seem to understand the point being made.
If you eat mars bars for dinner every day, you'll get fat.
If you eat pure butter every day, you will lose weight, and quickly. (no I'm not suggesting a pure butter diet)
You need fat to be healthy, you don't need sugar to be healthy (or carbs)
@samfisher5986: We aren't talking about being healthy at all or you might have a point.
Obesity = the state of being grossly fat or overweight.
You could eat as many mars bars you want for dinner and as long as you've used more calories during the day, you are loosing weight.
It's NOT HEALTHY but my one and only point since the beginning is of course you can loose weight, are you trying to say if you consumed nothing at all (lets add a multivitamin and water so you don't get to mucked up) and only ate 1 mars bar a day… you would gain weight?
@Borris: It seems we are running in circles.
No you can't eat a diet of pure mars bars, you will get sick and probably die. You will also not feel satisfied or full, you will feel like you are starving.
It has no benefit, but fat does have a benefit and also makes you feel full and satisfies you.
@Borris: Ok so your first study showed that sugar consumption had been "intake is either stable or decreasing in both absolute (g/d) and relative (% energy) terms". Sugar may be down, but carbohydrate intake is significantly up as your further studies show.
To elaborate on that in the next study (Trends in dietary carbohydrate consumption from 1991 to 2008 in the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort) showed that while consumption of pizza, pasta and bread decreased there was a significant increase in "intake of ready-to-eat cereals, legumes, fruits, dairy products, candy and ice cream/sherbet/frozen yogurt increased significantly (P for trend<0·04)"
So it appears that the decrease in one form of sugar can be explained by the increase in other sugars. Interesting that they separate them rather than lump them together as that's the question on everyone's lips.
In regards to the study that dietary fats are the biggest contributor in increased caloric intake over the last 50 years - we can see in the other studies you provided that increase correlates to an increase in carbohydrate consumption at the same time. There is no control group for people who did not increase their sugar consumption or for people in ketosis.
The studies which hold the most water are ones that control for ketosis (fat burners) vs standard american/australian diet (SAD) glucose burning diets. I'd be interested to see studies that control for those groups as opposed to ones that would separate carbs into pasta in one group and cereal in the other when they really should be the same group.
@studentl0an: Carbohydrates don't cause obesity, stop peddling this archaic misinformation. Being at a constant caloric surplus is what causes obesity - do some research into the laws of thermodynamics (energy in > energy out = weight gain)
@NedStark102: Our bodies are not a furnace. We do not processed a calorie of fat the same way that we process a calorie of carbohydrate. We have hormones such as insulin and ghrelin. Perhaps you can research how they affect carbohydrate de novo lipogenesis?
I back up my statements with recent nutritional science journal articles, yet you call that 'archaic misinformation'? The only archaic misinformation being peddled is your old view that all calories are the same. That's been debunked and I've provided sources debunking it.
We now know better, please educate yourself in recent nutritional science than peddle misinformation that is responsible for the many obesity related epidemics we have today.
I understand you have good intentions and want to help people, the problem is you are doing the opposite of what you think you are. You are hurting people by simplifying the argument into the debunked calories in - calories out nonsense. We process calories differently depending on what they are made from.
@studentl0an: I too can find scientific journals supporting my initial statement - which was that energy balance is the predominant factor which determines weight gain or weight loss.
It is not completely black and white, and ultimately eating a balanced diet primarily consisting of whole foods will provide the best overall outcome, but eating at a caloric deficit whilst consuming a high carbohydrate diet you simply will lose weight.
Surely if you are as intelligent as you claim to be, you are fully aware that saying that 'Sugar (carbs)' are responsible for obesity' is blatantly incorrect.
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpendo.001…
@NedStark102: Ok so only one of the sources actually compares ketosis to caloric restriction, being the first one. The other two just mention caloric restriction, the old model, to be still relevant today.
So the source you chose is at best for your argument to show that caloric restriction can get the same results as ketosis. That's it. There's no mention of caloric restriction benefiting satiety levels, insulin response, cognitive function ect when compared to ketosis.
Infact your source seems to be very pro ketosis when it comes to insulin "The low-fat diet had no effect on insulin levels; however, the low-CHO diet resulted in a 22% decrease in insulin secretion, as measured by 24-h urinary excretion of C-peptide. "
The authors then elaborate that alone is not evidence enough. They go on to mention at best for their, and your, argument is that they didn't find a link. Here's a more recent meta analysis (not really a primary source, like yours) journal article that finds links between ketosis and normalising insulin levels: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6566854/
The sources I provided in prior posts directly study ketosis as benefiting all of those measures, while your source at best shows that caloric restriction can have the same weight loss results as ketosis (which I never said wasn't true, just that it's what a masochist would choose given how benefiting ketosis is).
You're welcome to keep thinking weight gain has nothing to do with hormones and is only about caloric restriction, even though your source makes a very strong case for hormones affecting weight and ketosis being beneficial to normal hormone function.
@studentl0an: Great thread here bro, do you have a newsletter? 😁
I aim for keto and in my n=1 study, keto is fantastic, energy levels, general health etc. It's those environmental habits though, I find it hard to stick to when I go out for dinner, have drinks etc.
@NedStark102: Humans don't work like that, maybe someone with a severe case of anorexia.
The rest of us have cravings, hunger, nutritional requirements and more
But sure, show us how your diet of 100% mars bars goes because you can't fail if you aren't at a caloric surplus right?
@samfisher5986: If you are in a caloric deficit, you will lose weight. Is doing it from primarily sugar-based foods unhealthy in a wealth of other aspects i.e insulin resistance, cavities, poor satiety and a severe lack of other micro and macro nutrients? Absolutely.
But that's not what we're talking about - carbs (simple nor complex) are not individually responsible for weight gain or weight loss, no matter how you spin it. If you genuinely believe that you are incredibly uneducated on the matter, and i'd suggest you do some basic reading on nutrition and caloric surplus / deficit before you go spouting misinformation online.
Some Atkins bars have sugar alcohols eg maltitol that need to be added to the carb count
.
Im always suprised by how much sugar atkins proteins meal shakes have vs others. Others can be like 15 - 20 grams but atkins is like 1g, yet it still tastes mildly sweet.
actually seems they are the only shake with near zero sugar, why?
@dbmitch: Yes, but considering the harms of sugar and heavily refined processed carbs (i.e. at a guess, probably 60 - 80% of all so called "food" items you can buy in a supermarket these days) AND if one already has metabolic syndrome or even T2 diabetes, it may be worth a risk using these Atkins type products in the short to medium term if they help people as a "crutch" to ditch sugar. Think of it as analogous to using Nicorette patches to quit smoking. But yes, I would be concerned about using such products in the long term.
@findingbargains: No not really, maltitol is quite harmful to your insides, including healthy bacteria etc.
Keto is stupid unless it's medically necessary
Ketosis is normal part of our metabolism. Or at least it used to be, before it became "normal" to consume refined carbohydrates to excess (without most people even realising it - which makes the whole situation all the more insidious). Ketosis is nothing special, it just means being in a state of burning fat stores for energy as our bodies are designed to do.
Stupid? It's been shown to increase cognitive function and brain health.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6286979/
It's been shown to prevent Alzheimer's disease, which we now understand is a form of diabetes from eating too much carbs:
https://alzres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13195-021…
So studies show ketogenic diets makes you smarter and prevent brain diseases. Maybe you should give it a go for a few months and seeing how you feel?
gets his facts and logic from facebook perhaps
Just to add, I have been on Keto for one year now. Despite this being the least active year in my life due to lockdowns and a change in work to a much more sedentary work day, I have lost over 60kg. I average about 1.5kg per week. That is without any calorie counting at all. There's been a lot of other benefits too, much better cognitive alertness, better sleep, way more energy. It's not just because of the weight loss either, because I saw a drastic improvement in all these things after just one week.
Does anyone know of protein bars or snacks that don't use artificial sweeteners? Every protein bar or treat, theres always a really shitty aftertaste due to those sweeteners.
The BSC and Crankt protein bars dont use artificials. Still pretty sweet though through use of Stevia, Maltitol etc.
Try the Smart protein bars. They are pricey but they have a good range of flavours and I find you don't get that gross aftertaste.
Thanks will check them out. I just tried Blue Dinosaur Protein Bars and they are the thing I've been looking forever. All whole natural ingredients and they use dates and maple syrup to give it a bit of sweetness. The protein is from free range egg whites and they have beef collagen along with MCT oil as healthy fats. You should check them out
How much tho? Haha
You'd think Amazon AU would price match themselves to save a bit on shipping costs. 🤦♂️
$18 for 12 cookies is not a bargain in any rational world.
Mate, these are not the 'cookies' you're thinking of, so you're comparing apples to oranges.
If you are rating their value by the amount of protein contained it is also extremely poor value.
I mean it's not bad
Most the time it's $1 a bar for 20g protein if you're lucky
Basically p40 or p45 is $2.25-2.5
So really you'd want 22.5g for $1.25
But I think it's something different for a snack people rotate however I don't know how these taste!
Amazon charge me (prime member) $20 for shipping. Anyone knows how to get the free shipping?
Seller is Amazon US. Need to order $49+ to get free shipping.
thanks~~
Just order another amazon US product that equals above $49 total, put the order though then cancel the other product.
Does anyone know of instances where Amazon would pick up on this behaviour (gaming the system), and cancel or restrict Prime benefits? How often would one be able to get away with this before getting caught out?
I was hesitant at first but do it quite a lot now. Couldn't find anyone who had a bad outcome from using it when looking, I guess it's a small drop in the bucket to loose some postage fees for the few who do this compared to everything else.
What! This actually works? Don't they charge you shipping after cancelling the other item in the order?
thanks giving these a try, always need more sources of protein to keep those gains going
Only 15g a Cookie, I don't know if it's worth it! I'm not ally buying P40 bars for $2.50
Unfortunately I’m a genetic freak that rips through carbs harder than German windmill. I also have cups of cement and am not lazy? Still ok to eat the cookie?
Oh no, expired….
Too much saturated fat.
And?
Too much saturated fat.
That is a great selling point. Thanks for mentioning it.
Nice find. I love em.