Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Carb Fit--more

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Jean B. - 14 Jan 2004 00:29 GMT
Carb Fit is part of the Hain Celestial Group.  These are the same
folks who produce Westsoy Soy Slender.  I think I should have
stock in them instead of McDonald's.  Didn't I tell my advisor
that I wanted to see that McD's stock?!
Signature

Jean B.

emkay - 14 Jan 2004 04:24 GMT
>Carb Fit is part of the Hain Celestial Group.  These are the same
>folks who produce Westsoy Soy Slender.  I think I should have
>stock in them instead of McDonald's.  Didn't I tell my advisor
>that I wanted to see that McD's stock?!

I saw the Carb Fit stuff at Whole Foods last week, so I picked a couple of
things up out of curiosity.  Good news and bad news: the cookies have a
very good texture and an okay flavor, and the nacho twists have a good
flavor and an okay texture (a little on the hard side -- "like eating
uncooked rotini" was my husband's opinion) -- but both of them raised my
blood sugar by about the same amount that non-LC cookies or snack-chip
things would.  No more of them for me, unfortunately.

Em
Dogstar - 14 Jan 2004 05:11 GMT
I just bought and had for dinner their spaghetti and hated it. Very
cardboard-like and the consistency was not good.

> >Carb Fit is part of the Hain Celestial Group.  These are the same
> >folks who produce Westsoy Soy Slender.  I think I should have
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Em
Jean B. - 14 Jan 2004 14:33 GMT
> I just bought and had for dinner their spaghetti and hated it. Very
> cardboard-like and the consistency was not good.

Oh, good--that the reviews are coming in anyway.  I guess we all
have to wait for the Bella Vita to come back.

Signature

Jean B.

Jean B. - 14 Jan 2004 14:32 GMT
> >Carb Fit is part of the Hain Celestial Group.  These are the same
> >folks who produce Westsoy Soy Slender.  I think I should have
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Em

Oh ack!  Now did those cookies contain erythritol and inulin like
the ones I got the other day?  (They don't have two different
formulas, do they?)  I was leery of the twists, because of the soy
and the cardboard texture that some of those products have.
Anyway, I should stop thinking of consuming such things.  Today,
instead of making treats, I will make chili and/or lasagna--with
the tofu "noodles", since I do have tofu.  (It does occur to me
that if I freeze some of the lasagna, the tofu will have an odd
texture....)
Signature

Jean B.

emkay - 15 Jan 2004 02:19 GMT
>Oh ack!  Now did those cookies contain erythritol and inulin like
>the ones I got the other day?  (They don't have two different
>formulas, do they?)  

Yes, they do have erythritol and inulin.  I've eaten other products with
those ingredients and didn't get the same BG rise that I got with these
cookies, though, so I don't blame them.  But the second ingredient is
"evaporated cane juice" -- i.e., sugar.

Ingredients: natural palm oil, evaporated cane juice, whey protein
concentrate, chocolate chips (evaporated cane juice, chocolate, cocoa
butter, soy lecithin, vanilla), corn starch, erythritol, egg whites, wheat
flour, inulin (a natural extract of chicory), rice flour, dried egg whites,
natural flavor (vanilla, butterscotch, butter, vegetable glycerin,
vegetable gum), leavening (baking soda, cream of tartar, monocalcium
phosphate), salt.

Serving size: 2 cookies
Cal: 110
Fat cal: 70
Carb: 12 g
  Dietary fiber:  3 g
  Sugars:  4 g
  Erythritol:  2 g
Protein:  3 g

I was leary of some of the ingredients, so I only ate one, and the increase
in BG was almost the same as with a regular cookie.

Em
Jean B. - 15 Jan 2004 10:13 GMT
> >Oh ack!  Now did those cookies contain erythritol and inulin like
> >the ones I got the other day?  (They don't have two different
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> I was leary of some of the ingredients, so I only ate one, and the increase
> in BG was almost the same as with a regular cookie.

Yes, I saw that "evaporated cane juice".  To me, this seems to be
a fancy name for sugar, and the cookies are lower carb but not
really low carb.  Seems to me also that if you want to consume
that many carbs, you can have a "real" cookie--and most of us
elect not to squander our carb allotments that way.  Oh well.

Anyway, last night I was thinking that while it's exciting to see
all the new products and ingredients, they are beginning to make
me nervous.  If I eat junk food, even if it is LC junk food, that
is unnecessary calories.  Ditto if I get back into eating
desserts, thinking I need one after dinner.  I have to be able to
view these things as rare treats--not as something I am entitled
to every day.  

Signature

Jean B.

Ignoramus12172 - 15 Jan 2004 13:49 GMT
>> >Oh ack!  Now did those cookies contain erythritol and inulin like
>> >the ones I got the other day?  (They don't have two different
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> view these things as rare treats--not as something I am entitled
> to every day.  

I agree.

If I see a product that contains "cane juice", I know two things:

1) it really contains sugar
2) the manufacturer is a liar. Honest ones would just say sugar
instead of trying to mislead me.

Hence, I do not buy anything with "cane juice".

i
Jean B. - 15 Jan 2004 15:32 GMT

> I agree.
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> i

I wonder why we are seeing that ingredient now?  Is it because
manufacturers know some of us don't want to see the word "sugar"?
Is it an attempt to rehabilitate the product by renaming it?
(Like prunes new being called dried plums?)  I guess it does rule
out beet sugar, but still...

Signature

Jean B.

Ignoramus12172 - 15 Jan 2004 15:38 GMT
>> I agree.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I wonder why we are seeing that ingredient now?  Is it because
> manufacturers know some of us don't want to see the word "sugar"?

I would think so, yes.

> Is it an attempt to rehabilitate the product by renaming it?
> (Like prunes new being called dried plums?)  I guess it does rule
> out beet sugar, but still...

I think that it's just simply wanting to sell sweet stuff (because
that's what people buy), without being honest about it, that's all.

i
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.