 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004Slimfast is lying!!
Just saw Whoopie Goldberg hawking Slimfast for low card diets.... WRONG....there are 40 carbs in one can of Slimfast. There is a alot of false advertising going on right now... Anyone else notice this? M > Just saw Whoopie Goldberg hawking Slimfast for low card diets.... > WRONG....there are 40 carbs in one can of Slimfast. > > There is a alot of false advertising going on right now... > > Anyone else notice this? there's a new, lower carb slimfast. check the facts before you get your panties in a wad. There's a new low carb Slimfast that's only 2 carbs. 2 very NASTY GROSS carbs!! I have always liked the EAS drinks and decided to try the slimfast ones because they were cheaper.. I actually GAGGED on the 2nd sip it was so gross. Very slimey feel to it and to me it was just awful. They need to do some work on that stuff. Teeb > There's a new low carb Slimfast that's only 2 carbs. >2 very NASTY GROSS carbs!! I have always liked the EAS drinks and decided to >try the slimfast ones because they were cheaper.. I actually GAGGED on the >2nd sip it was so gross. Very slimey feel to it and to me it was just awful. >They need to do some work on that stuff. Well, this is where "your mileage may vary" happens. I had settled on the EAS drinks too, chocolate only. I tried the new Slimfast (chocolate) and thought they were better than Atkins by far and better than EAS. Chacun a son gout and to each his own and all that. I'm always amazed at the variety of responses to the same product. Kalish Yep.. always always comes down to personal taste! Teeb > >2 very NASTY GROSS carbs!! I have always liked the EAS drinks and decided to > >try the slimfast ones because they were cheaper.. I actually GAGGED on the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > than EAS. Chacun a son gout and to each his own and all that. I'm > always amazed at the variety of responses to the same product. Kalish > there's a new, lower carb slimfast. > > check the facts before you get your panties in a wad. _________________________________ Many of your posts, such as this one, are very mean-spirited. Your first sentence was quite sufficient. slimfast has a new life of low carb products > Just saw Whoopie Goldberg hawking Slimfast for low card diets.... > WRONG....there are 40 carbs in one can of Slimfast. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > M > Just saw Whoopie Goldberg hawking Slimfast for low card diets.... > WRONG....there are 40 carbs in one can of Slimfast. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > M Ever think that slimfast may have also launched a low carb version of their product? Because I am almost 110% certain they have done just that. Guess you need to print a retraction, eh? the new stuff is better imho than the old. Thick, good. We added a splash of cream for good measure. Jackie > > Just saw Whoopie Goldberg hawking Slimfast for low card diets.... > > WRONG....there are 40 carbs in one can of Slimfast. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Guess you need to print a retraction, eh? >the new stuff is better imho than the old. Thick, good. We added a splash >of cream for good measure. >Jackie I agree...the chocolate shakes were really good - I added Davinci sugar-free chocolate syrup. I got the vanilla this weekend, haven't tried them yet. Kalish Kalish, what are you paying for the slimfast lo carb? Here it is 4.86 for 4 cans. However, they are large cans, and quite good. Jackie > >the new stuff is better imho than the old. Thick, good. We added a splash > >of cream for good measure. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sugar-free chocolate syrup. I got the vanilla this weekend, haven't > tried them yet. Kalish >Kalish, what are you paying for the slimfast lo carb? Here it is 4.86 for 4 >cans. >However, they are large cans, and quite good. >Jackie $6.49 at Stop&Shop in eastern Massachusetts...waaagh! I'll have to try Walmart. Kalish If I recall correctly the first ingredient in the low carb SlimFast shakes I saw was Maltitol. Almost 18 grams of it. This may be very bad news for the people who metabolize maltitol as a regular sugar, as I do, for whom these shakes will raise their blood sugar significantly And then there are those who get the runs and or gas from Maltitol who will end up throwing away all but the first shake. Since Maltitol is metabolised at the rate of 3 calories per gram in everyone who doesn't get the runs, even if their blood sugar doesn't spike, this seems like a very poor nutritional choice for someone on a low carb diet. You are getting 13.5 grams of glucose in every serving. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > >Kalish, what are you paying for the slimfast lo carb? Here it is 4.86 for 4 > >cans. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > $6.49 at Stop&Shop in eastern Massachusetts...waaagh! I'll have to > try Walmart. Kalish >Since Maltitol is metabolised at the rate of 3 calories per gram in everyone >who doesn't get the runs, even if their blood sugar doesn't spike ... or so you hypothesize. Again, Jenny, with the presenting your theories as hard fact. Newbies to the NG may not be familiar with your jihad against sugar alcohols and may think what you're writing is proven nutritional science. Please try and remeber to couch your opinions as exactly what they are -- opinions. Dawn Dawn, Maltitol is most definitely metabolised. That isn't my theory. That's the reason that it has to be counted into the calorie count of any food they appear in at 3 calories per gram. The area of controversy is whether or not maltitol raises blood sugar. Newbies to low carb dieting who replace protein and fat with large amounts of sugar alcohols are very likely to find themselves provoking a hunger response. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > >Since Maltitol is metabolised at the rate of 3 calories per gram in everyone > >who doesn't get the runs, even if their blood sugar doesn't spike [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Dawn >Dawn, > >Maltitol is most definitely metabolised. That isn't my theory. That's the >reason that it has to be counted into the calorie count of any food they >appear in at 3 calories per gram. Your statement was as follows: "Maltitol is metabolised at the rate of 3 calories per gram in everyone who doesn't get the runs, even if their blood sugar doesn't spike." THAT is theory. You have no hard data to support that statement. It's a fine theory .... but a theory nonetheless. And once again you're throwing around supposition as if it were fact. Dawn Dawn, Here is the scientific evidence about the metabolising of 3 calories for each gram of maltitol: http://www.diabetes.ca/Files/SugarAlcohols--Wolever--CJDDecember2002.pdf See the chart on page 358 (the 3rd page of the PDF file). There is no controversy over whether maltitol is metabolised as a carbohydrate only about whether or not it causes blood sugar spikes and the associated insulin rise. Please check your facts before attacking other people who have done their research. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > >Dawn, > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Dawn >Dawn, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Please check your facts before attacking other people who have done their >research. You'll have to forgive me -- with your history of wildly unsupportable claims in your fervor to demonsize sugar alcohols, it's only natural that I'd assume this was more of the same. However. Even going by the chart you provided -- if it is, indeed, correct -- the absorption of sugar alcohols is less than you insist that it is. Yes, that chart says that Maltitol has a value of 3 calories per gram ... but the chart directly above it says that the small intestine absorbs >50% to 75% of Maltitol. Interestingly, this very same document pooh-poohs the connection between sugar consumption and weight gain in the very next paragraph. Dawn Dawn, My "fervor to demonize sugar alcohols" is merely a desire to warn people that maltitol may raise their blood sugar. Which it does for many people. Since high blood sugar defeats the mechanism of low carbing, it's worth mentioning. Period. Why this should continue to cause people like you to get hostile and vindictive I leave as an exercise for the reader. Re the SlimFast shakes. I may have confused it with another of the new "low carb" shakes on the Stop & Shop diet shelf these past few weeks. There were quite a few of them. And maltitol was definitely the first ingredient in one of the brands. I'll have a look the next time I'm at the store to see which it was. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > >Dawn, > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Dawn >Dawn, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Why this should continue to cause people like you to get hostile and >vindictive I leave as an exercise for the reader. Not hostile and vindictive. Just way past fed up with your constant hammering on your pet theory, and the amount of information you pass off as fact when it's just your opinion. Dawn > If I recall correctly the first ingredient in the low carb SlimFast shakes I > saw was Maltitol. Almost 18 grams of it. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > seems like a very poor nutritional choice for someone on a low carb diet. > You are getting 13.5 grams of glucose in every serving. Ugh. Forget that!  SignatureJean B. > > If I recall correctly the first ingredient in the low carb SlimFast shakes I > > saw was Maltitol. Almost 18 grams of it. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > Ugh. Forget that! Yeah, except that if the argument is that malitol, in people who don't get the runs from it, necessarily causes BG spikes and hunger, I'm your counter example. I routinely eat a strive bar* for breakfast. I have to say that if I haven't eaten one for a while I have an elevated reading afterward on the first day, but after that it has no effect at all. Not only do I not get hungry after eating the bars, one of the main reasons I like them is because they do keep me comfortably satisfied all morning. Now, that may well be from the 20 g. of protein they pack. But, nevertheless there's a datapoint of one that indicates that, even among people who digest the SAs, rebound hunger is not a necessary result. The short answer with all of this is, YBYSP.** If you're interested in things like this -try one with an open mind. If you don't have a problem, great, there you go. If you have a problem, maybe give it one more chance to see if the problem was a fluke or actually related to the food. But, if it doesn't work for you, such is life. If you're diabetic or have health problems such that experimenting with foods of unknown carbosity is not a worthwhile risk, then pass 'em by. But, frankly, giving up something that could be valuable to you because someone else has a problem with it seems excessive to me. Martha *1st SA in the ingrediants is malitol. ** Your Body, Your Science Project. SignatureBegin where you are - but don't end there. > > > If I recall correctly the first ingredient in the low carb SlimFast shakes I > > > saw was Maltitol. Almost 18 grams of it. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Martha A lot of this is YBYSP, isn't it? My few experiences with maltitol have been quite varied--running from intense stomach cramps a few hours later, to bathroom runs the next day. I have no idea how my blood sugar may respond, but I think it is wise for me to steer clear of the stuff anyway, unless I can guarantee that I don't have to go anywhere for the next 24 hours or so. There are few days that I can do that. SignatureJean B. >If I recall correctly the first ingredient in the low carb SlimFast shakes I >saw was Maltitol. Almost 18 grams of it. ???? I don't know, but this is what's on the vanilla shake. I am very sensitive to the sugar alcohols and I've decided to stay away from them as much as possible. I did not have an ill "effects" from the 4 cans I've had so far - but I'm only having one a day and not every day. Still, no problems so far. Kalish Ingredients: water, milk protein concentrate, calcium caseinate, canola oil, cellulose gel, maltodextrin, potassiom phosphate, mono and diglicerides, cellulose gum, soybean lecithin, artificial flavor, guar gum, salt, carrageenan, sucrolose, sodium citrate, caramel color, yellow 5, citric acid and yellow 6. Total carbs: 7 g minus 5 g dietary fiber = 2 effective carbs. > $6.49 at Stop&Shop in eastern Massachusetts...waaagh! I'll have to > try Walmart. Kalish For four cans? What is this sweetened with, BTW? SignatureJean B. >For four cans? What is this sweetened with, BTW? Sucrolose. Ingredients: water, milk protein concentrate, calcium casente, canoli oil, cellulose gel, maltodextrin, potassiou phosphate, mono and diglicerides, cellulose gum, soybean lecithin, artificial flavor, , guar gum, salt carrageenan, surcorlose, sodium citrate, caramel color, yellow 5, citric acid and yellow 6. Total carbs: 7 g minus 5 g dietary fiber = 2 effective carbs. > Ingredients: water, milk protein concentrate, calcium casente, canoli > oil, cellulose gel, maltodextrin, potassiou phosphate, mono and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Total carbs: 7 g minus 5 g dietary fiber = 2 effective carbs. Thanks! No maltitol after all. Seems the comments on this product run the full gamut. SignatureJean B. :: Kalish wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: Thanks! No maltitol after all. Seems the comments on this :: product run the full gamut. So why is there this big thing on maltitol if there is none? Hi Roger, > :: Thanks! No maltitol after all. Seems the comments on this > :: product run the full gamut. > > So why is there this big thing on maltitol if there is none? For some reason Jenny thought there were 18 grams of maltitol in one of the new Slim Fast low carb shakes. Must have mistaken it for some other product. Take care, Carmen > > :: Thanks! No maltitol after all. Seems the comments on this > > :: product run the full gamut. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the new Slim Fast low carb shakes. Must have mistaken it for some > other product. My alternate theory: New products often come out with several formulations and the producer tracks comments on the different formulations and/or tracks cost or shelf life issues. Then in time the producer settles on a single formula across the market. When Diet Rite first came out, there was Diet Rite and Diet RC Cola. Some had only splenda, some had both splenda and ace-k. Some had caffience some didn't. It took over a year for Diet Rite to settle on only splenda and caffeine free. I suspect Jenny saw a can and reported that malitol was the number one ingredient, and Kalish saw a can with a different formulation without sugar alcohols. Okay so folks have hammer Jenny becaus ethey claim she's on a campaign against sugar alcohols. Go after me too. The claim that *everyone* can deduct sugar alcohol grams is an outright lie. In fact some can and some can't. Some can deduct a little, some can deduct a lot. Until you're found your CCLL you have no way to control being in or out of ketosis, so you have no good way of estimating what percentage your body absorbs. The only very reliable way to tell early on is as Jenny points out getting the runs. If it shoots out of you like a rocket, you didn't absorb any. If it doesn't effect your digestion, you have no way to know if you've absorbed 100% of the carbs, 0% of the carbs or anywhere in between. The claim that noone absorbs any is a lie. And look at the wording they use. It doesn't effect blood sugar. Oh yeah? On what time scale? I think broccoli doesn't effect blood sugar on the same time scale either, so why don't we get to treat broccoli as zero? Because there's more to life than blood sugar spikes. Eat enough low glycemic index carbs, and you'll still go out of ketosis so you absorbed those carbs. There's never any harm in counting sugar alcohol grams at 100%. There is sometimes harm in counting sugar alcohol grams at 0%. The claim that *everyone* gets to deduct is false. Some can, some can't. Just read the people posting; they are all across the spectrum in reactions. >The claim that *everyone* can deduct sugar alcohol grams is an >outright lie. In fact some can and some can't. Some can deduct >a little, some can deduct a lot. Until you're found your CCLL >you have no way to control being in or out of ketosis, so you >have no good way of estimating what percentage your body absorbs. Absolutely. >The only very reliable way to tell early on is as Jenny points >out getting the runs. If it shoots out of you like a rocket, >you didn't absorb any. If it doesn't effect your digestion, >you have no way to know if you've absorbed 100% of the carbs, 0% >of the carbs or anywhere in between. This is purely a theory concocted here in ASDLC. As far as you know, people who get the runs are absorbing the SAs, too. And that some people who don't get the runs aren't. They effect people in a wide variety of different ways and just why or how is, for the most part, speculation on the part of end users. Only people who check their own blood sugar after eating sugar alcohols have a clear picture of how the SAs affect them. Dawn Doug, That's interesting about the different formulations. I have noticed that the formulation of the Breyer's CarbSmart ice cream I bought this week has changed from what I bought back in November. It not only had different ingredients, it has a different mouth feel. I will look the next time I'm in the supermarket to see what low carb shake it was that I saw that had Maltitol as the first ingredient. It was most definitely one of them, and I could have sworn it was SlimFast, because I was intrigued to see that they were selling a low carb product. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > > > :: Thanks! No maltitol after all. Seems the comments on this > > > :: product run the full gamut. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > some can't. Just read the people posting; they are all across > the spectrum in reactions. > Doug, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > definitely one of them, and I could have sworn it was SlimFast, because I > was intrigued to see that they were selling a low carb product. Doug's observation also interested me. I like reading labels. I could swear that I have seen different ingredients for the same products. Actually, even before LC, I had noticed that Geisha s water-packed tuna has twon different sets on ingredients, one of which includes some protein source other than tuna. I wondered how they could sell two different products with labels that look identical--except for the ingredients list! SignatureJean B. > > Doug, > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > how they could sell two different products with labels that look > identical--except for the ingredients list! A *lot* of tuna has hydrolized soy protein in it. It can be hard to find tuna that doesn't. And, aside from Trader Joes', it's usually a lot more expensive (and often the salt-free version). Geisha, as I recall, has a deluxe tuna that's just tuna, water, and salt, and a cheaper variant with the protein. If I'm remembering correctly, the labels are a different color. SignatureAF "Non Sequitur U has a really, really lousy debate team." --artyw raises the bar on rec.sport.baseball > A *lot* of tuna has hydrolized soy protein in it. It can be hard to find > tuna that doesn't. And, aside from Trader Joes', it's usually a lot more > expensive (and often the salt-free version). Geisha, as I recall, has a > deluxe tuna that's just tuna, water, and salt, and a cheaper variant > with the protein. If I'm remembering correctly, the labels are a > different color. You are right. Almost all the tuna in normal markets (cans anyway) contains this. I have occasionally found a Geisha can without the soy protein in it that has a darker label, but these cans have EXACTLY the same label, other than the ingredients. Does anyone know when tuna started having this stuff added to it? Boy, I was shocked. I never thought I had to read a tuna label to see that was in it! SignatureJean B. > A *lot* of tuna has hydrolized soy protein in it. It can be hard to find > tuna that doesn't. That's amazing. I don't buy tuna too often (I don't like it as much as the other fish), but the ingredients *always* read: albacore tuna, water, and salt. I avoid additive ingredients like the plague. If it were not a *clean* product, it would not go on my list. > > A *lot* of tuna has hydrolized soy protein in it. It can be hard to find > > tuna that doesn't. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > water, and salt. I avoid additive ingredients like the plague. If > it were not a *clean* product, it would not go on my list. I haven't looked for tuna when I've been in Canadian supermarkets (canned tuna doesn't lend itself to solo picnicking...), but it's possible that there are different types available. In the US, it's extremely difficult to find tuna in the supermarkets with albacore, water, and salt; usually the only ones without vegetable broth and/or hydrolized vegetable protein are the salt-free brands, and those are expensive. SignatureAF > It took over a year for Diet > Rite to settle on only splenda and caffeine free. Diet RC is still around and has splenda and caffeine. Dite Rite has both splenda and ace-k and no caffeine. > So why is there this big thing on maltitol if there is none? Hehe. Because someone thought it contained maltitol and didn't have a can in hand. SignatureJean B. >>For four cans? What is this sweetened with, BTW? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Total carbs: 7 g minus 5 g dietary fiber = 2 effective carbs. Some people must have stomachs of steel to be able to use that as a meal replacement shake. Kudos to those who can. >> Some people must have stomachs of steel to be able to use that as a > meal replacement shake. Kudos to those who can. Well, that wouldn't be me, I'm just the opposite stomachwise. But if you look at the list of almost any processed food, including frozen cakes, frozen meals, etc, as well as "regular" bread and other prolonged-shelf-life baked goods, you will see a similar list of ingredients. If you've been eating processed food or pre-packaged food before and during LC, you've been eating those kinds of ingredients all along, probably all your life. Sometimes it's better not to know, but I had to read the ingredients on the can again because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have bought the shakes if I had seen Maltitol or any sugar alcohol as a main sweetener. Kalish >>> Some people must have stomachs of steel to be able to use that as a >> meal replacement shake. Kudos to those who can. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > prolonged-shelf-life baked goods, you will see a similar list of > ingredients. That's really no shocker for me. I am aware of that, have always been - and that is why I don't eat foods containing ANY of those ingredients. I've been a label reader ALL my life, reading EVERY ingredient with criticism. In some things it's hard to avoid, but 99% of the last two years has had me NOT eating *any* thing in which I have to ponder "what the H--- is that?". I'm one of those annoying food purists. I have standards that food be VERY real. I refuse to switch one junkfood habit and trade it in for another, regardless of "net carb" count. I don't eat frozen cakes, prolonged shelf life baked goods (I've been baking delicious bread for over 23 years so I *know* what goes into it and it is still what my family insists on - I can't eat bread). What other people choose to put in their bodies is their own business, but I want *FOOD* not garbage. > I am aware of that, have always been - and that is why I don't > eat foods containing ANY of those ingredients. I've been a label [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What other people choose to put in their bodies is their own > business, but I want *FOOD* not garbage. I am not as extreme as you, but I lean in the same direction. I like to know what goes in the food, and if there are too many questionable ingredients, I prefer to pass. I still buy prolonged shelf life things, like, say, baked chicken breast with sodium phosphate added, etc. i >> I am aware of that, have always been - and that is why I don't >> eat foods containing ANY of those ingredients. I've been a label [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I am not as extreme as you, but I lean in the same direction. To tell the truth, I've relaxed on my extremeness a bit. However my avoidance of foods with additives has nothing to do with wanting to over do it, it has to do with the fact that these additive ingredients have a very noticeable (almost instantaneous) negative effect on my body. Stuff like MSG, [pick a color]dye #[pick a number], stuff under the legally hidden blanket of "natural flavors", un-named "spices". There is a difference, though, between FOOD that happens to contain additives, and an additive cocktail in a can (which is what I saw when I read those ingredients in the slimfast "low carb" meal replacement). >the new stuff is better imho than the old. Thick, good. We added a splash >of cream for good measure. >Jackie How many carbs, Jackie? Where'd you find it? Thanks, Bonnie 2 carbs. I am in Rocky Mount, NC and found it at the Super WalMart. Jackie > >the new stuff is better imho than the old. Thick, good. We added a splash > >of cream for good measure. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks, > Bonnie > the new stuff is better imho than the old. Thick, good. We added a splash > of cream for good measure. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > > > M The Zone allows around 48 grams of carbs in a meal for an average male. My opinion is that it passes as low-carb. TC My local Walmart has the "NEW" low carb slimfast shakes. They are only 2 net carbs (8g total 6g fiber). PJ >the new stuff is better imho than the old. Thick, good. We added a splash >of cream for good measure. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >> Guess you need to print a retraction, eh? >Just saw Whoopie Goldberg hawking Slimfast for low card diets.... >WRONG....there are 40 carbs in one can of Slimfast. I got a 4-pack of the new low-carb Slimfast chocolate shakes - I've decided that they're the best of all the ones I've tried. I bought the vanilla this weekend, haven't tried it yet. I do add a little Davinci sugar-free chocolate syrup to the chocolate shake - just needed a little oomph, but otherwise the texture, thickness and taste are pretty good - not "mealy" like the Atkins, not slippery like the EAS AdvantEdge, no horrifying chemical taste/smell like the Carb-o-Rite (whatever). Kalish >WRONG....there are 40 carbs in one can of Slimfast. Slimfast came out with low carb shakes and bars a few weeks ago. They still have the high carb - low fat line too. Their low carb shakes are around 2 or 3 carbs per can. I tried it and it tastes pretty bland and yucky. >>WRONG....there are 40 carbs in one can of Slimfast. > >Slimfast came out with low carb shakes and bars a few weeks ago. They still >have the high carb - low fat line too. Their low carb shakes are around 2 or 3 >carbs per can. I tried it and it tastes pretty bland and yucky. Thanks...I didn't know that. Today I went shopping to try and find some, nope...wanted to give them a try, and maybe something cheaper than Atkins shakes. Maybe they are to new yet, and stores don't have them in...but I will probably give them a try. Atkins shakes are very expensive. M >Today I went shopping to try and find some, nope...wanted to give them >a try, and maybe something cheaper than Atkins shakes. >Maybe they are to new yet, and stores don't have them in...but I will >probably give them a try. They aren't quite sweet enough (that's unusual) or intense enough flavor wise, so I add a dollop of the sugar-free Davinci syrup - works for me. I like the texture and overall product. Kalish Tomorrow I plan to try the davinci sf peanut butter flavor in the vanilla slim fast lo carb. That should be marvelous! Or maybe in the chocolate.... Jackie >They aren't quite sweet enough (that's unusual) or intense enough >flavor wise, so I add a dollop of the sugar-free Davinci syrup - works >for me. I like the texture and overall product. I think your right - the texture is fine but the one I tried - chocolate - was so bland and boring. There's four in the box so I'll try adding Davinci to the next one. Debra >I think your right - the texture is fine but the one I tried - chocolate - was >so bland and boring. There's four in the box so I'll try adding Davinci to the >next one. Most people who low-carb are sensitive to over-sweetness so maybe they erred on the side of caution by not making it too sweet - maybe we should write to them - the product is good, just needs fine tuning. I had a vanilla can today, I added some Davinci eggnog syrup to it. Kalish : >They aren't quite sweet enough (that's unusual) or intense enough : >flavor wise, so I add a dollop of the sugar-free Davinci syrup - works [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : : Debra I've seen some people add 1/2 the can of slimfast to cold coffee for their first cup of coffee for the day and the second half to their second (and last) cup for the day. Either chocolate or vanilla, said it is like having a fancy coffee at Starbucks! I've got my doubts! Jois |
Reply to this Message |
 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.