Low bulk nutrition

In article <[email hidden]>,

Abby Sale said:

Pardon my butting in but a question youse may well be expert in which.

I'm seeking very low bulk, highly nutritious food. It's the ingesting bulk
I'm interested in so a food that has to have water added would not do.

Although a liquid would be much more convenient, the best thing I've come
across so far is ProBars (various online places and REI retail). This is a
"power bar" at 350 calories of "good stuff" and only 3 ounces. What I
don't know is any reputation for them.

Are ProBars similar to what their advertising claims?

Any ideas of alternate brands or foods?

Thank you a much.

Abby

For raw caloric density, it's hard to beat lard. Butter is its gourmet
alternative.

Back in the real world, energy bars tend to be the highest-density
foodstuff that most people would consider eating in quantity. But if you
like peanut butter, it has about 95 kcal/tablespoon (about 16g). Honey,
that piker, has only about 64 kcal/tbsp, (listed as 21g).

Returning to butter: 100 kcal/tbsp, 14g. Where is your energy bar now?

Of all of these, the only one I've known anyone to try using seriously
is honey, which one of my more thoughtful (about nutrition and exercise
science) club-mates uses as an on-bike energy food. He keeps it in a
little squeeze bottle.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

In article
<rcousine-0AE273.21173405032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Abby Sale said:

Pardon my butting in but a question youse may well be expert in which.

I'm seeking very low bulk, highly nutritious food. It's the ingesting bulk
I'm interested in so a food that has to have water added would not do.

Although a liquid would be much more convenient, the best thing I've come
across so far is ProBars (various online places and REI retail). This is a
"power bar" at 350 calories of "good stuff" and only 3 ounces. What I
don't know is any reputation for them.

Are ProBars similar to what their advertising claims?

Any ideas of alternate brands or foods?

Thank you a much.

Abby

For raw caloric density, it's hard to beat lard. Butter is its gourmet
alternative.

Back in the real world, energy bars tend to be the highest-density
foodstuff that most people would consider eating in quantity. But if you
like peanut butter, it has about 95 kcal/tablespoon (about 16g). Honey,
that piker, has only about 64 kcal/tbsp, (listed as 21g).

Returning to butter: 100 kcal/tbsp, 14g. Where is your energy bar now?

Of all of these, the only one I've known anyone to try using seriously
is honey, which one of my more thoughtful (about nutrition and exercise
science) club-mates uses as an on-bike energy food. He keeps it in a
little squeeze bottle.

A major consideration is time and energy required to
digest food. I read, but cannot confirm, that honey
requires considerable time to digest. Infants definitely
should not be fed honey, as their digestion is not
mature enough.

--
Michael Press

In article <rcousine-0AE273.21173405032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Abby Sale said:

Pardon my butting in but a question youse may well be expert in which.

I'm seeking very low bulk, highly nutritious food. It's the ingesting bulk
I'm interested in so a food that has to have water added would not do.

Although a liquid would be much more convenient, the best thing I've come
across so far is ProBars (various online places and REI retail). This is a
"power bar" at 350 calories of "good stuff" and only 3 ounces. What I
don't know is any reputation for them.

Are ProBars similar to what their advertising claims?

Any ideas of alternate brands or foods?

Thank you a much.

Abby

For raw caloric density, it's hard to beat lard. Butter is its gourmet
alternative.

Back in the real world, energy bars tend to be the highest-density
foodstuff that most people would consider eating in quantity. But if you
like peanut butter, it has about 95 kcal/tablespoon (about 16g). Honey,
that piker, has only about 64 kcal/tbsp, (listed as 21g).

Returning to butter: 100 kcal/tbsp, 14g. Where is your energy bar now?

Don't forget Plugrá - it's got 82.5% butterfat, whereas most regular butters are
less than 80%. Personally, I find it to be a bit less flavorful than, say, Challenge
unsalted sweet butter.

Don't forget: It's better with butter. (Ewoud can now drop a "Last Tango in Paris"
reference...)

http://www.poubelle.com/butterpig/archives/000172.html

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Ryan Cousineau said:

For raw caloric density, it's hard to beat lard. Butter is its gourmet
alternative.

It's easy to beat lard (lard beaten with sugar makes excellent
frosting, btw).

Butter is 100 kcal/Tbsp.
Lard is 115 kcal/Tbsp.
Canola oil is 124 kcal/Tbsp.

For the OP, two words: meat floss.

Abby Sale said:

Quoted message said:

I'm seeking very low bulk, highly nutritious food. It's the ingesting
bulk I'm interested in so a food that has to have water added would not
do.

Ryan Cousineau said:

For raw caloric density, it's hard to beat lard. Butter is its gourmet
alternative.

I expected better of you, like a suggestion for some high calorie
Belgian alcoholic beverage.

Quoted message said:

Infants definitely should not be fed honey,

How will they learn?

Howard Kveck said:

Don't forget: It's better with butter. (Ewoud can now drop a "Last Tango in Paris"
reference...)

Wow, I did that before in rbr? Can't remember. It's (or I am) weird, I
almost always think about the movie at the lunch table when I ask
someone to fetch me the butter..

Quoted message said:

It's easy to beat lard

Well, I got beaten by lard. Apparently, calling the site manager a tub
of lard is frowned upon over at the other rbr. I got banned.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=123181

Abby Sale said:

Pardon my butting in but a question youse may well be expert in which.

I'm seeking very low bulk, highly nutritious food.  It's the ingesting bulk
I'm interested in so a food that has to have water added would not do.

That's fair, but you gotta drink water anyway, so it's
hard to avoid. Various gels (Clif Shot) and such approach
100 calories per ounce. They're mostly simple sugars.
Some can be mixed with a little water to get a near-liquid.

The advice might depend on the conditions of use,
I can think of several that require minimum food weight
and bulk -
- weight shaving on hill climbs
- you're prone to hypoglemic episodes but have to wear
clothing without pockets
- your cycling jersey pockets are really small
- tour of duty on Captain Nemo's Nautilus
- ultralight backpacking
- you're building a Mars rocket in your backyard
- RAAN (Race Across Antarctica)

Ben
p.s. Peanuts are 180 calories/ounce. Sure, it's 3/4 fat,
but they taste good.

Abby Sale said:

Pardon my butting in but a question youse may well be expert in which.

I'm seeking very low bulk, highly nutritious food.  It's the ingesting bulk
I'm interested in so a food that has to have water added would not do.

Although a liquid would be much more convenient, the best thing I've come
across so far is ProBars (various online places and REI retail).  This is a
"power bar" at 350 calories of "good stuff" and only 3 ounces.  What I
don't know is any reputation for them.

Are ProBars similar to what their advertising claims?

Any ideas of alternate brands or foods?

Dear Abby -

For you, I recommend sperm. It's fresh, with an extremely high protein
density.

you're welcome,

K. Gringioni.

Ted van de Weteringe said:

Well, I got beaten by lard. Apparently, calling the site manager a tub of
lard is frowned upon over at the other rbr. I got banned.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=123181

Kloothommel,
Perhaps you should try dumbass next time.

Howard Kveck said:

Don't forget: It's better with butter. (Ewoud can now drop a "Last
Tango in Paris" reference...)

http://www.poubelle.com/butterpig/archives/000172.html

Perhaps you should tell h**2.

Abby Sale said:

Pardon my butting in but a question youse may well be expert in which.

I'm seeking very low bulk, highly nutritious food.  It's the ingesting bulk
I'm interested in so a food that has to have water added would not do.

Although a liquid would be much more convenient, the best thing I've come
across so far is ProBars (various online places and REI retail).  This is a
"power bar" at 350 calories of "good stuff" and only 3 ounces.  What I
don't know is any reputation for them.

Are ProBars similar to what their advertising claims?

Any ideas of alternate brands or foods?

Thank you a much.

Abby

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
               I am Abby Sale - in Raleigh, North Carolina

http://www.physicalmind.com/pemmican.htm

Joseph

email hidden said:

Abby Sale said:

Pardon my butting in but a question youse may well be expert in which.

I'm seeking very low bulk, highly nutritious food.  It's the ingesting bulk
I'm interested in so a food that has to have water added would not do.

That's fair, but you gotta drink water anyway, so it's
hard to avoid. Various gels (Clif Shot) and such approach
100 calories per ounce. They're mostly simple sugars.
Some can be mixed with a little water to get a near-liquid.

The advice might depend on the conditions of use,
I can think of several that require minimum food weight
and bulk -
- weight shaving on hill climbs
- you're prone to hypoglemic episodes but have to wear
clothing without pockets
- your cycling jersey pockets are really small
- tour of duty on Captain Nemo's Nautilus
- ultralight backpacking
- you're building a Mars rocket in your backyard
- RAAN (Race Across Antarctica)

Ben
p.s. Peanuts are 180 calories/ounce. Sure, it's 3/4 fat,
but they taste good.

Thanks - I didn't want to detail too much burden on youse but maybe I
shoulda.

It really has little to do with exercise or 'power' - it's the practical
experience I wanted to tap.

My 70-year-old wife is chronically & now severely ill. Chronic pain as
well. She simply has no appetite, no food is "attractive" at all. She's
essentially starving. Just nibble a bit then puts the plate down.

I've been urging Ensure Plus or Nutren - both shakes with pretty much the
full nutrition needed daily (in addition to say, an egg or piece of toast
or Scotch & soda.) Each is about 350 cal in 8 oz (US). But these past two
weeks I can't get her to take even three of them daily. "No appetite."

So I'm looking for stuff that will have (as much as possible) all the
nutrition one needs but, liquid or solid, is a minimum actual volume of
material.

(Sigh, I asked her - won't eat peanut butter - a childhood fear or
something - attacked by a vicious peanut, I think.)

Thanks again.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
I am Abby Sale - in Raleigh, North Carolina

Michael Press said:

In article
<rcousine-0AE273.21173405032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Abby Sale said:

Pardon my butting in but a question youse may well be expert in which.

I'm seeking very low bulk, highly nutritious food. It's the ingesting bulk
I'm interested in so a food that has to have water added would not do.

Although a liquid would be much more convenient, the best thing I've come
across so far is ProBars (various online places and REI retail). This is a
"power bar" at 350 calories of "good stuff" and only 3 ounces. What I
don't know is any reputation for them.

Are ProBars similar to what their advertising claims?

Any ideas of alternate brands or foods?

Thank you a much.

Abby

For raw caloric density, it's hard to beat lard. Butter is its gourmet
alternative.

Back in the real world, energy bars tend to be the highest-density
foodstuff that most people would consider eating in quantity. But if you
like peanut butter, it has about 95 kcal/tablespoon (about 16g). Honey,
that piker, has only about 64 kcal/tbsp, (listed as 21g).

Returning to butter: 100 kcal/tbsp, 14g. Where is your energy bar now?

Of all of these, the only one I've known anyone to try using seriously
is honey, which one of my more thoughtful (about nutrition and exercise
science) club-mates uses as an on-bike energy food. He keeps it in a
little squeeze bottle.

A major consideration is time and energy required to
digest food. I read, but cannot confirm, that honey
requires considerable time to digest. Infants definitely
should not be fed honey, as their digestion is not
mature enough.

"Because honey can contain spores of Clostridium botulinum and this has
been a source of infection for infants, children less than 12 months old
should not be fed honey. Honey is safe for persons 1 year of age and older."

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/botulism_g.htm

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Abby Sale said:

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 01:13:17 -0800 (PST), "[email hidden]"

Quoted message said:

Abby Sale said:

Pardon my butting in but a question youse may well be expert in which.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm seeking very low bulk, highly nutritious food.  It's the ingesting bulk
I'm interested in so a food that has to have water added would not do.

Quoted message said:

That's fair, but you gotta drink water anyway, so it's
hard to avoid.  Various gels (Clif Shot) and such approach
100 calories per ounce.  They're mostly simple sugars.
Some can be mixed with a little water to get a near-liquid.

Quoted message said:

The advice might depend on the conditions of use,
I can think of several that require minimum food weight
and bulk -
- weight shaving on hill climbs
- you're prone to hypoglemic episodes but have to wear
 clothing without pockets
- your cycling jersey pockets are really small
- tour of duty on Captain Nemo's Nautilus
- ultralight backpacking
- you're building a Mars rocket in your backyard
- RAAN (Race Across Antarctica)

Quoted message said:

Ben
p.s. Peanuts are 180 calories/ounce.  Sure, it's 3/4 fat,
  but they taste good.

Thanks - I didn't want to detail too much burden on youse but maybe I
shoulda.

It really has little to do with exercise or 'power' - it's the practical
experience I wanted to tap.

My 70-year-old wife is chronically & now severely ill.  Chronic pain as
well.  She simply has no appetite, no food is "attractive" at all.  She's
essentially starving.  Just nibble a bit then puts the plate down.

I've been urging Ensure Plus or Nutren - both shakes with pretty much the
full nutrition needed daily (in addition to say, an egg or piece of toast
or Scotch & soda.)  Each is about 350 cal in 8 oz (US).  But these past two
weeks I can't get her to take even three of them daily.  "No appetite."

So I'm looking for stuff that will have (as much as possible) all the
nutrition one needs but, liquid or solid, is a minimum actual volume of
material.

(Sigh, I asked her - won't eat peanut butter - a childhood fear or
something - attacked by a vicious peanut, I think.)

Thanks again.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
               I am Abby Sale - in Raleigh, North Carolina

Often hi-calorie foods like bars, etc are too sweet in my opinion. I
suppose someone with no appetite might be even less inclined to eat
what tastes like candy.

I wasn't kidding when I suggested Pemmican. Maybe the home-made nature
will also increase it's appeal. With a little rice or something to
make it seem like more of a meal.

Good luck!

Joseph

Michael Press said:

Infants definitely
should not be fed honey, as their digestion is not
mature enough.

Infants definitely should not be fed honey, but it's not because their
digestion isn't mature enough. It's because their immune systems
aren't mature enough to deal with botulin spores.

On Mar 6, 1:03 am, Ted van de Weteringe <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's easy to beat lard

Well, I got beaten by lard. Apparently, calling the site manager a tub
of lard is frowned upon over at the other rbr. I got banned.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=123181

I couldn't see the photos without registering (and now I'm not going
to do that) but how lardy was he? As fat as Fat Stevie?

Recently, I got some complaints related to a post I made on the
Wattage List that included "%^*!@!". No, not the actual words, just
"%^*!@!". One guy said extreme language such as mine was the reason he
didn't post.

Quoted message said:

how lardy was he? As fat as Fat Stevie?

It looked like he got off the pot (he was cycling after all) but
hadn't shat for weeks.

Quoted message said:

Recently, I got some complaints related to a post I made on the
Wattage List that included "%^*!@!". No, not the actual words, just
"%^*!@!". One guy said extreme language such as mine was the reason he
didn't post.

Well, #$&^#$% 'm.