Since never having used protein bars I really have no opinion as to taste, etc. however it was suggested that by sharing ideas of what is out there will give us a better understanding of these bars...found this info from another message board which I thought was quite interesting...take from it what you will:

An Inside Look at Protein Bars

This info is psoted at: Proteinfactory.com

Three years ago when I first started proteinfactory.com my biggest statement I was trying to make on the proteinfactory.com site was to make people aware of the different quality whey protein, mainly the difference between an isolate and a concentrate. I don't know if I was the first person to blow the whistle but soon after Proteinfactory.com became more well know I started to see more and more companies differentiate their protein powders from whey isolate and whey concentrate. I tried to make more people aware of the different qualities of hydrolyzed whey protein that caught on somewhat but not like the isolate vs. concentrate. This brings me to my subject of this article. If you notice at the bottom right of the home page you will notice a submission question that is, "What product would you like to see proteinfactory.com put in retail stores such as GNC?" Most people responded, "Don't put any products in and stay how you are". But the second largest request was protein bars. Thus I began my quest to find out who, what, when, and how protein bars are made.
First off you have to know that supplement companies rarely make there own bars. There are less than 10 manufacturers of all the protein bars in country, if that; I believe there are only 6 or 7. These manufacturers Asses are so tight; "If you put a piece of coal up their ass in a few days you would have a diamond". (Quote from Ferris Buellers Day Off, movie), Meaning that you cant get any answers from them on how the bars are made, the ingredients, where they come from, and the scientific mumbo-jumbo, on all their labels. That led me to investigate the ingredients myself.
The most profound, most important, and most controversial ingredient I researched was glycerol or glycerin. Protein bar manufacturers can buy this ingredient in two ways, natural and synthetic. You guessed it! The synthetic is about 100 times less expensive. 99% of the bars contain synthetic glycerin. Nobody uses the natural stuff.

We interrupt this article to bring you an important announcement from our sponsor.
"Hi I'm Bob Sleazeball from the Dow Chemical Corporation. We manufacture the synthetic glycerol that is used in all those protein bars that you eat. The product that makes your protein bar taste sweet and gives it that great after taste and gas. Ahh yes you know!. I know, I know you can thank us later. But did you know the other wonderful things you can do with that protein bar that contains glycerol. You can use it to make glue and other adhesives. Oh yes the next time you don't want to lick those stamps just dab a little of that protein bar on the back of the stamp and bingo, IT STICKS. You can also make resins and de-foaming agents. So the next time you need some glue or something sticky you can thank glycerol. Glycerol, glue, adhesives, protein bars, and resins, so many uses, so much fun!

This ingredient is the most important ingredient in the protein bars of today. It gives the bar its chewy ness, sweetness, and keeps it from getting hard as a rock on the store shelf. Just to let you know I am eating these bars while writing this article and you can do the same thing as I am and will notice the exact same thing I am describing with each bar, it really is cool. You'll see the differences I am talking about.

Take a look at W.W.S.N.P.P. bar (the reason I am using abbreviations is because I have been threatened with lawsuits). You're going to have to figure it out yourself. It's not that hard. The first ingredient is glycerin! That is why it is sooooo moist like and chewy. It only took me about 3 chews to swallow the thing. I would not be surprised if 60% of that bar was glycerin.

The next step was to take a look at protein bars with the SECOND ingredient being glycerin. N.P.D.W bar, M.T.N.T bar, and the L.B bar all have glycerin as their second ingredient. Wholly sore jaw. You need about 15 to 20 chews to swallow the thing. Hell ofa jaw workout. If I eat this group of bars for a month I would be like that guy from the James Bond movie where he would eat through steel. And I think I will have to go to the dentist to remove the krap from my teeth. Amazing all the protein bars I tried with the second ingredient being glycerin were very hard to chew. So now go ahead. Go out and buy the N.P.D.W. the M.T.N.T. and the L.B. bar they so much alike its not even funny. Well it is funny! I bet if I sat all three owners of these supplement down with all three different bars they could tell me which bar is their's and which one is the other guys.

In the past supplement companies have been leaving glycerin out of the carbs section on the nutrition profile. Let me explain.
"Glycerol/glycerin is a small and simple 3-carbon alcohol (by structure) that's produced in the breakdown or oxidation of nutrient substrates like glucose, protein, pyruvate, and triglyceride." John Beradi T-mag issue . Glycerol is an alcohol. The manufacturers leave it out of the carb section in the nutrition facts, it is justified because of this. But the body can uses glycerol to form carbohydrates and fats using certain pathways. Glycerol can be transformed into glucose or triglyerides in the body, depending on your energy requirements. This it turn can increase insulin levels and fat storing capabilities. Thus glycerol in my opinion should be listed in the carb section.

Finally the F.D.A. has come down on the glycerin issue not being listed as a carb. The F.D.A. has been fining allot of supplement companies for not listing glycerin as a carb. We're talking fines of $500,000 and up. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but you wont be able to buy "Low -Carb" bars anymore. All protein bars are going to contain at least 25-30 grams of carbs.

I am not 100% against the glycerin. If you need it to create a protein bar you need it. But at least be honest about it. Don't try to market it as a new carb source that can benefit you and help you krap blah blah blah. Like one supplement company I know. What a joke.

Now that I have talked about what glycerin does in the body, I want to discuss what does glycerin do to the bar? Well if you might have noticed every time you eat a bar that contains glycerin, I guess that is basically all of them, you feel like you need a gallon of milk afterward. Glycerin makes up most of the bar. It is a chemical ingredient and that is the side effect. Yuck! Then you get that nice aftertaste everyone loves. Ha Ha. That is also from the glycerin. The only reason most bars taste different is the flavor system used. And they don't taste different by much.

The second ingredient I would like to talk about is soy protein isolate. In terms of functionality soy protein isolate keeps the bar from getting hard as a rock, similar to glycerin. As opposed to a whey which will make the bar turn hard as a rock. You can see some bars that contain soy protein isolate will not contain glycerin. The S.P. P. bar is like this. I am not against soy protein isolate, but some bodybuilders like to stay away from it because they believe it can raise estrogen levels. You can definitely taste the soy protein isolate in a bar that contains it. Soy gives off a strong taste.

The third ingredient is maltitol. Maltitol is also used for chew ness and to keep the bar from getting hard. I would say 99% of protein bars contain maltitol. Maltitol is also used in most of the chocolate coating. Maltitol sucks because it causes major GAS!!!

Here in layman's terms is what the protein bar looks like today. I laid it out like this because you can go nuts trying to read the ingredient portions of these bars. Some bars in which glycerin is the second ingredient it looks like it's the 28th ingredient down because of all the scientific mumbo jumbo krap. For example,
Protein blend (hydrolyzed whey protein isolate with a low molecular weight of 10,000 daltons, cold-filtered ion exchange whey isolate specially made for us, and cross'flow microfiltration whey protein concentrate containing a high amount of protein fractions lactoferrine, beta lactaglobulin and glycomacropeptides, caseinate) Glycerin, Protein coating.

Heres the bar layout.

1st ingredient. Protein blend. I would have to say the main portion of it is whey concentrate. In some bars they list hydrolyzed protein. Its actually hydrolyzed PORK protein,yummm!.

2nd ingredient. Glycerin.

3rd ingredient. Is the coating on the protein bar This is usually in parentheses.

4th ingredient. Maltitol.

5th ingredient. Flavor system

6th ingredient. Vitamin and Mineral blend and whatever bull**** ingredients they dump in. Creatine, ZMA, isoflavones.

Simple as that. Over 20-30 protein bars on the market and they are all the same. Geez what a let down. Whoaa wait a second I don't want to end this article on a sad note. I forgot to tell you about the bar we might offer.

No glycerin, no soy, no crazy protein blend, and minuscule amounts of maltitol because we have to have a chocolate coating or the bar can't hold itself together. The bar will contain mostly whey concentrate, small amounts of whey isolate and some caseinate. What else does this mean? No crazy after taste, no money has to be spent of gallons of milk, no diarrhea from maltitol, and no bad taste from soy. I hate to say this but it really tastes better than any bar I have tried to date. Its new, unique, and is going to turn some heads!

Bonnie, thanks!

This is a VERY interesting and informative article you've reference... so much so I've set it up in its own thread.

From Biochemisty of Nutrition by Jerry Wilson,
"Glycerin is a by-product of fat metabolism. It can also be ingested as an ingredient in some foods. Glycerin is metabolized much like carbohydrates, except that there is no corresponding increase in either insulin levels or blood glucose."

So glycerin does NOT raise glucose levels.

But I think it's more important to follow Dr. Atkins advice at this point since it is his diet:

http://atkinscenter.com/helpatkins/...ucts/index.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it true that Advantage bars are higher in carbs than it says on the label? Is that because the glycerin and fiber are not counted?
Atkins products are specifically formulated to minimize the impact of carbohydrates on blood sugar level because elevated blood sugar and the resulting excess insulin production can inhibit weight loss and weight management and increase the risk of disease and illness.

We accomplish this in our product formulation by understanding that not all carbohydrates behave the same way in a person's body. Some carbs, such as glycerin, are digested by your body but not turned into glucose. And, other carbs—such as fiber—impart as little as 0 calories per gram, are not digested at all and pass through your body as waste. In either of these last two cases there is no noted impact on blood sugar levels. However, the FDA and other health organizations have not yet focused on this important biochemical difference and treat all carbohydrates as the same.

The nutritional information on Atkins food products is intended to help consumers understand exactly how we formulate our products so that the consumer has the knowledge necessary to follow a controlled carbohydrate nutritional approach and eat healthy foods. Thus, for AtkinsTM Advantage Bars, the "net" carb count listed in the Total Carbohydrate statement is completely accurate for Atkins followers, and the "gross" carb count matters very little.

However, the FDA now wants the glycerin content of all products to be reflected in total carbohydrate count, so in the future you may see a higher carbohydrate gram count on the labels of AtkinsTM Advantage Bars and other products that include glycerin and other noncaloric sweeteners. But remember, net carbs are the only the carbs you need to count when you do Atkins.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bonnie's sticky on glycerin on this forum is close, but she blames the gas and bloating on glycerin when it is more likely to come from the polyols (sugar alcohols) that are digested in the large intestine. And she also says glycerin raises blood sugar which contradicts what Dr. Atkin's says above. He equates glycerin with fiber and says to subtract it completely.

Actually Voyeur this post is taken from the site, www.protein.com...and are not my words....it was noted on another site I frequent and I thought it was noteworthy...I find your info posted as of late very interesting...keep them coming...something for us all to think about....

Bonnie

Sorry Bonnie, didn't realize the entire thing was a quote.

Thanks for your compliment on my recents posts. Since I manage a medical laboratory, I have access to a lot of research material from which I have posted several abtracts in the Research/Media Watch section, however, I'm afraid that the technical terms may be unfamiliar to most readers. Dieting and health are complex subjects with little consensus among those in the medical field. We can only try to keep abreast of the most recent studies.

Although relatively new to this forum, I am happy for its existence and for dedicated people like you who are really making a diffference by touching people's lives (probably more than you know).

It's funny Voyeur I was about to express the same viewpoint as you have so brilliantly just posted...one of the main reasons I frequent sites like this is to keep abreast of current info that is out there... a forum is a great venue to express ideas...whether we agree or diagree with what is being presented it gives the individual the opportunity to keep informed and that personally is one of my main objectives... as far as the stickiness of any post I make it is up to the powers that be to decide if it is indeed worth becoming sticky... I am just a enthusiastic promoter of LC like yourself

Aha, may I ask for a favour?

I've been trying to find a astudy or it's abstarct. If you have the time, and if does not inconvenience you, would you look it up for me? It's titled "Paleolithic Nutrition" in the New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, 36:199-221. It's quoted as a proof that humans ate a ratio of 0.75 protein to carb ratio. The claim seemed bogus to me, but wanted to double-check what the study actually said

Wa'il

Dear Tamarian,

Although I have online access to full text articles from New England Journal of Medicine, their archive does not go back to 1985. I can suggest a citation retrieval service that can fax the entire article to you for $10 if you wish. In the meantime, here are other citations that may interest you.

Yours is:
N Engl J Med 1985 Jan 31;312(5):283-9

Paleolithic nutrition. A consideration of its nature and current implications.

Eaton SB, Konner M.

This article was reexamined in 1997 and may be purchased online at:
http://www.naturesj.com/ejcn/prices.html

-------------------------------------
Eur J Clin Nutr 1997 Apr;51(4):207-16

Comment in:
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1997 Oct;51(10):715-6.

Paleolithic nutrition revisited: a twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications.

Eaton SB, Eaton SB 3rd, Konner MJ.

Department of Anthropology, Emory University, Atlanta GA, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately the following journal only goes back to 1996 online.
---------------------------------------------------------
ASDC J Dent Child 1986 Jul-Aug;53(4):300-3

Stone age nutrition: implications for today.

Eaton SB, Konner MJ.

The nutritional elements appropriate for contemporary humans reflect genetically determined biochemical and physiological factors, which have evolved over hundreds of millions of years. Stone Age humans, however, derived nearly all of their nutrients from just two of the four major food groups we select from today.

-----------------------------
Unfortunately, the following journal only has years 2001 and 2002 online.

-----------------------------------
Nutr Rev 1999 Jan;57(1):11-4
http://www.ilsi.org/publications/ordernr.html

Dietary fat: a history.

Lichtenstein AH.

Lipid Metabolism Laboratory, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, MA 02111, USA.

Dietary fat intake and its effect on human health is a hotly debated issue and major point of interest in nutrition research and practice today. This review traces the history of dietary fat intake, the influence of human evolution on dietary fat intake, and the relationship between dietary fat and health.

-------------------------------

Nutr Rev 1989 Nov;47(11):337-45


Comment in:
Nutr Rev. 1990 May;48(5):227-30.

What did our ancestors eat?

Garn SM, Leonard WR.

Over the millennia various hominoids and hominids have subsisted on very different dietaries, depending on climate, hunting proficiency, food-processing technology, and available foods. The Australopithecines were not browsers and fruit-eaters with very high intakes of vitamin C; rather they were scavengers of kills made by other animals. The hominids who followed did include some cold-climate hunters of large game, but the amount of animal protein decreased with the advent of grain-gathering and decreased further with the introduction of cereal agriculture, with a concomitant decrease in body size. From what we know about food adequacy, preparation, and storage, the notion that the postulated "primitive" diet was generally adequate, safe, and prudent can be rejected. Over evolutionary time, many of our ancestors ate poorly, especially during climate extremes, and they were often at risk for vitamin deficiencies, food-borne diseases, and neurotoxins. Until the advent of modern processing technologies, dirt, grit, and fiber constituted a large part of most early diets.
------------------------------------------------

Sorry I couldn't get the article you wanted. I hope some of this information is a little bit helpful.

Voyajer:

glycerol does not DIRECTLY turn into glucose in the bloodstream as do 'normal' carbohydrates once acted upon by enzymes in the digiestive system

Atkins Corporation statements about glycerol not affecting blood sugar assume direct impact as above, are based on 'normal' metabolisms (a limited but large percentage of any given population) and 'occasional' ingestion. Atkins Corporation is a Vendor of these products. There are contradictory statements about 'sugar alcohols' and maltitol specifically in Dr. A'.s most recent published work.

glycerol has 4.34 calories (energy) and is chemically and legally a carbohydrate ... glycerol is turned into either glycogen and back to fatty acids and EVENTUALLY burned for energy by being turned to glucose, never directly, skipping the glucose step, as you infer in some of your statements

none of your references or inferences deal with deferred gluconeogenesis or lipolysis, or with larger VOLUMES and FREQUENCIES of glycerol ingestion that would be found in 'nature' or as the backbone of fat

involved as you are with a medical laboratory, you should be more wary of making sweeping statements

Yours, Products Moderator (and analyst by day)...

Dear IslandGirl,

I appreciate the fact that you are the moderator for this forum. The only reason I have for answering anyone's posts here is to try to guard against misinformation and to try to give those who want it a better education on the food they are eating. The posts seemed to be very negative toward glycerin and I wanted to present information that might give a more balanced view.

But as a personal comment about what you said about the Atkins Corporation, I hardly think that Dr. Atkin's would sell a product that would sabotage his own diet. If people stopped losing weight due to eating his products with glycerin then they would also stop using his diet, buying his books, and buying his products.

The following is to help everyone get a clearer understanding of their digestive system and what happens with glycerin (glycerol) in the body.



I'm not trying to nitpick here but to explain the inaccuracy of this quote so that others may understand digestion better.

EXPLANATION OF DIGESTION (For those who don't want the explanation, skip to CONCLUSION)
The digestion of a normal carbohydrate:
1. Fiber, starch, monosaccharides and disaccharides enter the stomach and pass into the small intestine. Some of the starch is partially broken down by amylase, an enzyme, from the salivary glands before it reaches the small intestine.
2. An enzyme from the pancreas digests most of the starch to disaccharides.
3. Enzymes on the surface of intestinal wall cells split disaccharides to monosaccharides.
4. Monosaccharides enter capillary, then are delivered to liver via the portal vein.
5. Liver converts galactose and fructose to glucose.

In other words, carbohydrates do not pass from the small intestine into the bloodstream as glucose. They must pass through the liver first. However, the point is that carbohydrates all initially become glucose in the blood and the liver processes them quite quickly.

Now let's examine fat digestion, since glycerol is a component of fat.

In the stomach, the fat and watery digestive juices tend to separate. Enzymes are inthe water and can't get at the fat. When fat enters the small intestine, the gallbladder secretes bile. Bile has an affinity for both fat and water, so it can bring the fat into the water. After emulsification, the enzymes have easy access to the fat droplets.

The enzymes cleave triglycerides into free fatty acids, glycerol, and monoglycerides. The parts are absorbed by intestinal villi. Large lipid fragments, such as monoglycerides and long-chain fatty acids, are converted back into triglycerides and combined with protein, forming chylomicrons that travel in the lymph vessels. Small lipid particles such as glycerol and short-chain fatty acids are small enough to enter directly into the bloodstream without further processing. The blood carries glycerol and short-chain fatty acids to the cells which break them down further into small fragments. Finally, each fat fragment is comined with a gragment derived from glucose, and the energy-releasing reaction contiinues and feeds the cells of the body.

CONCLUSION
Glycerin (glycerol) doesn't become glucose as Island Girl has said here. It goes directly into the bloodstream in its natural form. That is why it doesn't raise blood sugar. It has to combine with glucose in order to feed the cells. In ketosis, there is no extra glucose in the blood so the body is highly unlikely to be able to use the glycerol in the blood until there is extra glucose floating around. (I say "extra" glucose because while in ketosis, your body still must maintain a minimum blood glucose level.) It is true that eventually the body will be able to utilize the 4.32 calories in the glycerol for fuel once it can get extra glucose to use it. This will be a slower process in ketosis than when eating carbohydrates.

It should be noted that not only carbohydrate but protein can also raise glucose levels if eaten in amounts over the amount needed to feed your lean body mass. Eating too much protein can take you out of ketosis because your body will turn the extra protein into actual glucose. However, most of even this extra glucose will probably be used to maintain your minimum glucose level. But if you are eating a very high protein diet and a very low percentage of fat (fat has no effect whatsoever on glucose), you could be eating over the amount needed to fuel your muscle and the excess will be turned into glucose thereby taking you out of ketosis. That is why Atkin's specifies getting the majority of calories from fat which can never take you out of ketosis.

Therefore, glycerin, although a carbohydrate, and although unlike fiber is digested, can be subtracted from the Atkin's net carb count because it doesn't take you out of ketosis.

Glycerin (glycerol) is NOT a sugar alcohol. Sugar alcohols are derived from sugar. Glycerol is derived from fat and part of the fat called triglyceride which is your stored body fat.

Sugar alcohols should be eaten in moderation and do turn into glucose, but do so very slowly since they bypass the small intestine where fat and carbohydrate are metabolized. In other words, a large quantity of sugar alcohols will take you out of ketosis. The sugar alcohols (polyols) are sorbitol, maltitol, zylitol, lactitol and mannitol.

Glycerin is not a sugar alcohol.

Voyajer, a VERY detailed and lengthy explanation which contains solid information until we get to this bit...



Lost me, there.

Regardless of your personal leanings, Dr. Atkins and the Atkins Nutritionals Corporation are not the same entity and have different objectives in corporate life. All the manufacturers (including Atkins Nutritionals Corporation) have been taken to task and quite seriously, for taking liberties with the Nutrition Facts labels. The rules are there for consumer protection, and though I don't agree with everything the FDA does (far from it), I also don't think any corporation can make its own laws at will. If change is needed, let them take the high road and not the low road.

I have huge amounts of respect for Dr. A himself, but not necessarily for a corporation that is in a competitive market to sell food bars. I don't mix the two of them up, and don't recommend you do, either. Or anyone else, for that matter.

Regardless of the conclusions you have personally reached based on the sheer volume all the stuff you've quoted in the above posts, "low carb bars" containing large amounts of glycerol have given pause to a large number of people; you shouldn't ignore the solid anecdotal evidence of a large volume of people and invalidate their experience because it is not the same as yours or runs counter to your understanding and conclusions. That's not what these forums are about. Further, I have seen NO solid research by anyone that clearly indicates the short and long term effects of regular, high-volume glycerol metabolism on blood sugar regulation and overall energy metabolism.

Bald statements of opinion and your summary conclusions are NOT presenting a balanced view, it is presenting argument, possibly for the sake of argument. Sheer volume of facts, factoids and your own conclusions isn't going to inform anyone, it's just going to overwhelm.


... and this after you pretty well accused me of nitpicking when I stated ketosis and lipolysis were 2 different processes? ... I may not have specified the portal vein but I clearly indicated enzymatic breakdown was necessary, and it's a VERY short step to glucose from there.

The good Dr. A, in his most recent version of DANDR (I'll say this again), Ok's maltitol specifically as fully deductible. WE both know it's got calories and is a (no question) sugar alcohol, synthetically created, that is broken down at least partially, in the large intestine to an average of 2 cals per gram (or 2 cals of energy from carbohydrate). All previous editions of his DANDR have warned against sugar alcohols specifically. Previous editions have also promoted the use of glycerol/glycerine for serious hypoglycemic episodes (1-2 tablespoons) if needed; the only way THAT would work is if blood sugars are raised; if blood sugars are raised, ketosis (the state of producing ketones as a byproduct of fat metabolism instead of carbohydrate metabolism) halts, even if temporarily.

Nowhere in your lengthy quotes and conclusions have you dealt with these points and I truly would appreciate an understanding of how they fit in your view of synthetic, manufacturered glycerol in large amounts in a low carb bar (vs. the natural backbone of fat molecules) not affecting ketosis in everyone. I don't need a lot of quotes or an explanation of digestion that any good Metabolism 101 text would give me if I care to wade through it. Just those little items I specifically raise, addressed. It's not about the definition of sugar alcohol, or playing verbal ping-pong about definitions and quotes, it's about the effect of glycerol on sufficient people as to be noteworthy.

It's funny that the one place you questioned my statements about the digestion of glycerin was an exact quote from a college textbook, "Nutrition, Concepts and Controversies" Eighth Edition, copyright 2000.--(In fact that's why there were so many typos because I was looking at the textbook while I typed.)

Quote from textbook:
"The blood carries glycerol and short-chain fatty acids to the cells... which break them down further into small fragments. Finally, each fat fragment is combined with a fragment derived from glucose, and the energy-releasing reaction contiinues ..."

I'm not expressing my opinion here. I merely stated what is currently known and taught in college by professors to those studying to become Nutritional Scientists.

I do not have a personal bias for or against the Atkin's approach. I merely wanted to point out to those trying to follow Atkin's advice to the letter what was stated on the Atkin's website. Dr. Atkin's in his book New Diet Revolution points to the website as a place for the most current information about his diet.

Everyone here can sift through the information themselves and decide what is best for them.

Unfortunately, I haven't found any protein bars that strictly have only glycerin and not sugar alcohols, so it is virtually impossible to only eat glycerin in a protein bar. Because of the sugar alcohol content in the protein bars, one would naturally have to restrict intake to avoid a rise in glucose from the bars or indigestion which occurs with sugar alcohols but not with the amount of glycerin in a bar.

The quote you provided was considerably scanty on specifics... I don't much care who wrote it or where it was published. Out of context quotes simply don't provide the information.

Regardless of your amusement at my particular choice of quote, you still haven't addressed the questions I raised about YOUR conclusions and bald (not balanced) statements. Not the textbooks, your conclusions as stated above.

But never mind all that, as I've said before the verbal ping pong is immaterial.

As for the bars with no sugar alcohols, I've easily found the KETO bars (glycerine only, no *-itol(s) at all) and SOME of the Designer Whey bars, with careful reading of the labels, have only glycerine/glycerol as a bulk sweetener (its main role in the food industry, don't flame ME) and softener/texturizer. Presumably the Atkins' Advantage bars, some of them anyway, don't have any sugar alcohols? I hope you would know.

Thank you for the information on which bars don't have sugar alcohols because they do upset my digestion.

Glycerol is used as a substrate in clinical studies when there is need for a poor gluconeogenic substrate. Glycerol has been shown to suppress appetite.

Int J Vitam Nutr Res 1979;49(3):317-21

Metabolic studies in rats under glucose and glycerol loading.

Om P, Hohenegger M.

It has been found in rats that 40% glycerol, when added to standard diet, reduces the food intake and thus prevents weight gain. The subcutaneous application (40 mg/kg three times daily) has no effect. Under pair feeding conditions the oxygen consumption, the RQ value and body weight remain unaffected as compared with controls receiving glucose. It is concluded that reduction of body weight induced by glycerol feeding is due to reduced amount of food intake and not due to any alterations of energy metabolism.
----------------------------------

This was an interesting article on glycerin showing that putting an IV of straight glycerin into an infant did not change glucose levels:

Acta Biol Med Ger 1977;36(9):1289-98

[Absorption and metabolism of glycerin in the neonatal period. I. Speed of turnover of glycerin during continuous intravenous infusions in newborn infants of various gestational ages and in older infants]

[Article in German]

Reich J, Beyreiss K, Scheerschmidt G, Willgerodt H, Melichar V.

Glycerol was infused intravenously over 2 hours in preterm and term appropriate-for-date and in term small-for-date infants at the age of 12 to 72 hours and 10 to 14 days and in infants at the age of 3 to 8 months. The dosage was 0.25.kg-1.h-1 and 0.5.kg-1.h-1, respectively. Less than 6 per cent of the glycerol injused were recovered in the urine irrespective of the dosage. The total clearance was 9.1 to 14.6 ml.kg-1. min-1 during the first weeks of life with 0.25 g.kg-1.h-1 glycerol irrespective of gestational age and intra-uterine growth retardation; and it rose to 31.8 ml.kg-1.min-1 in older infants. With 0.5.kg-1.h-1 glycerol the total clearance values were lower in all groups. The glucose blood level and the blood lactate concentration as well as the parameters of the acid-base-balance were not significantly influenced by glycerol.