Review: Go On Protein Cookie

The chances are that if you’re reading this, you’re eyeing up this product with a suspicious eye, perhaps due to the fact it’s clearly an ‘import’ of some form and of a brand which you’ve never heard of before. Of which you’d be right; this is a Polish product, which I bought got from my local European ‘ethnic’ shop. And without any more filler, I shall go straight to the review itself; which is the purpose of all these reviews – I try stuff so you don’t have to.

Predictably, we start with the packet. Like expected, it does the general packety things like keeping the product fresh (the material sturdy enough to do this job successfully). The picture on the front doesn’t look that appetising; a part of me wonders whether this is actually a level of honesty on the makers’ part. ‘Zero sugar added’, it tells me; which is a slightly odd way to phrase it – but expected for an import. The majority of the rest of the packet is covered in what I shall assume is the ingredients list in several different languages; as is tradition, I shall only read this once I’ve tasted it.

The packet opens easily and pretty cleanly, allowing me to use the wrapper as a little plate, or to eat it without touching the item itself if I so needed or wished. It smells pretty good; my cookie is ‘Brownie’ and it smells chocolatey. But there’s a slight but definite after-scent I can’t quite identify, however.

Pulling it out shows me that it’s generally managed to keep together in transit and oddly enough looks very different to the picture – this cookie is much more ridged than flat, and there’s not a single brown chocolate chip in sight. It breaks fairly cleanly, though does produce a bit of flakeage.

The taste is rather like the smell; chocolatey, with an aftertaste of something a bit sour – the non-sugar flavouring, I suspect (yes, maltitol). The pale ‘chips’ within turn out to be fairly tasteless hard kernels; I suspect they’re the protein element of the product. The fair taste experienced is relatively counteracted by the dryness of the brownie; it’s not at a critical level, but a drink of some form would be wise. ‘Mouthfeel’ is average; a bit spongy. Yet afterwards, it is decently filling. In conclusion; again, decent enough – I would consume if hungry, but wouldn’t pick at it as a treat (which might in fact be a good thing if you’re on a diet).

Nutritionally, this product comes in as an ‘energy bar’ and a somewhat mediocre one. The best thing which could be said here is the relatively low salt content, coupled with a decent dollop of protein and a little bit of helpful fibre too. However, it’s difficult to look positively on a product which one of the highest for saturate content per kilo – not exactly the thing I would feel comfortable eating on a regular basis.

Nutritionals:

	Per 100g	Per Bar
Energy	453 cal	226 cal
Fat	28g	14g
…which is saturates	16g	8g
Carbohydrate	32g	16g
…which is sugars	1.6g	0.8g
Fibre	7.9g	4g
Protein	23g	11.5g
Salt	0.7g	0.35g

Facts:

Full Name: GO ON Protein Cookie

RRP: Unknown (50g)

Available At: Unknown

Ultimate Owner: Sante Sp. z o.o. (Poland)

Date of Testing: 1^st January 2023

Version Tested: (Chocolate) Brownie

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. I’ve not received anything for this review. Facts correct at date of testing. Part of my Product Reviews series.

Review: Applied Nutrition Critical Cookie

I’ll admit, I always get a touch excited when I find an relatively unknown brand to test out. This is to be somewhat understandable; this is the two-hundredth review and by this point, I’m starting to get to the position that most of the products I frequently encounter have already been reviewed. And this is my hobby. Of sorts.

Now, who are Applied Nutrition? I’m vaguely familiar with the name, but only in regards to protein shake powder. Well, ready-to-eat snacks aren’t much of a business stretch, is it? It’s a British company too, for folks who care about that kind of thing. But after that aside, onto the review proper – starting with the packet.

Well, it’s the ‘crisp bag’ design, pretty big even for a protein cookie; should be, as this baby comes in at 85g.The picture on the front looks kinda nice; though I did mistake the bit of white chocolate for a curl of butter at first. ‘Fresh baked’ it boasts; though it’s a bit hollow as it’s Best Before is about eighteen months from this point. And why is it a ‘critical’ cookie? Other take-home points; boasts that it doesn’t contain genetically modified products and is certified halal. Anything else? Oh yes, no ‘sugar alcohols’, which I suppose translates to ‘no maltitol’ (factoid for the day; sugar alcohols are halal too).

Okay, what’s this ‘tested for athletes’ logo on the back? Normally, folks would leave that question hanging, but as I’m sad (and this is a review) I’ve looked it up. This logo means… nothing. Now, Applied Nutrition has in fact, been certified by Informed Sport (as in, not containing any stuff which risks a disqualification re doping) however it would appear from their website that this product was not one of those which has been certified. This doesn’t mean this product is bad in any way, mind – if nothing else, it will have to conform to general food standards and so on.

I cannot help but feel the cookie through the packet… and feels very firm. I’ll admit, this does not fill me with pleasant anticipation. It’s a bugger to open too; was about to resort to a blade when it finally gave. As which is usual, I have my first taste with my nose, and… well, not much. Something which is either white chocolate or whey powder, not sure which. Then I open my eyes and notice that even though it has done that lying thing re: size, this one still is large.

Just how large it is becomes clear when you open it up; significantly bigger than my palm. A pleasing tan-coloured misshaped-disc with a few white flecks buried within. Smells… well, some kind of berry, white chocolate and what might be a hint of whey protein. However, I do need to confess two things to you; I’ve recently recovered from ‘flu (or a flu-like) which means my nose and tongue may be a bit out and more importantly – I don’t like white chocolate much. Normally, I don’t buy items which flavour-wise would score a minus by default (which is why I rarely test items with orange flavouring and never anything with yoghurt) but in this case I had to accept the only flavour on offer at the strange shop I found this product in.

But it turns out, my worry about this turned out to be exaggerated. Not that I suddenly started to like white chocolate, but the fact that large expenses of this product don’t taste of much at all – just of a vaguely salty ‘cookie’ taste. I shall be honest, I wasn’t impressed on this front; while the cookie broke well, it was quite flaky (thus with the risk of ‘crumbs in keyboard’) and while I’ve consumed worse products in the thirst-inducing department, this one can’t be claimed to be absent of this either. Even the raspberry taste was rather absent from much of the cookie.

Nutritionally, this product counts as an ‘energy bar (cookie?)’ and even after you take the large unit size into account, not an overly great one. Yes, it has the 20g of protein but that is only around a quarter of the products’ whole mass. Nor am I fan of it’s relatively high saturated content; it’s 35% of your daily recommended level, which means I am more acutely aware of other high-saturated items in my diet (for example, a piece of pork later for dinner). Nor am I enamoured by the salt content either – something I have long considered the dirty secret of protein bars and even powders. The worst attribute I would put at this product’s door is it’s lack of fibre; when one serving comes in towards 400 calories I would like it to try to mimic the macros of something approaching an actual meal, thanks.

So in conclusion… unless you’re able to pick these up real cheap, I would be inclined to give these a miss, unless this is the Least Worst option open to you at the time.

Nutritionals:

	Per 100g	Per Cookie
Energy	462 cal	393 cal
Fat	20g	17g
…which is saturates	8.6g	7.3g
Carbohydrate	47g	40g
…which is sugars	33g	28g
Fibre	0g	0g
Protein	23g	20g
Salt	1.28g	1.09g

Facts:

Full Name: Applied Nutrition Critical Cookie

RRP: Unknown (85g)

Available At: Unknown.

Ultimate Owner: Applied Nutrition Ltd

Date of Testing: 13^th September 2022

Version Tested: White Chocolate & Raspberry

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. I’ve not received anything for this review. Facts correct at date of testing. Part of my Product Reviews series.

Review: Lidl Protein Bar

Another day, another product which the now-famed discounter supermarket has put their hand to. Well, in this case it was some time back, but I’ve only just got around to trying the thing. However, it’s also know that their result can be a hit-or-miss affair. So, which one is it to be today?

As every, we start with the box; as this is a multi-pack, it has one. Take-home points; slightly oddly enough, does not have a picture of said product on the front. Oddly enough does not tell us how much protein is per bar but does have the stupid traffic light to tell us it’s ‘bad’ for saturates. I admit, I like the hinged opening for this box; means I can properly re-close it if I’d like to. Or desire to use it again for something else (you never know).

Box lying rating; 25%. In fact, after measuring internals and then the bar conclude it could be a four-pack in the same dimensions. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not pissed off about the ‘lost product’, just the extra printed cardboard I paid for. The bar itself is merely a repeat of the outer box; for once, the packaging is good enough for it to standalone. Different barcode too, which suggests to me Lidl have considered selling this bar as solos like the Aldi one does.

Opens up fine, revealing… a bog-standard plain chocolate bar. Though the chocolate itself is a bit suspiciously light. I try to tear it in half… well, it might simply due to the warmth of my room, but it doesn’t break. It simply gets all sticky and mushy, like you were trying to tear apart warm fudge. So top tip; don’t bother. If you must make this smaller, cleaver it in ‘twain with a blade of some form.

The bog-standardness continues after I’ve done this; looking at the very thin chocolate covering into a tan block, with a couple of tiny black bits (the ‘cookies’ bit of the flavour, I assume). I bite, and it’s okay… tastes vaguely like cream. Hiding a whey protein solution of some form, if I’m any judge (correct). Pretty old-school in experience, leaving me with the combination of slight thirst and sickness at the same time (my bet, the artificial sweetener… yep maltitol, there’s a ‘may crap self’ warning on the box). So on this front, a pretty average experience. Hardly tasty, but not horrid either.

Nutritionally… this bar is interesting. For it’s price, it’s surprisingly good. In fact, it has the highest protein content in regards to a proportion of it’s size (exactly 50%, in fact) that I’ve come across so far (and as I’ve tested over a hundred-forty bars by now, that’s saying something). Coupled with it’s relatively low salt content and low calorific level… more than makes up for it’s slightly iffy saturates and general absence of fibre.

So, in conclusion; it’s worth a look – particularly if you are merely looking for an affordable source of barred protein which neither breaks the bank or has too many nasties elsewhere. Oh, and you’re really not fussed about the taste. Just don’t eat it without something to drink too.

Nutritionals:

	Per 100g	Per Bar
Energy	415 cal	187 cal
Fat	10.9g	5g
…which is saturates	6.2g	3g
Carbohydrate	29g	13g
…which is sugars	2g	1g
Fibre	0.7g	0.4g
Protein	50g	22.5g
Salt	0.57g	0.26g

Facts:

Full Name: Lidl Protein Bar

RRP: £0.92 (45g) – from a multipack of 3.

Available At: Lidl

Ultimate Owner: Lidl GmbH. (Germany)

Date of Testing: 25^th August 2022

Version Tested: Cookies & Cream

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. I’ve not received anything for this review. Facts correct at date of testing. Part of my Product Reviews series.

Protein Inflation?

Another day, another little refresh of old blog content; today’s turn was my ‘Price of Protein‘ post. And while I mulled over whether I should update the prices mentioned (I decided not to, as the actual figures are irrelevant to the post’s purpose) I wondered; in this era of inflation and supply shortages, have protein costs gone up as much as it feels they have – a feeling partly generated (admittedly) by me yesterday looking to re-stock my ‘shake’ and ‘cooking’ powders online and coming to the conclusion the former was now a luxury I can no longer afford (a conclusion which I suspect I am not alone on having).

So, without further ado, the comparisons (in pence per gram of protein)…

	April ’20	August ’22	Increase
Milk	1.7p	1.8g	6%
Peanut Butter	1.8p	1.8g	0%
Pork Chop	1.9g	2.1g	10%
Cheddar Cheese	2.0g	2.1g	5%
Eggs	2.5g	2.6g	4%
Minced Beef	2.6g	3.1g	19%
Chicken Breast	3.2g	3.6g	13%

To the best of my ability, I’ve compared the same retailers; though I can’t be sure. The message is clear, however – while there has been inflation, it’s generally concentrated with meat. Now with the bars…

	April ’20	August ’22	Increase
Sci-Mx Pro Duo Bar	7.5p	10.0p	33%
Trek Protein Flapjack	9.0p	9.8g	9%
PhD SmartJack Protein Flapjack	10.0p	10.6g	6%

Now, this isn’t 100% accurate as I found it difficult to find a stockist for the last, but again, rises which were somewhat more rapid than what we are accustomed to. Though I really cannot explain why the Sci-Mx has gotten so expensive…

	April ’20	August ’22	Increase
MaxiNutrition Progain Protein Shake	5.0p	7.1p	42%

Which explains why I went ‘ouch’ when I was looking to top-up my shake powder. Though this product is now ‘MaxiMuscle’ and they’ve done the shrinking con (1.5kg has become 1.2kg). Well, perhaps it’s whey protein which is causing this…

	April ’20	August ’22	Increase
Bulk Powders Pure Whey Powder	2.5g	3.9p	56%

Yeah. It’s the whey powder. Gotta be; I know from personal experience that other protein powders haven’t over doubled in price. However, whey comes from milk, and that’s only gone up by 6%… odd.

* * *

The little lesson for today being; it pays to re-evaluate your own nutritional habits now and then, comparing to current prices and your finances. In times like this, you’ve gotta be sharper with the creativity, particularly as everyone else is ‘upping their game’ too, and some of your old tricks no longer seem to work that well (or at all, on occasion). We become creatures of habit, not really paying attention to the prices of things until they become so glaringly out of whack. Or we run out of money. Which is quite probable for some of us this coming winter…

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Facts correct at date of posting. Part of my Frugality series.

Review: Nano Protein Pancake

Of all the protein products I’ve tested so far (which is quite a few now), this is the first pancake I’ve come across. I’m not sure exactly why this is so, but it is. But this also means this product already has a ‘unique selling point’; a quick look on the all-knowing Google tells me this is the only premade one for sale. Yet, does it occupy a niche by itself because said niche is crap? Let’s find out…

As ever, we start with the packaging. Small crisp-packet style, like you see with protein cookies. It bucks the trend by having zero pictures on it; not of the product in question, nor of ingredients. Speaking of ingredients, this has to be a first; not only does it assure me they use free-range egg in this product but also inform me that it uses ‘Volac’ whey protein. Anything else worth mentioning? Well, it promises to be ‘fresh baked’, which is somewhat stretching the point as my sample is six months old (having a ‘manufactured on’ date as well as a ‘best before’). Oh, and it’s ‘whole grain’.

The packaging opens fine; the first experience is the scent of peach jam and some form of pastry. I then retrieve the item from inside; guestimate that the ‘trick rating’ of oversized packaging vs the actual product is perhaps 35%. However, now placing the item on a plate for me to look at properly… I’ll admit, I rather like it. Looks identical to the Scotch pancakes you can get, with an ‘ä’ on the top. Feels a bit… rubbery, though (though admittedly so can some normal pancakes).

To those unfamiliar with Scotch pancakes; they’re easy enough to eat with your fingers (unless covered in something, obviously) and this product is no exception. As I tear it open, it doesn’t fragment into a load of crumbs either. Doing so reveals the jam in the centre; it’s not generous a serving, but not overly skimpy either. I try said jam alone with my tongue; it’s rather nice, not sickly sweet.

The general eating experience is… decent enough. The bits with the jam are okay, but the outside bits are as dry as a bone and rather on the tasteless side. Top tip; don’t consume this without a drink of some form. However, in defence most of these complaints could also be levelled against a normal Scotch pancake. So it’s a pretty good attempt; and by making a filled version (which I’ve not seen before) manages to push the product out of the ‘plate and cutlery’ section and into the ‘handheld snack’ one.

Now, onto the macros. I’ll admit; I’m surprised – this product counts as a true ‘protein bar’, and not just because it’s not actually a bar (with hindsight I’d have named those categories differently, but I’m now stuck with them); but that it doesn’t taste like it’s larded with protein powder of some form. Even more surprising, it’s a damn decent one; not only does it have a decent proportion of protein, but it’s also very low in the saturated fat, easy on the total calorie level and is low in the salt.

In conclusion; it’s kinda unfair this product is so hard to come across – because I could see it possibly being up your alley. It’s a decent alternative to the traditional protein bar, an experience which might have been improved taste-wise if it had been put in a toaster, microwave or under a grill to serve hot, like a waffle. So in short; worth a try if you come across it.

Nutritionals:

	Per 100g	Per Pancake
Energy	295 cal	132 cal
Fat	4.9g	2.2g
…which is saturates	0.9g	0.4g
Carbohydrate	28.1g	12.6g
…which is sugars	5.9g	2.6g
Fibre	0g	0g
Protein	35.5g	16g
Salt	0.27g	0.12g

Facts:

Full Name: Nano Ä Protein Pancake

RRP: £2.20 (45g)

Available At: www.proteinpickandmix.co.uk, https://proteinpackage.co.uk.

Ultimate Owner: Next Level Foods Kft (Hungary)

Date of Testing: 31^st May 2022

Version Tested: Peach Jam

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. I’ve not received anything for this review. Facts correct at date of testing. Part of my Product Reviews series.

Review: LighterLife Fast Meal Replacement Bar

Okay, this product is not officially called as such; the official website merely calls it a ‘bar’. However, I’ve looked at them all and they’re quite clearly a ‘range’ and thus, I have named them as such. Plus, it helps with the old search engine results and they are They Who Are To Be Placated.

Anyway, before we go further, I think we need to have a little word about what ‘LighterLife’ actually is. If you don’t give a toss or already know, skip the next paragraph to get to the review proper.

LighterLife specialise in what to my eyes appears to be not much more than crash diets (very low calorie diet or ‘VLCD’). A somewhat dated but seemingly authoritative critique of it is here – from what digging I’ve been able to do tallies with that they said; LighterLife is still making the ‘overweight = lack of self-control/boundaries’ claim and so on (the only real difference is that my sources up the mentions of keto which might be down to the late ’10s bandwagon of it). The bars in question are designed to be for a few of their diet programmes – if you care which, look it up yourself – however, the most common one mentioned in relation to these bars is a kind of intermittent fasting one which does have a bit of scientific evidence behind it. However, this is not really relevant to the review, as I am merely testing the bar as a stand alone product.

As ever, we start with the hallowed box. From what I can tell this product range is mainly ‘directly marketed’ so it’s possible most folks don’t get to see it. If you’re one of them, you’re not missing much. A huge ingredients list, the nutritional information taking up all of the rear (more on that on a bit) and the last side what can only be called an advert for the LighterLife diet plans; basically, their thing is ‘nutrition not calories’ which if nothing else, does put it above the cotton wool diet.

I open said box, retrieve a bar. First thought; this small thing is supposed to be a meal? This feeling of ‘smallness’ is compounded by the fact said box is capable of carrying six, not four bars. The bar continues with what I can only describe as a ‘feminised’ design palette without dipping it in pinks. But if you’d like a cranky feminist rant about that, please go elsewhere (though it does piss me off too). Well, the bar repeats the messaging on the box; calories, ‘4 meals a day’ etc. Some extra blurb explains their intermittent fasting plan. At last! Under the flap, it finally gets around to mentioning that their plans are for folks who have a ‘BMI over 20’ – though there’s issues with this measuring stick. (For the record, ‘below 20’ marks you as underweight. I think this is a CYA comment).

The packet opens decently enough; you’re confronted with a chocolate bar with a ‘rippled’ texture on one side. Again, you’re struck by the relative ‘thinness’ of said bar. Smells a bit nutty and chocolatey, but mainly of the distinctive scent of milk proteins and rice syrups which between them produce the distinctive tang which I mentally think of as ‘A Taste Of Whey’.

This déjà vu continues as I break the bar in half; it bends before breaking. Sight of some orangeness within. Like a normal protein bar. And the bite, which gives me the fully familiar experience given by countless frankly average bars out there. In this particular case, I’ll say the fudge does take an edge of the taste; but it’s still unmistakably a rather old-school protein bar. Yet… this isn’t a protein bar, it’s a meal replacement bar. Right?

Well… yes and no. The only difference – as far as I can tell – is that the latter have been fortified with a wealth of micronutrients, like vitamins. This is important on the basis that this product is designed to be in a complete ‘food replacement’ programme. However, I can see a more everyday use for this; as a product which can help us ‘top up’ a bit on the micros. Yet; after checking the bar’s contents with that of my own multivitamin, the only ones the latter lacks is B1, B2, potassium, chloride and phosphorous. Is it possible to find a multivitamin which covers these bases too? I cannot be arsed to find out for sure, but I strongly suspect yes.

But what about the macros? Well, it does come in as a protein bar, and a fairly decent one at that. My main, perhaps sole complaint here is a relative lack of fibre; I do think the makers should have made the bars a bit bigger simply to make it more ‘filling’. C’mon, throw in a bit of chicory or something!

Trying to find equivalents is, I shall admit a little tricky; even if we merely focus on the macros. Mainly due to the fact most bars in my hallowed spreadsheet don’t come this small a portion with both the level of fibre and protein. Personally, I would say ‘sod it’ to the extra 50-70 calories and get a ‘normal’ protein bar which has a decent level of fibre, like the MO Health, Amfit or perhaps even the Nature Valley Protein. Even after you’ve bought a multivitamin to sort out that corner, I suspect you’ll still be quids in.

Of direct competitors; I’ve only reviewed one other; the SlimFast. On this, it’s superior on all fronts save the salt.

So in conclusion; you’re not missing anything by not experiencing this product, particularly at the price they want for them. Oh, if you can pick it up really cheap (like I did) it’s worth a look, but apart from that… meh.

Nutritionals:

	Per 100g	Per Bar
Energy	340 cal	156 cal
Fat	9.5g	4.4g
…which is saturates	4.1g	1.9g
Carbohydrate	36.8g	16.9
…which is sugars	21g	9.6
Fibre	8.4g	3.9g
Protein	27.7g	12.7g
Salt	0.57g	0.26g

Facts:

Full Name: LighterLife Fast Meal Replacement Bar

RRP: £3.12 (46g) – from a multipack of 4.

Available At: Superdrug.

Ultimate Owner: LighterLife UK Ltd.

Date of Testing: 16^th April 2022

Version Tested: Nut Fudge.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. I’ve not received anything for this review. Facts correct at date of testing. Part of my Product Reviews series.

Review: Heck Meat-Free Chipolatas

Disclaimer; this might not be the review you’re looking for. This is the green-packeted ‘Meat Free’, not the purple-packeted ‘Meat-Free Magic’ Heck sausages I reviewed a couple of years back.

Another test of the fake meat products which are coming ever-more prominent in British supermarkets and the like; and as I’ve generally enjoyed Heck products I have decent expectations of this one. And I’ve become more inclined towards the chipolata due to their quicker cooking time.

What’s to be said about the packaging? Not much, really; it’s packaging. Does what’s expected. Another of those stealth vegan affairs; only with a diligent search of the packet on the back does it tell me. Oh, it’s also gluten-free.

The experience on opening is underwhelming; the sausages themselves are, well pink tubes. Reminding me of polony or similar. Didn’t smell of much. One slight complaint (but may be simply due to my own sample) was that they were wet enough which each sausage required wiping-off of excess moisture.

It was only from a moment’s inattention doing this that I realised the level of the product’s basic paste-like consistency. Now, this was to be expected, really; it’s not like this product is any way natural, is it? But there and then got a flash of inspiration; grabbed the five chipolatas and basically, returned them into a big ball of paste. This was easy; it’s somewhat sticky and the sausages have no skin. Then I turned them into two patties, which I then grilled.

Generally speaking, they held together as patties, though I’d advise in being a bit more diligent in doing it. Cooks well too; goes a pleasing brown crisp around the edge and all that. The taste experience… was like I was eating a grilled Spam roll. Not perfectly identical, but close enough. Now, this is either a Good Thing or Bad Thing, depending on your experience of said tinned meat.

Nutritionally, this product kinda sucks a bit. The other fake meat sausages had less saturates, as long as my benchmark lean pork ones. Salt is not too great either. However… if you compare this product to a tin of Spam; it wins on all save one front (protein) by a decent margin (and the loss is not that a serious one). But it’s also interesting to note that per kilo this product is cheaper than Spam too.

So in conclusion… this is a product which I do see it occupying a culinary niche and also passes the ‘sandwich test’. May be worth a look.

Nutritionals:

	Per 100g	Per Sausage
Energy	192 cal	58 cal
Fat	9.9g	3g
…which is saturates	5.5g	1.7g
Carbohydrate	13g	3.9g
…which is sugars	1.2g	0.4g
Fibre	5.2g	1.6g
Protein	11g	3.3g
Salt	1.6g	0.48g

Facts:

Full Name: Heck Meat-Free Chipolatas.

RRP: £2.00 (300g – 30g x10).

Available At: Asda, Morrisons.

Ultimate Owner: Heck! Foods Ltd

Date of Testing: 8^th April 2022.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. I’ve not received anything for this review. Facts correct at date of testing. Part of my Product Reviews series.

Review: Punk’d Protein Rocky Road

Another of my finds on my travels; who are ‘Punk’d Protein’, anyway? Never heard of them before. Answer; the same folks who are behind Quorn and Cauldron sausages, which is a giant Filipino combine. Not that I think that automatically makes this a bad product. But one of my pet peeves is when such companies make ‘independent’ brands and don’t admit as such, on say their actual website.

Bitch over, onto the review. It starts as ever with the packaging. I don’t like the purple-lilacy tone going on; I find the contrast between this and white lettering somewhat difficult to read, particularly on the back. Has a little bit of a Union Flag in the corner; I looked on both packet and website and couldn’t find out whether the product was actually manufactured in the UK or not. The picture of mini-marshmallows are reminding me of the most glaring of facts – I’m not much a fan of ‘Rocky Road’. It also boasts of being hand-made; which might be a draw for some, but not really me.

I open up the packet with ease, the first experience is the smell of chocolatey sweetness. Oddly enough, it’s actually pretty hard to tear this packet right open; good for if you plan to eat it out of the pack, bad if you’d like to see the damn thing to review. I do pull it out and I’m confronted with… well, it kinda looks like what you’d imagine a flapjack to look like if the mix contained a generous dollop of cocoa powder too. And with a fair amount of lumps and bumps on the top; the marshmallows and soya crispies respectively. It breaks okay, but I don’t advise it due to the amount of fragments it produces. Just eat it from the packet, as intended.

Said crispies and marshmallows continue through the product, along with the chocolatey tone. I do encounter a couple of the accursed raisins in the mix, but not enough to really reduce the eating experience. Which is good. Actually, more than good; it’s genuinely nice. Nor is it overly hard on the teeth either. And if you’ve got a sweet tooth, you’ll enjoy it even more. Another plus of this product is that it’s not chocolate-covered, which means less horrid melted experiences in a bag during the summer months. Nor is it thirst-inducing.

Nutritionally… it’s not that great – well, that taste isn’t free, you know. It ranks as an energy bar, and not that great a one either. The most obvious minus is the saturate rating, and the absence of fibre isn’t great either. Or the salt. If you’re anti-sugar, you might not like that either but in this case I’m much more lenient, seeing this product as perhaps a kind of snack item for active folks to restore flagging energy levels.

So, in conclusion; it’s a nice treat. I can see it occupying a niche in a person’s dietary life. But due to the macros, cannot really be that much of a niche.

Nutritionals:

	Per 100g	Per Bar
Energy	460 cal	253 cal
Fat	20g	11g
…which is saturates	15g	8.4g
Carbohydrate	48g	26g
…which is sugars	40g	22g
Fibre	0.1g	0.1g
Protein	22g	12g
Salt	0.81g	0.45g

Facts:

Full Name: Punk’d Protein Rocky Road

RRP: £1.49 (55g)

Available At: Holland & Barrett.

Ultimate Owner: Monde Nissin (Philippines)

Date of Testing: 23^rd March 2022

Version Tested: Classic Chocolate

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. I’ve not received anything for this review. Facts correct at date of testing. Part of my Product Reviews series.

Review: Amfit Protein Bar

‘Amfit’, for those who aren’t in the know, is the house brand for that massive conglomerate Amazon. The replacement for the ‘Solimo’ brand which was discontinued a couple of years ago, of which the protein bar I didn’t rate that highly. So, let’s see if this offering was any better.

I start off with the packet, not the box; while this is a multipack, I only have one to sample. Said design is rather good, in my opinion; not too much or too little. I expect the picture on the front to be a lie, though ideally not much of one. Apart from that, it does the packety kind of things you’d expect.

The packet opens well enough, revealing a block of darkish chocolate. Flipping it over reveals the ‘crispy’ side, also chocolate-covered… and that it’s rather greasy to the touch (though with the caveat that this is a sample of one). It’s pretty difficult to break in half, so don’t bother. Looks kinda like the picture inside, though. Bites firmly, is a little on the dry side but it’s not like eating a desert.

Taste-wise… I shall say average. It starts out good, pretty good ‘cookies and chocolate’ going for it… then, the predictable Taste Of Whey hits, and is the dominant aftertaste. What’s more, I don’t believe it contains a large amount of the cursed maltitol. On this front, I’ll say it’s an improvement over the Solimo, but not by much (though it may be down to the differing flavour).

Nutritionally, this counts as a true protein bar, and a pretty decent showing at that. Saturates on the better side of average, a good dose of fibre, the salt around average and from the wonders of chemistry a little lower in the calories than normal. From the looks of it, there’s a little bit of an improvement over the Solimo here too.

Easiest way to say it is that if you’re a consumer of MaxiMuscle bars, these ones would make a decent substitute on all fronts.

Nutritionals:

	Per 100g	Per Bar
Energy	313 cal	188 cal
Fat	7.6g	4.6g
…which is saturates	5.2g	3.1g
Carbohydrate	30.7g	18.4g
…which is sugars	2.4g	1.4g
Fibre	14.5g	8.7g
Protein	32.6g	19.6g
Salt	0.73g	0.43g

Facts:

Full Name: Amfit Nutrition Low Sugar Protein Bar

RRP: £1.68 (60g) – from a multipack of 12.

Available At: Amazon.

Ultimate Owner: Amazon.com Inc (United States)

Date of Testing: 14^th March 2022

Version Tested: Cookies & Cream

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. I’ve not received anything for this review. Facts correct at date of testing. Part of my Product Reviews series.

Review: Pulsin High Fibre Brownie

I don’t get to try Pulsin products much; mainly on the basis they’re a) expensive and b) rarely discounted. And the latter may be a good sign of the quality of the products in the first place. Or not. Well, the only way to find out in this case is to test it…

Like most (if not all) Pulsin products, they’ve vegan; an announcement of such on front of the packet. Well, ‘plant-based’. Said packet has the standard ‘house style’ for this brand; they’ve now all-but finished changing from the designs seen in the late-teens. The similarities continue with the blurb in the back; claims about it being gluten/soya/dairy free and vegan. Once again, my pedantic nature points out the third bit is not necessary if it’s also the fourth. But hey, some people are stupid; I’ve heard folks say that chicken was a root crop, like potatoes. One thing which has long caused me to wonder; what’s so great about ‘cold pressing’ stuff (this product is)? Is this a sop to cater for the demented raw food crowd?

I open up said packet (easily, for the record) to be confronted by… ah crap, it’s another date-bar. I give it a noseful; yep, dates. Though I could also pick up hazelnut. Which I assume is all the crushed-up bits of nut within the log-bar. I pick a fragment out of the bar to give it a test; yes, hazelnut. I know, master of the obvious, this being a hazelnut bar, but you never know…

Pulling out the bar from the packet, the date-log continues all the way through (ie there isn’t any snazzy topping); it’s a bit on the greasy side, to eating directly out of the packet may be in order. The bar itself is firm, but breaks relatively easily with minimal fragmenting. Bites well too; it’s a bit on the dry side but nothing serious.

Taste-wise… I would say it works. Unless you positively hate dates and like cocoa and/or hazelnut, you’ll be able to get behind this. Okay, it doesn’t really taste like a brownie (that would be an impossible task) but does taste kinda nice. I do feel a touch conned, mind; hazelnuts are at 5%, but peanuts are at 22%. Hell, peanut butter outranks hazelnut. But then again, I would be calling this a ‘date and peanut bar’.

Nutritionally… ironically, at only 15% fibre content, it doesn’t come in as a true fibre bar by my reckoning (though it’s not that far off). It’s also got decent level of protein, low salt and the saturates are not that high so on that front it’s pretty decent. I’ve spent some time trying to find some comparative product in my records, but there isn’t any. Speaking personally, I could see this being a snack-replacement with a coffee or tea, or perhaps in a packed lunch. The kicker is, naturally the relatively high unit cost and the general lack of finding said products going cheap.

Nutritionals:

	Per 100g	Per Bar
Energy	447 cal	157 cal
Fat	26.7g	9.3g
…which is saturates	7.5g	2.6g
Carbohydrate	31.3g	11g
…which is sugars	22.9g	8g
Fibre	15.1g	5.3g
Protein	12.9g	4.5g
Salt	0.18g	0.06g

Facts:

Full Name: Pulsin High Fibre Brownie

RRP: £0.99 (35g)

Available At: Tesco, Ocado, www.dolphinfitness.co.uk, www.musclefood.com.

Ultimate Owner: Pulsin Ltd.

Date of Testing: 13^th March 2022

Version Tested: Chocolate Hazelnut.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. I’ve not received anything for this review. Facts correct at date of testing. Part of my Product Reviews series.