Check 'em out... www.nopudge.com

2" square brownie is 90 cals and NO fat. I'm on the way to the store (they carry them at some Super Wal-Farts) to check the carb content. :gl:

Check 'em out... www.nopudge.com (http://www.nopudge.com/)

2" square brownie is 90 cals and NO fat. I'm on the way to the store (they carry them at some Super Wal-Farts) to check the carb content. :gl:The nutritional information is on their web site (http://www.nopudge.com/products/products.html). These things are loaded with sugar (first ingredient): 27 total carbs and 17 sugar carbs per serving.

Unsuspecting consumers are probably putting away 2 or 3 of these at a time thinking "cool, no fat! I can eat all I like!"

They call these "No pudge Brownies"? "Indulgence without the guilt"? Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

So close, yet so far away. I'll find something yet..

** Added denied to the title so I didn't get anyones hopes up.

Let me know when you find something.
Maybe we can try making splenda brownies or something.
Probably will come out like crap though. :(

Let me know when you find something.
Maybe we can try making splenda brownies or something.
Probably will come out like crap though. :(


whats splenda?

Mark

whats splenda?

Mark

Splenda is a sugar subsitute - but its different from sweet and low and equal - its made from real sugar...Don't ask me how or why - I personally like sweet and low better than splenda...but a lot of people dig splenda since its the closest to real sugar.

I did a bunch of research on splenda back when I was deciding what protein powders to go with.
I react badly to most sweetners for some reason...

Anyway this is the summation of what I can remember:
Splenda is made by exposing sucrose to chlorine and stripping out some minute part of the molecule to maintain flavor with no calories.
splenda (or sucralose (SP?) is aparently upto 600 times sweeter then table sugar. It is realatively new and there are some concerns that it hasn't been tested enough...

I wish I saved links, but after I read afew arrticles and studies I was turned off of it. (so look it up and do some of your own research - it only took me an hour or so to find all the info I needed online)

Anyway - I found splenda to taste weird, and reacted badly to it aswell (headaches)... so I go with non-flavored or naturally flavored proteins only.

This is the first time Ive ever posted/come here. Seems like a nice place. I noticed that someone said they react badly to all artificial sweeteners. As this is a forum devoted to fitness/health Im sure you will not just push what Im saying aside. Simply put, they are ARTIFICIAL. Splenda is indeed chlorinated, I think that explains why people have horrible reactions to it. Sweet n' Low is linked to inducing epilepcy and epileptic seizures. I believe that in piloting magazines there are stories about pilots who have lost their licenses from having an epileptic seizure. Aspartame was originally designed to be a drug of some sort that inhibits a pancreatic enzyme...if I remeber correctly. Aspartame was discovered by accident it was sweet. Like splenda, it is a few hundred times sweeter. They are all neuro-toxic. Diabetics use them because they think that it wont raise their blood sugar since it is not sugar. But they all raise your glycemic index. If you or someone you know absolutley cannot have sugar and need to use a substitute, tell them about a product called stevia. Stevia is small plant(natural :tu: ) that is about 8-10 times sweeter than sugar. It contains no calories, no carbohydrates, and does not effect blood sugar.

I will check out the tip on the natural product. I will take natural choices when I know about them and artificial just to get jiggy wid it. :D

I just got a box of this brownie mix today, because I have a major brownie addiction and sometime I just have to have something, even if it's not perfect. The no-fat base was a bit too intriguing (because it's normally hard to achieve in baking), and the grocery store I guess is no longer carrying them and it was discounted for cheap. It's still better than the whole-fat brownies which probably have the same amount of sugar.

They have a fairly good texture for something without fat (I won't get into the scientifics of how fat works in cooking and baking). They're probably good in moderation for my mom who needs to cut the saturated/trans fats out of her diet right now. Based on the grams of carbs and sugars, and the order in which the ingredients are listed, I'll see if maybe I can dissect the measurements and replace the sugar with Splenda and the flour with whole wheat flour, and take the cornstarch out.

I have no idea how I might get extra gluten into it, though... something which probably gives it that extra chewiness. I guess I'll have to develop the gluten the hard way... but I don't have a countertop mixer with a dough hook, dammit :confused:

Anything with white flour and sugar in it is never going to be "good for you" but brownies are just not brownies if you start using whole wheat flour and sweetener. I say eat the low fat brownies as a treat if you crave them. They're not going to kill you. Actually, I quit making brownies because I decided I'd rather buy a single serving of the "good stuff" than make a whole batch of the low fat but still not nutritious stuff.

These are the ones I used to make all the time. You could use applesauce instead of the prunes, if you must.

CHOCOLATE BOY SCOUTS
1/3 cup unsweetened cocoa powder
1/2 cup all purpose flour
1/4 tsp. salt
1 cup packed brown sugar
1/2 cup baby food prunes
3 tbsp. butter melted
2 egg whites
1 tbsp. vanilla
1/4 cup chopped walnuts

Preheat oven to 325°F

Combine cocoa, flour, and salt in a small bowl. Set aside.

Using a wooden spoon or an electric mixer at low speed, blend together brown sugar, prunes, butter, egg whites, and vanilla. Gradually add flour mixture and blend after each addition. Stir in walnuts.

Spray an 8x8" baking pan with non-stick cooking spray. Pour batter in pan and spread evenly. Bake for 20-22 minutes, until edges feel dry to touch but center appears fudgy. Do not overbake.

Remove from oven and let cool in pan before slicing. For maximum moistness, store squares in an airtight container.

Makes 12 squares.

Per serving: 145 calories, 4.7 g fat, 25.1 g carbohydrates, 2.5 g proties, 62 mg sodium, 8 mg cholesterol. CALORIES FROM FAT: 27.8%

These ones are even lower fat, but still have sugar in them. They don't taste like real brownies, but they're good.

Fudgy Brownies
1 cup granulated sugar
1/2 cup baking cocoa
6 tablespoons nonfat plain or vanilla yogurt
2 egg whites
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/2 cup all-purpose flour
1/4 cup chopped walnuts
Confectioners' sugar

In a bowl, combine sugar, cocoa and yogurt. Add egg whites and vanilla extract; mix well. Stir in flour and nuts. Pour into an 8-inch square baking pan that has been coated with nonstick cooking spray. Bake at 350 degrees F for 25 to 28 minutes or until a wooden pick inserted near the center comes out clean. Dust with confectioners' sugar.

Diabetic Exchanges: 1 starch, 1/2 fat. There are only 2 grams of fat in each serving.

I figure it's worth a shot, I'll consider it an effort towards my homemade protein bar quest (seen as the two ideas are combinable) :nod:

I don't get it -- if you're going to treat yourself, why not just eat a real brownie?

hmm, this has got me thinkin...

all the whey chocolate...
egg beaters...
splenda...
hmmm..........

yuck prolly yucky

I found a way to make them a little better (maybe):

I made them as a single serving (2T of the dry mix) with 2T plain f/f yogurt and half a scoop of protein powder. The sugars of course are all still there, but at least the protein, IMHO, makes them salvageable. . . .

.
Fudgy Brownies
1 cup granulated sugar
1/2 cup baking cocoa
6 tablespoons nonfat plain or vanilla yogurt
2 egg whites
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/2 cup all-purpose flour
1/4 cup chopped walnuts
Confectioners' sugar

In a bowl, combine sugar, cocoa and yogurt. Add egg whites and vanilla extract; mix well. Stir in flour and nuts. Pour into an 8-inch square baking pan that has been coated with nonstick cooking spray. Bake at 350 degrees F for 25 to 28 minutes or until a wooden pick inserted near the center comes out clean. Dust with confectioners' sugar.

Diabetic Exchanges: 1 starch, 1/2 fat. There are only 2 grams of fat in each serving.

Can Splenda be used in place of the sugar and the flour for whey protein? I mean, will it still rise and not turn out...well, turn out the way it's supposed to?

Can Splenda be used in place of the sugar and the flour for whey protein? I mean, will it still rise and not turn out...well, turn out the way it's supposed to?

I have not tried this particular recipe with Splenda, but the only differences I have noticed in other recipes that I have substituted Splenda in are a lack of browning and slightly less moisture.

Can Splenda be used in place of the sugar and the flour for whey protein? I mean, will it still rise and not turn out...well, turn out the way it's supposed to?

Those two substitutions are classic, and I've used them when making "health" versions of just about everything. No, it won't turn out the way it's supposed to...they'll be flatter and drier. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. For turning naughty food completely guilt-free, it's really not too bad considering. But definitely a matter of personal preference. Give it a shot and see if you're down with it.

Yep, I completely agree, Dodus. If healthy food can taste almost like a complete cheat, then why in the world not go for it? I'll try making it this weekend and see what the outcome will be. I haven't had problems with other recipes requiring whey though. :eat:

If you or someone you know absolutley cannot have sugar and need to use a substitute, tell them about a product called stevia. Stevia is small plant(natural :tu: ) that is about 8-10 times sweeter than sugar. It contains no calories, no carbohydrates, and does not effect blood sugar.

Stevia unfortunately can't be purchased in the UK (or the EU I think) as it too has been linked to a number of side affects - EU/UK regulators have not approved its safety and are waiting for more results from more research. Argument is that 'natural' cannot be automatically equated with harmless.

Seems there's no easy answer

"Natural" and "herbal" are simply marketing buzzwords just like "fat-free".

I love it when you look at something like Herbalife sellers keep washing people's brains about how they're all going to die at the spot from all the "poisons" and "neuro-toxins" in their "artificial" diet unless they start buying and eating their horribly overpriced products... which, upon actually reading the label on the stuff, contain like two dozen different preservatives, flavors, sweeteners, chemicals and whateverthehell alongside of plain old sugar and low quality protein for $40/pound. :mad:

Sorry, just had to vent a little.