ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2025
A Comprehensive Study on the Nutritional Profile and Shelf Life of a Custom-Formulated Protein Bar Versus a Market-Standard Product.
Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith growing interest in healthy lifestyles, protein bars have gained popularity. However, many commercial bars contain excessive calories, sugar, and artificial additives that undermine their health benefits. This study aimed to develop a protein bar using natural ingredients with a balanced macronutrient profile.
methodThe protein bar formulation used soy protein extract, a plant-based protein source, known for its complete amino acid profile but limited in methionine, which was complemented by oats to nutritionally balance this deficiency. A database was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of commercially available protein bars based on consumer feedback. The experimental bar was tested for nutritional value, shelf life, and physiological impact, using only natural ingredients for texture, flavor, and stability.
resultsThe experimental protein bar had higher protein and fiber content than a selected commercial bar but a shorter shelf life (7 days vs. 90 days) due to the absence of preservatives. The database helped identify target consumer groups and ensure the product was affordable and nutritionally effective.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that using natural, complementary ingredients can create a protein bar with a more balanced nutrient profile while avoiding harmful additives. The final product supports muscle protein synthesis through its high-quality protein content and promotes glycemic control and satiety via its fiber-rich, low-sugar formulation and metabolic processes, offering a healthier alternative to commercial options, with a focus on consumer health and cost-effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.