Consumer Insights into "Clean Label" High-Fat, Low-Carbohydrate Protein Bars.

Meghan M Stewart, Md Shakir Moazzem, Jordan N Proctor, William L Kerr, Mackenzie J Bui, Koushik Adhikari

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Meghan M StewartDepartment of Food Science and Technology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.

Md Shakir MoazzemDepartment of Food Science and Technology, University of Georgia, Griffin, GA 30223, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7494-4456

Jordan N ProctorDepartment of Animal & Dairy Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.

William L KerrDepartment of Food Science and Technology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.

Mackenzie J BuiDepartment of Food Science and Technology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.

Koushik AdhikariDepartment of Food Science and Technology, University of Georgia, Griffin, GA 30223, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3833-6987

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study assessed consumer perceptions of high-fat, low-carbohydrate (HFLC) protein bars containing varying levels of beef tallow fat. A consumer acceptability test was conducted (n = 102) with four prepared and one commercially available HFLC bar samples. Hedonic, diagnostic (intensity), and just-about-right (JAR) questions on overall liking, texture, flavor, and purchase intent were included in the sample evaluation ballot, followed by general demographic, consumption behavior, and ingredient preference questions about the product category. Although none of the samples, including the commercial bar, were liked, the sample with the highest protein content and lowest fat content was preferred over the others. Overall flavor and aroma liking were rated significantly higher for all prepared samples compared with the commercial bar (

Indexed as

acceptabilitymeal replacement barmeat barmeat snack productprotein barsnack bar

Identifiers

PMID41683137

DOI10.3390/foods15030551

PMCPMC12897269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.