37 Calorie Brownie

1246789

Replies

  • shartran
    shartran Posts: 304 Member
    bumpty-bump...
  • MistyRose0424
    MistyRose0424 Posts: 114 Member
    Will definitely have to try these :)
  • anewdesign
    anewdesign Posts: 187 Member
    i think ill bump this. yes - i will. excellent.
  • Annabel89
    Annabel89 Posts: 63 Member
    bump
  • Mygsds
    Mygsds Posts: 1,564 Member
    Did I do something wrong? I made these and they were unbearable. I didn't have Stevia so I used Splenda, which always tastes OK when I use it in other desserts such as banana bread, pumpkin pie, pudding, etc. The other parts of the recipe I followed to a T.
    my girlfriend also tried with Splenda and they did not turn out... I don't know why, but we both thought it would work
  • Ninkyou
    Ninkyou Posts: 6,666 Member
    So I just tried these... with what I had on hand.. here's what I used...

    142g Dannon Greek Yogurt Light & Fit Vanilla
    60ml Silk Unsweetened Vanilla Almond Milk
    40g Nestle Toll House Cocoa Powder
    40g Quaker Old Fashioned Oats
    20g Splenda Sugar Blend
    47g Whole Large Egg
    3g Baking Powder
    >1g Salt

    Servings: 9
    Calories: 58
    Carbs: 9g
    Fat: 1g
    Protein: 3g

    To be honest... they came out flat and tasted less than stellar. Hubby took one bite and said it's disgusting. I ate a whole square. It was... okay... but not something I'd eat again. It was worth a shot but it left me pretty disappointed.
  • Mygsds
    Mygsds Posts: 1,564 Member
    So I just tried these... with what I had on hand.. here's what I used...

    142g Dannon Greek Yogurt Light & Fit Vanilla
    60ml Silk Unsweetened Vanilla Almond Milk
    40g Nestle Toll House Cocoa Powder
    40g Quaker Old Fashioned Oats
    20g Splenda Sugar Blend
    47g Whole Large Egg
    3g Baking Powder
    >1g Salt

    Servings: 9
    Calories: 58
    Carbs: 9g
    Fat: 1g
    Protein: 3g

    To be honest... they came out flat and tasted less than stellar. Hubby took one bite and said it's disgusting. I ate a whole square. It was... okay... but not something I'd eat again. It was worth a shot but it left me pretty disappointed.
    Personally I think you would have had better luck with stevia like the original recipe..for some reason Splenda just does not work in this recipe.. Sorry
  • frood
    frood Posts: 295 Member
    I read this as "37 Brownie Diet" :blushing:
  • nicolemtracy
    nicolemtracy Posts: 301 Member
    Sounds super tasty! My hubby is a BIG brownie fan. I'll test these out on him :)
  • Grace4DebraAnn
    Grace4DebraAnn Posts: 124 Member
    These are amazing, my children even love them. Worth a try if you like brownies:)
  • Mygsds
    Mygsds Posts: 1,564 Member
    These are amazing, my children even love them. Worth a try if you like brownies:)
    Sooo glad you liked them also.... My sister made a batch and she sprinkled peanut butter chip on top when she took out of the oven..... OMG
  • tambam69
    tambam69 Posts: 270 Member
    Will have to try these, thanks
  • iPlatano
    iPlatano Posts: 487 Member
    Ohh yeah!
  • sara1029
    sara1029 Posts: 18 Member
    bump
  • b7bbs
    b7bbs Posts: 158 Member
    bump
  • greengoddess0123
    greengoddess0123 Posts: 417 Member
    I just made these. I used fat free vanilla flavored, artificially sweetened greek yogurt, so to keep the brownies from being too sweet, I reduced the splenda to 1/3 cup. I also used quick oats instead of regular, and whole milk instead of skim.

    With these substitutions, running the recipe through MFP's recipe builder yielded me 51 calorie brownies (9 brownies).

    The flavor is a little "off" due to the artificial sweeteners, but other than that, decent flavor (needs vanilla ice cream on top). The texture leaves a lot to be desired, it's too smooth -- maybe I blended the batter too much? Or maybe the quick oats made a difference?

    I also checked the original recipe from the Londoner, and, like a previous poster, I don't get where the caloric discrepancy lies. They claim they are 100 calorie brownies using the exact same ingredients as the OP. Weird. Also, the comments on both websites are mixed reviews, so make at your own risk.

    I'll probably make these again, tweaking it a bit. Maybe use a bit of real sugar, and more quick oats for texture.

    Anyway, thanks OP, from a dedicated brownie lover and baker. :flowerforyou:
  • angelzxy321
    angelzxy321 Posts: 1,019 Member
    bumping
  • bstender82
    bstender82 Posts: 14 Member
    Bump
  • dunnodunno
    dunnodunno Posts: 2,290 Member
    just trying to figure out what your point is. The recipe that I posted has slightly different ingredients in it so yes it is less than the original from the site you looked at.. If you want to try that one ... Go for it and have your 100 calorie brownie... Enjoy either waydrinker

    My fault for apparently doing a poor job explaining.

    I suppose my point is that the brownies from the "original" recipe are said to have 100 calories each when you omit the nuts. The brownies from the "changed" recipe are said to have 37 calories.

    Which is fine. You're right that two different recipes will have two different calorie counts. But... the differences in ingredients between the two recipes seem VERY slight to me. These aren't entirely different recipies--they're almost identical.

    So I appeal to the experienced recipe-tweakers here: Where is the savings coming from? These calorie-saving tricks are exactly the sorts of things I'd love to learn more of.

    Is the difference in calories between 3/4 cup of low-fat yogurt and 3/4 cup of non-fat greek yogurt really that big? Are regular Quaker Oats different from "wholegrain rolled oats"?

    I guess the question is why do you keep referring to the original recipe when people have been very kind to say exactly what is in this one????. Don't get it. Is it that important when it is such a negligible difference. I can understand if it were a couple hundred calories, but like I stated earlier don't understand why it is soooooo important. Not being rude. Just sayin.....

    I think they're trying to figure out how they can save calories with using different ingredients. Like subbing apple sauce for oil or eggs. At least that's what I got from last post.
  • db34fit69
    db34fit69 Posts: 189 Member
    just trying to figure out what your point is. The recipe that I posted has slightly different ingredients in it so yes it is less than the original from the site you looked at.. If you want to try that one ... Go for it and have your 100 calorie brownie... Enjoy either waydrinker

    My fault for apparently doing a poor job explaining.

    I suppose my point is that the brownies from the "original" recipe are said to have 100 calories each when you omit the nuts. The brownies from the "changed" recipe are said to have 37 calories.

    Which is fine. You're right that two different recipes will have two different calorie counts. But... the differences in ingredients between the two recipes seem VERY slight to me. These aren't entirely different recipies--they're almost identical.

    So I appeal to the experienced recipe-tweakers here: Where is the savings coming from? These calorie-saving tricks are exactly the sorts of things I'd love to learn more of.

    Is the difference in calories between 3/4 cup of low-fat yogurt and 3/4 cup of non-fat greek yogurt really that big? Are regular Quaker Oats different from "wholegrain rolled oats"?

    I guess the question is why do you keep referring to the original recipe when people have been very kind to say exactly what is in this one????. Don't get it. Is it that important when it is such a negligible difference. I can understand if it were a couple hundred calories, but like I stated earlier don't understand why it is soooooo important. Not being rude. Just sayin.....

    I think they're trying to figure out how they can save calories with using different ingredients. Like subbing apple sauce for oil or eggs. At least that's what I got from last post.

    In this link:
    http://www.bromabakery.com/2013/04/37-calorie-brownies-and-no-im-not.html

    she even states in the comments that she went from 45 calories to 37 calories per brownie due to " the teensy bit you miss scooping out the batter from the pan, or the gunk that gets stuck on your knife". She must a wasteful cook, I don't ever leave 18% of the batter on the knife or spatula...

Categories