Would this be acceptable to you?

just because something is low in calories doesnt mean it is good for you or has nutritional value

is it natural? Do they have to add any rubbish or MSG etc to it? Sounds odd and my initial thought is that I wouldn'd eat it, but I would need more info before I made up my mind. Thanks for posting, that's interesting. Just read yesterday they are making a beef burger in the lab!!! (I'm veggie and won't be trying that as they still kill cows to get the stem cells)

Does it taste like wood?

Is it brown like brown sugar or brown like cocoa?

There would still be loads of suitable foods, chilli, flapjacks, chocolate bars, fruit loaf etc. if it does dramatically change the color.

In a word.....no, not if I realised what it was and thought about it a bit.

I often post on the "miracle noodle" threads that I worry about the concept of "food-like-substances" with no nutritional value (yes I have read Micheal Pollan!).

It seems that we are turning into creatures who are so obsessed with self-pleasuring (in this instance I'm talking about food!) and immediate gratification that we are prepare to pay good money for something that satisfies our desire to eat but provides us with no (or very little) nutrition.

We feel smug because we have eaten a BIG plate of noodles or a whole pint of icecream or a jarful of chocolate spead and they have added almost nothing to our calorie intake for the day.

This completely misses the point that calories are energy, they are fuel, they are what keeps us alive. It encourages an unhealthy relationship with food. Instead of learning about good food choices and what a reasonable sized portion looks like, we get to "cheat the system" by eating a huge portion but not getting much energy from it. It seems to me that this can only contribute to fatter, more unhealthy humans. I've read about people who are obese yet malnourished and this is exactly the kind of product to keep them that way.

It's not that I think everyone has to eat "clean" all the time, but processing food to the point where it is barely food and the key ingredient (I'm thinking of the noodles here) has no nutitional value or energy at all.... it's just leading us in entirely the wrong direction.

Sorry to rant at you, but this topic really pushes my buttons!
I'd love your response to this... am I missing something critical here? Is there any research you can point me to that shows that I'm wrong? I'd love to hear it!

I would personally say no, but I wouldn't whine about small quantities of it being in my food either (like Splenda...I don't reach for it every time I want sugar, but if something I like has Splenda in it, then so be it).

People are insanely afraid of fats...or carbs...but that's only because they are not educated enough to know how to eat properly using al of the above. Why make a "fat substitute" so you can keep eating garbage that's somehow "healthier?" Why not learn that dietary fat is not the enemy, learn how to control your calories and portions, and eat real food?

If you have to look for products with weird fat and cellulose substitutes all the time because these happen to be in everything you eat, then you should actually be worried about why you aren't filling your diet with more nutritious foods to begin with anyway.

Just my .02 cents.

hi,my thoughts:
its got to be better than some E numbers out there and i dont suppose the company would be puttin "wood" on the label under ingredients so no one will know unless they search on the internet to find out what it is and how many people do that? ......

To Replace Fat? What do you mean?

The first thing to jumps to mind is that this fat-replacement idea may net out to mean people eat even greater quantities of food. It seems like by trying to force foods to fit our appetites we're turning eating into a...hobby.

Eating isn't a hobby, and it isn't a game. It's survival. Either because you've got too little and you're wasting away or because you've got too much and your arteries are closing -- either way, if you choose poorly you will suffer.

I think giving people license to eat without having to consider the consequences may breed a generation of human beings who are completely out of touch with what their bodies need. On second thought, perhaps that has already happened.

Either way, I don't have any objection to eating delicious wood pulp in and of itself, but I would have a problem with marketing such calorie obfuscation tricks to, say, children.

sounds odd to me. Eating wood? I'm strongly allergic to a lot of pollens, I wonder if that would cause a problem. I think my daily meal plan has enough fiber already, though. So no, I'm not interested in adding wood to it.

I'd rather keep my food closer to real food than go this way. Reminds me too much of "olestra". Ick. No thanks.

honestly, it wouldn't bother me. i can't be bothered wasting my precious time worrying about what is good for me, what is going to cause me cancer etc. there are thousands of things that are going to kill us, it's almost like a race to figure out which is going to do it first...

if i like it, and it's not going to make me fat, that's a plus.

No.
I'm trying to stay away from food 'products' and I got off the low-fat bandwagon years ago.
I like to eat real food within my calorie limits and no longer rely on gimmicks.

Nope, wouldn't eat it.

I'd have to have more information.

This reminds me of the fat substitute "they" tried to foist on us 15 or 20 years ago. I forget the name. It was basically an undigestible fat that could be used in high fat foods like potato chips. Unfortunately all that undigested fat lubricated the colon so well that people experienced "anal leakage." The products had to include that on the label as a common "side effect." For some reason, the stuff never caught on!

Olestra or Olean. That was the stuff.