Review examines how low-glycaemic carbohydrates improve glycaemic response in energy bars, suggesting benefits for athletes.
Energy bars are widely consumed functional foods among athletes and physically active consumers who require convenient sources of sustained energy. Their carbohydrate composition, particularly the type and ratio of digestible sugars such as glucose, fructose and sucrose, strongly influences glycaemic index (GI), postprandial blood glucose response and subsequent metabolic outcomes. GI reflects the rise in blood glucose after food consumption relative to a reference carbohydrate – usually glucose. Low‐GI carbohydrates are digested and absorbed more slowly, resulting in a moderated insulin response and potentially greater reliance on fat oxidation during exercise. This review examines the effects of replacing high‐GI sugars with low‐GI and functional carbohydrate alternatives, including inulin, fructooligosaccharides (FOS) and sugar alcohols, in energy bar formulations. Evidence from formulation studies indicates that partial substitution of sucrose with inulin and FOS can reduce GI while maintaining energy density. For example, replacement of approximately 15% sucrose with inulin/FOS in papaya‐based fruit bars reduced GI from about 65 to 54, while energy density remained within 3260–3350 kcal kg −1 . Similarly, granola bars formulated with coconut sugar, FOS or inulin instead of sucrose showed GI values in the low‐50 range. Such formulations may produce lower postprandial glucose and insulin responses, support steadier blood glucose availability and promote substrate utilization patterns favourable for endurance performance. The available evidence suggests that incorporating low‐GI carbohydrate blends into energy bars can improve their metabolic profile without substantially compromising caloric density. Standardizing sugar replacement strategies using ingredients such as inulin, FOS and selected sugar alcohols may support the development of energy bars with improved glycaemic control, sustained energy release and potential benefits for sports nutrition and metabolic health.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sasikumar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: