If I told you that you could eat chocolate muffins and still BLAST away fat because they contained just 1g carb per muffin, would you believe me?
I created this recipe myself. I basically wanted a way to enjoy these kinds of treats and still get ripped at the same time.
This is one of my recipes from Total Six Pack Abs. But I’ve decided that it’s too good not to share with ALL my readers.
For your information, other recipes in T.S.P.A. include:
- Very low-carb protein Pancakes (they taste like regular pancakes!)
- 1-minute low-carb Bread (however, your T.S.P.A. carb allowance lets you have a couple slices of regular bread if you wish)
Anyway, let’s get on with it.
Here’s the ingredients list:
Item & Carb Count
- 1 egg 0.25g
- 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract 0g
- 1 Tbs. heavy cream 0g
- 15 grams Cocoa powder (Tesco brand) 3g
- 10 grams soy protein isolate 0g
- 10 tsp. of granulated splenda 5g OR a few drops of Liquid Sucralose 0g
- 1/2 tsp. baking powder 0g
- 1.5 Tbs. softened butter 0g
Total Carbs – 3.25g (using liquid sucralose) or 8.25g (using granulated splenda). The whole batch makes 3 muffins at 1g carbohydrate each! (or 2.75g carbs per muffin if using granulated splenda).
Here is the nutritional breakdown for the whole batch using liquid sucralose…
- 386.3 Calories
- 17.5g Protein
- 33.7g Fat
- 3.25g Carbs
You’ll have to check your own specific brands to get exact measurements. The above numbers are based on my own local brands.
Note: There are also lower-fat tips in the book for people that are at a more advanced stage of the program and want that “Shrink-Wrapped” midsection look.
How To Make Them…
In a small bowl, beat the egg and add the vanilla and cream. Melt the butter in the microwave and add this to the mixture. Now add the splenda and mix in well.
In a separate bowl mix your protein powder, cocoa powder, and baking powder. To this add your liquid mixture as above and keep mixing until you get a smooth consistency throughout. (Now lick your fingers!! You’ll want it all in goo form!)
How To Cook
Pour the mixture into 3 muffin holders and simply pop them into the oven at 480F/250C for 15 mins. Voila!
And yes, they really are delicious. Now, strictly speaking you can use whey protein isolate instead of soy, but they’ll turn out very dry. However, soy isolate should only be used for recipes such as these. On T.S.P.A., or any plan, the vast majority of your protein will come from food and secondarily from whey protein supplementation).
They look like this… (pics submitted by TSPA’er and forum member Mark Chapman).
I hope you love this recipe as much as I do. Can I ask you to tell others about my recipes both online and offline? Thanks! 🙂
This is my full bodybuilding recipes section. There are also specific low-carb and high-carb recipe sections.
Eat Well | Get RIPPED!
Can I give you my free muscle-building workout?
Join thousands over the world who are packing on slabs of new muscle for free with Targeted Hypertrophy Training (THT)
I’m just going to get this in before the sucralose-haters arrive. If you were going to say anything like the following, I’ll do it for you….
“I was looking forward to this recipe, then I saw SUCRALOSE! Oh My God I can’t believe it. Someone call the cops! You would be better off using stevia, splenda is poison!”
So we got that out of the way now, ok? Why not just use liquid stevia yourself instead of trying to tell everyone how to live their lives? Just a thought.
Thanks for your information about how to prepare the food. That;s really great guide for green people who just have no idea to start.
^^ Well said Mark! People need to complain less about the FREE advice and enjoy it!
The more sucralose the better!
heavy cream? dont know this here… any substitute?
Some places call it Double Cream, Carlos.
Dude….. you’re awesome. Thanks for sharing this… I have a bit of sweet tooth and avoiding all cookies/cakes/muffins can get pretty damn excruciating while cutting.
And your site is crazy-helpful. Will purchase tspa sometime soon.
tspa is a must have
Man, I wish I had an oven 🙁
I’ve been shying away form anything with soy in it too, but I guess a little bit every now and then can’t hurt.
AMIGAWD SUCRA— LOL!!!!
Seriously I almost fell out of my chair laughing at your original comment there, Mark. I’ve had the same argument with the Splenda police, they get pretty crazy about it…
I am curious though… what about the splenda with fiber? A little extra fiber never killed nobody (especially those of us with ‘issues’), but would the net carb or GI score change at all? And seriously… thanks for the baked goodies… I can’t wait to hunt down the soy protein and liquid sucralose and give this a shot!
@flabbomber. You can nuke them for 1 minute to cook them, Not quite as nice but it does the job.
@Jo. Yeah I know what you mean.
I hadn’t even heard of splenda with fiber until you mentioned it. We don’t have it over here. Seems fine, why not? Wouldn’t affect the carb count at all and the GI is nothing to concern yourself with because the AMOUNT of carbs (especially with liquid sucralose) is so low. So the actual glycemic IMPACT is negligible no matter what the GI score is.
Mark, have a look.
@David – you do realize that the whole, sole, and only argument your article makes on Splenda is that they may have mislead the public that it was natural, right?
Meanwhile, the only science that exists in regards to unwanted effects of sucralose was one feeding lab rats 11mg/kg/day of sucralose, and it found that the amount of the bacteria in their gut was reduced by half – though whether only beneficial bacteria were eliminated could not be established, and further studies have not been able to duplicate the effect. Regardless, consumption at this rate works out to about 8-10g/day for the average human male. Long term ramifications of sustained consumption of sucralose is understudied, yes – but even then, using the amounts of sugar necessary to achieve the same effect will, without a shadow of a doubt, yield far more deleterious results on the body.
Let’s not forget – all parties screaming the loudest on this raging debate have vested monetary interests. On the natural/anit-sucralose side, it’s the Sugar Association, and on the other, it’s Johnson & Johnson. Is it a chemical? Yes. Is it possibly harmful? Lord only knows. What we do know is we consume far worse substances in far larger quantities day in and day out. If you live anywhere in the developed world, you have already inhaled more known carcinogens today than you or I are likely to consume in sucralose in our combined lifetimes.
That said – if you are anti-sucralose, that is your right, and feel free to use stevia isntead (and by the way, [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8962427]steviol is a mutagen[/url]), but please, until you have some solid hard science to back up these claims of the evil of sucralose, no one on this site is terribly interested in convincing or being convinced that sucralose, stevia, truvia, or any of the other myriad of processed semi-natural sweeteners out there are “superior” to anything else – and yes, your “stevia” in America is very much industrially processed like every other sweetener, it’s rebaudioside-A, not the whole plant.
TL; DR – Yes, we know, it’s a chemical. Nobody cares. Show me the study that proves it either doesn’t exit the system or can cause issues at these low dosages, and then I will care. Have a nice day and enjoy the sweetener of your personal choice, since it’s a free country and you can do that still. 😉
So I had a big long anti-that-article tantrum… and then the website eated it. Oh well.
David, your article anchors around J&J may have mislead the public that it’s not a truly natural sweetener. The Sugar Association may have mislead the public that Sucralose doesn’t simply exit the body, and uses scare tactics to convince us that a gram of sucralose will kill you and cause you to have children with six eyes. Both sides have a lot of money on the line – and as such neither should be trusted.
Meanwhile, the only study showing a negative effect from sucralose involved feeding lab rats 11mg/kg/day of sucralose, and they lost half the bacteria in their gut. This is on the 8-10g/day range for the average human male, which most of us won’t conusme, and even if you did, no one’s been able to duplicate that study.
Is sucralose a chemical sweetener? Yes. Are the long term effects of sucralose understudied? Yes. Is it possibly harmful? Yes. Is it remotely as harmful as using the amount of sugar to achieve the same effect? Absolutely not. Even if it is harmful, you have inhaled more grams of carcinogens today than you and I will consume grams of sucralose in our combined lifetimes. Nobody’s interested in being converted one way or another, so kindly refrain from the stevia proselytizing. Just make the substitution on your own and proceed with your sucralose-free existence. 🙂
Today I had about 1/2 cup of Splenda. The good stuff, no cheap imitation substitute.
@Jo. And it’s important to remember that that’s 10g of actual sucralose, not 10g of splenda. Sucralose is crazy sweet. In terms of sweetness, that 10g equates to 6000g of sugar (10 x 600). People consume tiny amounts of sucralose and my point always is this: provide some evidence that these minute amounts are having detrimental effects in humans, or be quiet about the whole thing.
Yes I would LOVE an all-natural calorie-free sweetener but I’ve tried them all, and they all stink. For now, I’m going with sucralose, but would be happy to switch if a nice, natural alternative became available.
Mark, can you invent some no-bake cookie dough? Then we won’t have to use the oven… just mix and chill. 🙂
Hmm. Now that I think about it. Maybe I could just take the recipe above & put it in the fridge for a couple hours… and then I’d have my no-bake cookie dough. lol