# Has anyone tried PC cricket powder?



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Loblaws (and maybe Superstore) now sells crickets ground up into powder. I think it's the first major retailer in the country to sell a cricket-based food.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cricket-powder-loblaw-1.4563956

Has anyone tried this? If I can get over my concern that Loblaws is rigging the market for cricket dust, I may try some.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I noticed it. It is pretty pricey for protein (10-15$ per lb), so for now it seems like more of a gimmick than anything else. I had also noticed novelties like chocolate covered crickets in the past. I get the argument for insect protein as potentially more environmentally sustainable animal protein, but I wonder if that will pan out.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I agree, it looks expensive. I can buy a can of tuna for around $1, and that's pure protein and fat. Does anyone know what the canned fish works out to, in $ per lb once you eliminate the broth?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> I agree, it looks expensive. I can buy a can of tuna for around $1, and that's pure protein and fat. Does anyone know what the canned fish works out to, in $ per lb once you eliminate the broth?


Don't forget to eliminate the mercury as well!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Anyone who thinks we have a shortage of land for raising livestock should drive across Canada.

Land, land and more land..........and very few people.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Except livestock is a terribly inefficient way to get protein (and this coming from a country boy raised on a cattle ranch). All that methane that is produced as well. Hopefully climate change fans don't eat red meat.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

We recently returned from SE Asia. Some of the night market stalls featured ready to eat bugs of various types.. Not the crushed variety either. We struck with other offerings.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Loblaws (and maybe Superstore) now sells crickets ground up into powder. I think it's the first major retailer in the country to sell a cricket-based food.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cricket-powder-loblaw-1.4563956
> 
> Has anyone tried this? If I can get over my concern that Loblaws is rigging the market for cricket dust, I may try some.


hahah....good one james....i cant wait to get my $25 gift card in 7 years or so!_chirp! chirp!_


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Solution...........put the cricket powder on livestock feed and then eat the cows.

PC crickets would be the discount crickets.........probably mutants or something.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

You can't measure protein on a per lb basis, or at least you shouldn't. You want to look at the grams of protein per dollar. That is if you are concerned over the price. You may also want to look at the amino acid profile, not all complete proteins are created equal. Additionally, you'll want to analyze other factors such as fat grams, cholesterol content (debatable), carbohydrates, calories, heavy metals, etc. If you have to consume 5000 calories to get 24 grams of protein it's not a great source of protein! Consuming a can a tuna per day may not be so great for your overall health. Certain types of tuna have more mercury than others. I digress! I haven't look into cricket powder yet. The dose makes the poison so consuming a variety of protein sources would be wise here. People are creatures of habit and tend to consume the same things day in and day out....blah blah blah


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

I bought some when I heard about it. It may seem expensive at $14 for a quarter lb (113 grams), but it's really not that bad when you consider how many crickets that is.

The powder is nearly 70% protein as opposed to the 15% protein in a can of sardines (I don't buy tuna because it's a large fish high up on the food chain that has had time to collect all the bad stuff, mercury dioxins etc). 
Plus as mentioned above, it has a different amino acid profile and they claim it's a great source of vitamin B12.

Comparing it to the sardines, just in volume of protein, the 113g bag contains about as much protein as 5 cans of sardines, so pricewise it doesn't seem too bad for a newer product on the shelf, and kind of a novelty item currently.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

I buy unflavored whey protein at Walmart for $20 for 2 lbs. It has 20g of protein per 32g scoop, meaning you get 567g of protein per tub, so 28g of protein per dollar.

The crickets are 13g protein per 19g serving, so you get 77g protein per bag, or 5.5g of protein per dollar.

I'll stick with the whey.


----------



## GeoNomad (Aug 24, 2017)

In Oaxaca last year I had this Tlayuda con Chapulines, which pretty much resembled a cricket/grasshopper pizza.

Although my wife was not even happy to look at it, it tasted pretty good to me.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Cricket protein powder or any protein powder is a waste of money. Your body will not process protein in this form. It's not real food. You'd be better off stepping into your back yard and eating a few grasshoppers. At least it would be real food and offer you some benefit.

ltr


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Protein powder is not something I buy. I've been doing low carb high fat for about six months. All your protein should come with fat in that case (fatty cuts of meat, cheese, etc.).


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

like_to_retire said:


> Your body will not process protein in this form. It's not real food.


That's a load of BS. Do some research on protein efficiency ratio's, biological value, net protein utilization, etc. Whey protein for instance is a byproduct of cheese manufacturing. Yes it processed and yes it's often combined with artificial sweeteners, flavorings, etc. but it's real food and your body can process it. Is it a substitute for unprocessed whole food protein sources (eggs, fish, chicken, beans, legumes, beef, etc.), absolutely not but your comments are little ridiculous. It may not be a whole food but it's definitely real. Many protein supplements are highly digestible. Oh boy.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

Took a quick look at the breakdown of cricket powder / flour. Looks like a decent complete protein. Amino acid profiles similar to other high quality protein sources. It does however have a high level of saturated fat and cholesterol per serving. Dietary saturated fats and cholesterol are somewhat controversial but I'm sure most cardiologists would still recommend that people limit their intakes to a reasonable level. Cricket powder is also relatively high in B12 compared to other protein supplements...


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

I heard that cricket powder makes you jumpy.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ LOL! ... right to the beef department.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Synergy said:


> Took a quick look at the breakdown of cricket powder / flour. Looks like a decent complete protein. Amino acid profiles similar to other high quality protein sources. It does however have a high level of saturated fat and cholesterol per serving. Dietary saturated fats and cholesterol are somewhat controversial but I'm sure most cardiologists would still recommend that people limit their intakes to a reasonable level. Cricket powder is also relatively high in B12 compared to other protein supplements...


Controversial indeed. Almost all the conventional wisdom on fat consumption seems to be wrong, except on trans fat. Dietary cholesterol is totally irrelevant (your body makes more cholesterol every day than you can consume on a high cholesterol diet, low cholesterol levels are associated with increased risk of all cause mortality, especially in older people). 

Cardiologists should worry a lot more about sugar. Diabetes & pre-diabetes is #1 cause of heart disease. The evidence is overwhelming. The case against saturated fat is very weak.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

^ I think we may end up finding an upper and lower optimal threshold similar to sodium intake - salt sensitivity literature, etc. And individual variances to complicate things further.

With that said, all the research is simply districting everyone from the real cause - that unfortunately you can't cure.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Controversial indeed. Almost all the conventional wisdom on fat consumption seems to be wrong, except on trans fat. Dietary cholesterol is totally irrelevant (your body makes more cholesterol every day than you can consume on a high cholesterol diet, low cholesterol levels are associated with increased risk of all cause mortality, especially in older people).
> 
> Cardiologists should worry a lot more about sugar. Diabetes & pre-diabetes is #1 cause of heart disease. The evidence is overwhelming. The case against saturated fat is very weak.


Yes- "sugar" including processed grains and corn. We are addicted to flour and cheap fillers, simple carbohydrates which our bodies process as sugar.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

indexxx said:


> Yes- "sugar" including processed grains and corn. We are addicted to flour and cheap fillers, simple carbohydrates which our bodies process as sugar.


All carbohydrates are broken down into sugars! Glucose - a type of sugar is essential for your brain. Banana's and carrots will kill you! So says the endocrinologist infatuated with the glycemic index! Improved somewhat through new measures - glycemic load. High GI meal can come in handy at times - Athletes, etc. Anyhow, I get what you're trying to say. Addiction to food is the item that is very difficult to solve.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Fructose (half of sucrose) is metabolized differently. Excess consumption causes fatty liver disease.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

andrewf said:


> Controversial indeed. Almost all the conventional wisdom on fat consumption seems to be wrong, except on trans fat. Dietary cholesterol is totally irrelevant (your body makes more cholesterol every day than you can consume on a high cholesterol diet, low cholesterol levels are associated with increased risk of all cause mortality, especially in older people).
> 
> Cardiologists should worry a lot more about sugar. Diabetes & pre-diabetes is #1 cause of heart disease. The evidence is overwhelming. The case against saturated fat is very weak.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTuK6QKBvcc -Low Carb Diets And Coronary Blood Blow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka_ngjez9dA&t=7s - Trouble Keeping It Ip.

About a year ago I started researching nutrition like crazy, and still look into it almost everyday as I'm now intrigued by the massive amounts of corruption and misinformation out there. I almost got suckered into the low-carb Keto, Atkins spin off diet. But something intuitively just doesn't seem right with not being able to eat 90% of the worlds most well established and healthiest fruits and vegetables with anti-inflammatory effects and only focusing on incredibly inflammatory and known horrible artery cloggers.

I found that the deeper you dig, the more you realize that there are vested interests in the food industry with far more money and power than tobacco ever had that are intentionally trying to mislead the public. In fact you can find emails and communications from within powerful animal agricultural groups/ processed food companies and lobbyists try to figure out how to keep the public confused about nutrition using the same techniques as the tobacco industry of 50 years ago. 

Dietary cholesterol is most certainly bad for you and this is well known and well established and so is excessive consumption of dietary fats (and protein as well, particularly on your kidneys). Many people can loose weight on a low carb style diet, but it is at best a temporary measure and should not be sold as "healthy" diet or lifestyle. The case against saturated fat, particularly from dairy, meat, and processed foods is most certainly not weak, but the interests trying to spread this misinformation is incredibly strong


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUrP-g9TYdQ - How Do We Know that Cholesterol Causes Heart Disease?

Back on topic, I haven't tried the cricket powder I'm afraid so can't comment on that.:biggrin:


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm imagining a couple of food scientists in the laboratory of a major food corporation, busy concocting another unhealthy but irresistible combination of fat, sugar, starch and salt when one says " I can't believe the **** people will eat if you put it in a fancy package" and the other says "Oh yeah, I bet we can make them eat bugs".


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Subject reminds me of this conversation

Jed Clampett: There's Jethro, my cousin Pearl's boy. He may not stay with us long, he has to get back to Oxford where he goes to school regular.

Jane Hathaway: Oxford? He goes to Oxford University?

Jed Clampett: It's the school at Oxford. His paw went there too.

Jane Hathaway: Oh yes, the old school tie. I suppose his father matriculated him?

Jed Clampett: I kinda think maybe it was his ma. 

Jane Hathaway: I presume he went to Eaton as a boy?

Jed Clampett: If I know Jethro, he went to eatin' the minute he was born.

Jane Hathaway: Well, no matter. As long as he's an Eton man.

Jed Clampett:That he is. As a matter of fact, Jethro won the eatin' championship.

Jane Hathaway: How marvelous. What was he champion of?

Jed Clampett: Eatin'.

Jane Hathaway: I know, but what was it? Cricket?

Jed Clampett: No, no, it was crawdad. I don't think even Jethro would eat crickets.

Conversation starts at 18:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOIuhfW6RWg


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

5Lgreenback said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTuK6QKBvcc -Low Carb Diets And Coronary Blood Blow.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka_ngjez9dA&t=7s - Trouble Keeping It Ip.
> 
> ...


Greger is a vegan propagandist with an agenda. You should consider a variety of evidence rather than accepting one source uncritically.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Fructose (half of sucrose) is metabolized differently. Excess consumption causes fatty liver disease.


Perhaps a correlation is some literature but not a causal relationship. Anyhow, I believe their was a large meta-analysis a few yrs ago that disproved the association. They concluded that it was excess calories from all sugars that was the culprit. Hopefully some of the fear mongering hasn't scared people away from eating whole fruits and vegetables. So many people take things to an extreme these days. 

Picking up some cricket dust this weekend for kicks. Will report back if I'm still breathing.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Synergy said:


> ...some cricket dust ... for kicks...


Jumpin' Jiminy that's a great idea 
View attachment 18458


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Synergy said:


> Perhaps a correlation is some literature but not a causal relationship. Anyhow, I believe their was a large meta-analysis a few yrs ago that disproved the association. They concluded that it was excess calories from all sugars that was the culprit. Hopefully some of the fear mongering hasn't scared people away from eating whole fruits and vegetables. So many people take things to an extreme these days.
> 
> Picking up some cricket dust this weekend for kicks. Will report back if I'm still breathing.


You can't really eat excess fructose by eating whole fruit (you need 8 apples to hit the average American sugar consumption). It is sugar (including honey, etc.) and juices that are needed to get to toxic levels of fructose. Starches (glucose) themselves can only cause fatty liver disease through de novo lipogenesis by eating excess calories. Sugar/fructose can only be metabolized in the liver.

I eat low carb high fat, but what that means is big salads with avocado, olives, cheese/nuts, olive oil with a moderate amount of protein. I find it easier to eat a lot of vegetables this way than when I was filling up on carbs. I do not miss bread, rice, pasta, sugar etc. at all. I do still eat some berries as a treat (usually with unsweetened whipped cream).


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

andrewf said:


> Greger is a vegan propagandist with an agenda. You should consider a variety of evidence rather than accepting one source uncritically.


I do look research from all sides, but I did come to find Gregger to be the most trustworthy after a lot of flip flopping.

Gregger has his biases just like most but he advocates for a eating based on the latest scientific data and research shows, with the key being that the studies and research doesn't have a conflict of interest. (Ie most studies showing egg consumption is healthy are funded directly or indirectly by the egg industry.)

He advocates for eating as close to a whole food plant based diet as possible, not veganism.

One diet promotes our biggest killers (heart disease and cancers), and a whole food plant based diet has proven to be more effective at preventing and reversing these diseases than most medications. The evidence is actually overwhelming when you eliminate the conflict of interest research.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

It's like your portfolio - eat diverse foods from the four main 'sectors' in moderate amounts (and exercise).

http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/eating-nutrition/healthy-eating-saine-alimentation/food-guide-aliment/my-guide-mon-guide/index-eng.php?src=fg_mobile_app_15&medium=banner_en&campaign=topic_footer&_ga=2.46828327.1847556991.1523224790-994637634.1481125179

Unless you have specific health problems or dietary needs, like to waste money on expert advice, or take a risk on specific 'sector' weightings, it's pretty simple.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> It's like your portfolio - eat diverse foods from the four main 'sectors' in moderate amounts (and exercise)


Variety is the spice of life. I've always consumed a balance healthy diet and have never had any reason to go on any fad diets. Fit as a fiddle and excellent biomarkers. As mentioned up thread, the dose makes the poison - over consume just about anything and it can lead to problems - animal protein linked to certain forms of cancer, fish loaded with heavy metals, PCB,s etc. People consume way too much food period and are sedentary. 

Cricket dust worked pretty well. Made some peanut butter energy balls rolled in dust. Didn't have real crickets so I had to stuff them with a peanut! Freeze to the desired temperature and they are a welcome treat during a full day of wood splitting.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Greger is a vegan propagandist with an agenda. You should consider a variety of evidence rather than accepting one source uncritically.


I can't agree that fats are "known artery cloggers", or that "dietary cholesterol is certainly bad for you" and is established fact. s more and more research is done, these long-held theories are seeming to be overturned. 

Keto is interesting, but I do agree that it seems to not be the whole picture and that there are some things about it that strike me as possibly wrong. I eat mainly a "paleo" type of diet, and keto is not far off from that- I don't eat the same levels of fat and also enjoy fruit too much to do keto- I also like the convenience of some grain based foods. But there is some interesting info behind keto from what reading I've done on it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

5Lgreenback said:


> I do look research from all sides, but I did come to find Gregger to be the most trustworthy after a lot of flip flopping.
> 
> Gregger has his biases just like most but he advocates for a eating based on the latest scientific data and research shows, with the key being that the studies and research doesn't have a conflict of interest. (Ie most studies showing egg consumption is healthy are funded directly or indirectly by the egg industry.)
> 
> ...


Greger is an activist from the farm animal welfare division of the Humane Society. I think it is safe to say he starts with the conclusion that animal products are evil and works backwards to find confirming evidence that fits his narrative. He engages in a lot of ad hominem and other fallacies in his arguments. Usually scientists are a bit more careful to make claims that they feel are well supported by the science and hedge where there is uncertainty. Greger fails that test.

LCHF has evidence to support better health outcomes for chronic disease, particularly type 2 diabetes/insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome, which is the main cause of heart disease. There are also studies that show some benefits in inhibiting tumor growth in some cancers. I think a more balanced assessment is that both low carb and low fat *can* work, but if someone is struggling with one and not seeing improvements in health biomarkers, maybe they should consider a change. Some people do very well with low fat whole food diets. Some people remain overweight and diabetic. And low fat is very hard to stick with (I would say much harder than low carb).


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

andrewf said:


> Greger is an activist from the farm animal welfare division of the Humane Society. I think it is safe to say he starts with the conclusion that animal products are evil and works backwards to find confirming evidence that fits his narrative. He engages in a lot of ad hominem and other fallacies in his arguments. Usually scientists are a bit more careful to make claims that they feel are well supported by the science and hedge where there is uncertainty. Greger fails that test.
> 
> LCHF has evidence to support better health outcomes for chronic disease, particularly type 2 diabetes/insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome, which is the main cause of heart disease. There are also studies that show some benefits in inhibiting tumor growth in some cancers. I think a more balanced assessment is that both low carb and low fat *can* work, but if someone is struggling with one and not seeing improvements in health biomarkers, maybe they should consider a change. Some people do very well with low fat whole food diets. Some people remain overweight and diabetic. And low fat is very hard to stick with (I would say much harder than low carb).


Most of his videos don't even deal with animal products, they deal with health issues and questions in general. Some of the latest being moderate levels of alcohol consumption. It's easy to write him off as bias and disregard all the research and evidence produced based on that, but there is a ton of evidence from many other sources that agree with his research. 

Regardless, eat what works for you sure. But I feel its important to know that the one properly conducted study ever done on HFLC diets over the long term shows that yes some people may loose weight but there is a high probability you are clogging/ damaging your arteries as well.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

5Lgreenback said:


> Regardless, eat what works for you sure. But I feel its important to know that the one properly conducted study ever done on HFLC diets over the long term shows that yes some people may loose weight but there is a high probability you are clogging/ damaging your arteries as well.


Nonsense. Please produce that study. Besides, i don't know how you can claim there is only one supposedly properly conducted study. There are several studies that demonstrate that LCHF is safe over longer time frames. There is evidence that LCHF reduces hypertension, improves cholesterol markers (hint, LDL is not very meaningful in itself) and lowers blood triglycerides and arterial calcification.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

5Lgreenback said:


> But I feel its important to know that the one properly conducted study ever done on HFLC diets over the long term shows that yes some people may loose weight but there is a high probability you are clogging/ damaging your arteries as well.


Yeah, I think the long held popular belief of the public that dietary saturated fat is clogging arteries has been proven to be just plain wrong.

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Who checks the cricket powder to make sure it isn't ground up saw dust or something ? Is it coming from China ?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Who checks the cricket powder to make sure it isn't ground up saw dust or something ? Is it coming from China ?


Maybe the Canadian Council of Cricket Checkers? (CCoCC)


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

sags said:


> Who checks the cricket powder to make sure it isn't ground up saw dust or something ? Is it coming from China ?


Similar to other protein powders it can be classified as a food or natural health product. That will determine how it's regulated. I believe it depends on how the product is being marketed. Anyhow, there is oversight by Health Canada either way. No different than any other purchase - do your own due diligence.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Nonsense. Please produce that study. Besides, i don't know how you can claim there is only one supposedly properly conducted study. There are several studies that demonstrate that LCHF is safe over longer time frames. There is evidence that LCHF reduces hypertension, improves cholesterol markers (hint, LDL is not very meaningful in itself) and lowers blood triglycerides and arterial calcification.


It's futile to be arguing over individual research trials. Take your battles over to the the gold standard (systematic review and meta-analysis). Check out the Cochrane Review Database. Stop relying on "expert opinion" which is one of the lowest forms of evidence. Be open minded and leave your dogma at home!


----------

