Nice buns? Skinny muffins? Chain stores head to head.

Goes against the grain to buy a store muffin in this household but we thought we should pit our Davids against the Goliaths and have done some selective sleuthing.











First up - "Nice Buns" (sic) 'Toffee and Banana'.

Looks: 5/5 If you like obvious & puffy.
Topping: 1/5 Toppings looked better on other varieties.
Texture: 2/5 Soft, bit dry. Crust cracks like dried mud on rugby boots.
Taste: 1/5 1st bite a surge of toffee; second bite toffee. Not a lot of banana.
Aftertaste: 0/5 Rather chemical. Think they must use artificial flavouring.










Next up - classic Starbucks 'Banana & Nut'

Looks: 4/5 Pretty much like a muffin should, but veering towards mushroom.
Topping: 1/5 A few indeterminate nuts & one slice hard, sugary dried banana.
Texture: 4/5 Lovely, crumbly, moist.
Taste: 3/5 What nuts are these?
Aftertaste: 2/5 Just a touch too much raising agent.

Web search yielded little on the composition of the 'Nice Buns', but we were anyway unconvinced. A mouthwatering display for tired drivers on the motorway, and a real sweet rush at first taste, but after that soft cardboard would give them a run for their money. (Next time will yield to son and try the chocolate varieties in case they are better and will report back).

The Starbucks mega-muffins are worth a go though. Their web site argues that they have recently responded to public pressure and gone all natural and ethical with flavourings (although we might challenge what they mean by natural and also on embedded palm oil). In the interests of research we have tried some other flavours; the breakfast muffin is all topping, but tasty; the skinny ginger looked drab but was delicious. There is a sting in the tail though - to its credit, the company provides a detailed table of nutritional content. 'Skinny muffins' are substantively lower in fat but still in the hundreds for calories and what they lose in fat they make up in sugars. One classic muffin is over 500 cals - buyer beware.