New Product - Super Mass600

[T-Bone]

I wouldn't touch malto ever. If I was gonna go junky I'd just eat oreos and ice cream. No point in eating something junky that tastes like **** and doesn't mix.

IMO have your engineers work on a weight gainer formula with soluble fiber and some sort of high amylopectin-content starch (as opposed to the predominantly straight chain amylose). I'd also go with a whey/MPI blend (whatever it takes to end up around 50/50 whey/casien). A glycemic index of around 50 is a good place to shoot, have your boys get a blood glucose meter and test that badboy out.

Also, I realize you have a customer base that is happy with your product but I'd really suggest doing some doing some blind taste tests with 40/60/80% of the amount of flavoring system used vs the normal amount of flavoring system in 1 and 2 cups of water and 1 and 2 cups of milk, as I found the wheys to be way too sweet to mix in the concentrations I normally mix it in, and I know of several other people who feel the same way (particularly the vanilla and chocolate had this problem, the banana was overly sweet too but not as extremely so). I have a feeling if you were to do a taste test with a decent amount of people you'd find that would be a fairly common comment.

I always mix my whey with water. I found the Banana not to be sweet enough. The flavors I like best are the Strawberry and the Orange.

 

[exnihilo]

Sounds to me like the best solution would be to offer the flavoring system in seperate packets. Can't beat your prices (well, a local guy does match your concentrate price for unflavored) and the whey is high quality - just too sweet for me. I have cut WAY down on the whey so I doubt I'll be purchasing any bulk bags but I would definately be down for some sort of whey with added creatine monohydrate and EAAs/leucine... mixed in.

 

[BOHICA]

I can't use strawberry or orange or any fruit flavored. Creamy fruit just doesnt appeal to me. I dont mind syntrax nectar, because it is at least clear and looks like fruit juice.

 

[CDB]

I would love to see an affordable low gi high fiber mrp.

I was thinking of buying one of those dehydrators and making my own low GI carb mixes. Thing is, I don't think broccolli and barley powder would taste all that good mixed in anything. But, as I understand it, all you have to do is dehydrate a good amount of veggies and grind them down into powder, and you've got your own low GI complex carb powder. Or you could buy that Pure Vitargo stuff. No idea if it's any good, but it sure as hell is expensive.

 

[exnihilo]

a mixture of very finely ground dessicated yam powder and psyllium husks or some other soluble fiber would work best. Yams contain a high ratio of amylopectin:amylose, which is why their GI is low even though they're not so high in fiber as a lot of other veggies.

 

[T-Bone]

I was thinking of buying one of those dehydrators and making my own low GI carb mixes. Thing is, I don't think broccolli and barley powder would taste all that good mixed in anything. But, as I understand it, all you have to do is dehydrate a good amount of veggies and grind them down into powder, and you've got your own low GI complex carb powder. Or you could buy that Pure Vitargo stuff. No idea if it's any good, but it sure as hell is expensive.

Pure Vitargo is a high-gi carb.

 

[CDB]

Pure Vitargo is a high-gi carb.

My mistake, thought it was supposed to be low GI. This dehydration thingee is starting to look good the more I look into it. I could take all my favorite veggies and turn them to my advantage in a pretty unique way.

 

[ryansm]

That actaully sounds interesting, if you do it let us know.

 

[BOHICA]

I just food process my oates, low enough gi for me

 

[CDB]

I just food process my oates, low enough gi for me

That's what I've been doing, I throw them in my morning shake and blend away. It'd be nice to have a powder though that I could mix at will without having to blend it, or maybe even cap it.

 

[BOHICA]

That's what I've been doing, I throw them in my morning shake and blend away. It'd be nice to have a powder though that I could mix at will without having to blend it, or maybe even cap it.

I normally just dump the whole container in the processor, then put it back in the can. That way I can just scoop out a cup and dump it in a shake anytime I want.

 

[Nabeshin]

Sorry to bump an old thread, but I feel the need to point out the relative unimportance of GI. I'm not saying that GI is completely unimportant, just that it's not that important. At the very least, it's not the most important factor in the fat-to-lean-mass accumulation ratio.

Consider that:

• Potatoes are a very high GI carb --- do they "make you fat?"
• Fructose is a very low GI carb, even lower than oats --- why not eat a pound of honey a day instead of oats?
• Eating protein with carbs drastically changes the effective GI of the meal.
• The point of a gainer is extra calories, not nutritional zen. It will never be better than real food, except that it's a lot easier to eat than real food.

None of this is to say that GI is worthless, or that we shouldn't strive for quality in gainer supplements --- merely that things should be kept in perspective. More bluntly --- and I know nobody said this, but this is an easy impression to extract --- saying "malto will make you fat" is a mite misleading.

 

[BOHICA]

"malto will make you fat" is a mite misleading.

malto will make you fat if you dont exercise enough to turn it into something good.

 

[Methyl1]

I personally like two scoops of Prolab Vanilla N-Large after a heavy workout

 

[tattoopierced1]

i really enjoy the SuperMass 600 as my before bed meal. Very easy to consume and is quick...something very important when your tired and have to get a meal in..

 

[Zero Tolerance]

I'm ordering some right now.. But how do I get the $2.00 off? I mean, I can't afford it otherwise.

Order placed...

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Sorry to bump an old thread, but I feel the need to point out the relative unimportance of GI. I'm not saying that GI is completely unimportant, just that it's not that important. At the very least, it's not the most important factor in the fat-to-lean-mass accumulation ratio.

Consider that:

• Potatoes are a very high GI carb --- do they "make you fat?"
• Fructose is a very low GI carb, even lower than oats --- why not eat a pound of honey a day instead of oats?
• Eating protein with carbs drastically changes the effective GI of the meal.
• The point of a gainer is extra calories, not nutritional zen. It will never be better than real food, except that it's a lot easier to eat than real food.

None of this is to say that GI is worthless, or that we shouldn't strive for quality in gainer supplements --- merely that things should be kept in perspective. More bluntly --- and I know nobody said this, but this is an easy impression to extract --- saying "malto will make you fat" is a mite misleading.

1. Potatoes nutrient value is much higher.

2. Honey had 17g carbs per tablespoon. Its a bit more calorically dense than oats with musch less fiber and nutrient value.

3. True. Sometime its increased drastically while the GL is increased as well. Sometimes its the opposite.

4. If you are trying to gain weight you must take in a caloric surplus. The more unstable blood sugar and insulin levels the more fat increase you will have when caloric levels are high. So in essence, malto can certainly "make you fat" compared to other smarter choices.

The GI is not all impotarnt but when your calories are above your maintenance, its actually becomes more importnant because the negative effects will be magnified.

 

[bioman]

Thus spaketh Bobo.

Oh Malto can make you fat under the right conditions and a lot more easily than say oats. I used to use N-large..it put on the pounds all right, before I cleaned up my diet.

 

[Nabeshin]

malto will make you fat if you dont exercise enough to turn it into something good.

If you're in a caloric surplus, this applies to anything.

 

[Nabeshin]

So in essence, malto can certainly "make you fat" compared to other smarter choices.

In essence, true, but in the context of a weight gainer, I think not.

My arguments:
1) The GI is not a good predicter of a carb's tendency to result in fat accumulation.

2) Malto in a weight gainer is about as healthy as oats, and hella more convenient.

I can't swallow the "high GI = adipose hypertrophy" pill without frowning upon potatoes --- and I can't bring myself to do that. Common sense revolts at the notion. I might seem obsessive for getting so hung up on one lil' starchy carb, but it only takes one contradiction to disprove a theory.

I understand the nutritional considerations. Regardless, my conceit is not about nutritional density, but about fat accumulation. If the high GI of maltodextrin(1:137, 2:105) causes people to fear fat accumulation, it follows that fructose(1:26, 2:20) would be a better choice than even oats(1:78, 2:49). And potatoes(1:116, 2:98) should be assiduously avoided. Herein I sense a contradiction.

I reiterate: I understand that oats and potatoes are more nutritionally sound than maltodextrin and fructose, and that whole foods are superior to powdered foods (ignoring the pre/post-wo scenario). Yet people still buy whey protein. Why? Convenience.

And that is the chief benefit of a weight gainer --- convenience. If you can get all the calories you need to grow from whole foods, by all means, pursue that route. But the real world tends to restrict our ability to attain the optimal. Be it a shortage of time --- or rather, a sufficiently high opportunity cost of time --- or the inability to stomach 5,000 calories a day of solid matter, there is good reason to consider an alternative to The Real Thing(tm). By the same token, anybody who's tried to drink a shake containing 40 grams of whey protein and 80 grams of carbs in oat form --- and let me tell you, that works out to a lot more than 80 grams of oats --- understands the value of maltodextrin.

The preceding two paragraphs are an insurance policy against anyone mentioning the nutrional superiority of oats to maltodextrin --- I get it. That's just not the point.

I don't see why maltodextrin will cause a greater accumulation of fat than oats, because I don't see how a higher GI causes a greater accumulation of fat than a lower GI, because I don't see how potatoes cause a greater accumulation of fat than fructose. On the flipside, if the above is wrong, I don't see why oats are superior to fructose for adding calories without adding fat. I'm operating under the assumption that the shake in which the candidate carb would be added to provides no more than 1/3 of your daily caloric intake, with the rest coming from nutritious whole foods. If we're talking about which nutrient should be your "desert island" carb, then obviously oats win.

Waxing scientific for a bit, the GI is commonly thought to measure the effect a particular carb has on insulin levels. Such is not the case. The GI measures how rapidly a particular carb can be broken down into glucose. Generally speaking, the value is lower for complex carbs, and higher for simple carbs, though there are notable exceptions (see above).

Further, testing is conducted in a fasted state, and nothing but carb is consumed. With 6 meals daily, and a consistently even macronutrient break down per meal, bodybuilders are generally in a state antithetical to that in which GI is measured.

Now, the point of my polemic is not to piss in the oatmeal of the pro-oat-anti-malto people. I just want to offer an alternative perspective to those who have been scared out of trying Supermass 600. In truth, I do believe that malto is more likely to result in fat accumulation than oatmeal, though this is not because of its GI. More importantly, in the context of adding calories to a bulking diet in protein-shake form, I don't think it's going to make a quantifiable difference. Though endos may need to tred more carefully, if you're an ecto or a meso, and you take a serving or two of Supermass a day alongside a smart regimen of 4-5 solid meals, you will be primed for maximum muscle growth with minimal fat. The same could be said for rolling-your-own gainer using oats and whey --- you'll just feel like you're drinking kitty litter.

My $0.02.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

If you're in a caloric surplus, this applies to anything.

But moreso when insulin levels and responses are high.

 

[exnihilo]

Now, the point of my polemic is not to piss in the oatmeal of the pro-oat-anti-malto people. I just want to offer an alternative perspective to those who have been scared out of trying Supermass 600. In truth, I do believe that malto is more likely to result in fat accumulation than oatmeal, though this is not because of its GI. More importantly, in the context of adding calories to a bulking diet in protein-shake form, I don't think it's going to make a quantifiable difference. Though endos may need to tred more carefully, if you're an ecto or a meso, and you take a serving or two of Supermass a day alongside a smart regimen of 4-5 solid meals, you will be primed for maximum muscle growth with minimal fat. The same could be said for rolling-your-own gainer using oats and whey --- you'll just feel like you're drinking kitty litter.

My $0.02.

Whey, at certain points in moderate amounts, is the best protein source you could possibly take in, but it certainly is not the best all the time.

I am aware that the GI hasn't consistently been shown in studies to improve body composition above regular caloric restriction, however my own personal experience (and the personal experiences of quite a few other people) with whole foods has shown me that they encourage much better body composition changes than processed foods.

Why bother with malto? If you're trying to get your calories up and you don't care about the quality of the food you're eating there are plenty of better tasting options (for instance oreo cookies and ice cream).

 

[Dwight Schrute]

In essence, true, but in the context of a weight gainer, I think not.

My arguments:
1) The GI is not a good predicter of a carb's tendency to result in fat accumulation.

2) Malto in a weight gainer is about as healthy as oats, and hella more convenient.

I can't swallow the "high GI = adipose hypertrophy" pill without frowning upon potatoes --- and I can't bring myself to do that. Common sense revolts at the notion. I might seem obsessive for getting so hung up on one lil' starchy carb, but it only takes one contradiction to disprove a theory.

I understand the nutritional considerations. Regardless, my conceit is not about nutritional density, but about fat accumulation. If the high GI of maltodextrin(1:137, 2:105) causes people to fear fat accumulation, it follows that fructose(1:26, 2:20) would be a better choice than even oats(1:78, 2:49). And potatoes(1:116, 2:98) should be assiduously avoided. Herein I sense a contradiction.

I reiterate: I understand that oats and potatoes are more nutritionally sound than maltodextrin and fructose, and that whole foods are superior to powdered foods (ignoring the pre/post-wo scenario). Yet people still buy whey protein. Why? Convenience.

And that is the chief benefit of a weight gainer --- convenience. If you can get all the calories you need to grow from whole foods, by all means, pursue that route. But the real world tends to restrict our ability to attain the optimal. Be it a shortage of time --- or rather, a sufficiently high opportunity cost of time --- or the inability to stomach 5,000 calories a day of solid matter, there is good reason to consider an alternative to The Real Thing(tm). By the same token, anybody who's tried to drink a shake containing 40 grams of whey protein and 80 grams of carbs in oat form --- and let me tell you, that works out to a lot more than 80 grams of oats --- understands the value of maltodextrin.

The preceding two paragraphs are an insurance policy against anyone mentioning the nutrional superiority of oats to maltodextrin --- I get it. That's just not the point.

I don't see why maltodextrin will cause a greater accumulation of fat than oats, because I don't see how a higher GI causes a greater accumulation of fat than a lower GI, because I don't see how potatoes cause a greater accumulation of fat than fructose. On the flipside, if the above is wrong, I don't see why oats are superior to fructose for adding calories without adding fat. I'm operating under the assumption that the shake in which the candidate carb would be added to provides no more than 1/3 of your daily caloric intake, with the rest coming from nutritious whole foods. If we're talking about which nutrient should be your "desert island" carb, then obviously oats win.

Waxing scientific for a bit, the GI is commonly thought to measure the effect a particular carb has on insulin levels. Such is not the case. The GI measures how rapidly a particular carb can be broken down into glucose. Generally speaking, the value is lower for complex carbs, and higher for simple carbs, though there are notable exceptions (see above).

Further, testing is conducted in a fasted state, and nothing but carb is consumed. With 6 meals daily, and a consistently even macronutrient break down per meal, bodybuilders are generally in a state antithetical to that in which GI is measured.

Now, the point of my polemic is not to piss in the oatmeal of the pro-oat-anti-malto people. I just want to offer an alternative perspective to those who have been scared out of trying Supermass 600. In truth, I do believe that malto is more likely to result in fat accumulation than oatmeal, though this is not because of its GI. More importantly, in the context of adding calories to a bulking diet in protein-shake form, I don't think it's going to make a quantifiable difference. Though endos may need to tred more carefully, if you're an ecto or a meso, and you take a serving or two of Supermass a day alongside a smart regimen of 4-5 solid meals, you will be primed for maximum muscle growth with minimal fat. The same could be said for rolling-your-own gainer using oats and whey --- you'll just feel like you're drinking kitty litter.

My $0.02.

Insulin increases LPL activity and when calories are in surplus this increased activity increases the chance of adipose storage. More stable bloods glucose levels along with insulin levels will decrease this activity and decrease the rate of nutrients being stored as energy (fat) and increase the rate oxidation and/or increased the conversion of glucose to glycogen. IOW, a more efficent use of nutrients.

Oats with its slower digesting ability along with fiber intake stabilizes blood glucose and insulin levels which in turn reduces LPL activity and its its effect on triglyceride storage.

So its definetly a factor regardless of what you want to believe. Nobody said it was the biggest factor but it certainly is a factor.

Malto has a GL of 10 for every Tablespoon. GI 100+

Potato has a GL of 26 for every 5oz. GI 82

Instant Oats has a GL of 17 for every 250g serving size. GI 66.

So for the most part the GI generally DOES have an impact on the GL of a food but there are always exceptions. IF you have a lower GI diet it will result in less fat gain than a higher one. If you have a diet Low in GI AND GL it will be even better.

The rest of your post is more your philosphy than anything.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Be it a shortage of time --- or rather, a sufficiently high opportunity cost of time --- or the inability to stomach 5,000 calories a day of solid matter, there is good reason to consider an alternative to The Real Thing(tm). By the same token, anybody who's tried to drink a shake containing 40 grams of whey protein and 80 grams of carbs in oat form --- and let me tell you, that works out to a lot more than 80 grams of oats --- understands the value of maltodextrin.

.

1. Not many people need 5,000 calories to grow. Out of all the people I have trained I have yet to find someone that needs that much to grow and I have people that are 280+.

2. I don't have anyone that consumes that many oats in one serving. Its farily easy to find quality carbs. IF you can't find quick and easy carb sources that aren't 100+ on the GI scale then there is something wrong. Protien OTOH is a different story.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I

2) Malto in a weight gainer is about as healthy as oats, and hella more convenient.

That statement is the most ridiclous thing I have ever seen. Really, you have to explain that because that makes zero sense from any nutritional standpoint.

 

[Nabeshin]

I am aware that the GI hasn't consistently been shown in studies to improve body composition above regular caloric restriction, however my own personal experience (and the personal experiences of quite a few other people) with whole foods has shown me that they encourage much better body composition changes than processed foods.

Well, no argument from me on this. I think the... uh... "wholeness" of a food is the best predictor of fat accumulation available.

Why bother with malto?

'cuz it's a quick-n-easy complex carb. This, of course, makes the assumption that complex > simple, which is obviously arguable. If you see no difference, then by all means, drop some ice cream in your gainer.

 

[exnihilo]

Well, no argument from me on this. I think the... uh... "wholeness" of a food is the best predictor of fat accumulation available.


'cuz it's a quick-n-easy complex carb. This, of course, makes the assumption that complex > simple, which is obviously arguable. If you see no difference, then by all means, drop some ice cream in your gainer.

It's hard to tell if you are being sarcastic... The truth is that while I have a very solid basis in science, anecdotal reports, when consistent (as they are with the body composition effects of a diet high in unprocessed "whole" foods, particularly vegetables and grains) are a better indicator than in vitro experiments or even in vivo experiments that are done on animals, are poorly controlled or are only looking for certain isolated plasma markers of physiological processes.

The term "complex carb" is meaningless. So what if it's a polysaccharide instead of a monosaccharide? Amylase works pretty quickly to turn that "complex carb" (with all its A1-6 linkages completely exposed because it's a refined powder rather than in cellular matrices with lipids/cellulose/etc) into glucose my friend. Plus, the hydroxyl groups on the glucose molecules cause maltose granules to swell up via spheres of hydration, making the molecule even easier for amylase to break down. End result, that "complex carb" causes a greater net effect on blood glucose levels than ice cream... Plus ice cream has calcium and protein and tastes great (if it weren't for the saturated fat :nono: )

 

[Nabeshin]

Insulin increases LPL activity and when calories are in surplus this increased activity increases the chance of adipose storage. More stable bloods glucose levels along with insulin levels will decrease this activity and decrease the rate of nutrients being stored as energy (fat) and increase the rate oxidation and/or increased the conversion of glucose to glycogen. IOW, a more efficent use of nutrients.

Agreed. But, the quantifiable difference between two different nutritional tactics may still be null.

Oats with its slower digesting ability along with fiber intake stabilizes blood glucose and insulin levels which in turn reduces LPL activity and its its effect on triglyceride storage.

Agreed.

So its definetly a factor regardless of what you want to believe. Nobody said it was the biggest factor but it certainly is a factor.

I don't believe I ever said LPL activity is irrelevant to lipogenesis.

Malto has a GL of 10 for every Tablespoon. GI 100+

Potato has a GL of 26 for every 5oz. GI 82

Instant Oats has a GL of 17 for every 250g serving size. GI 66.

So for the most part the GI generally DOES have an impact on the GL of a food but there are always exceptions. IF you have a lower GI diet it will result in less fat gain than a higher one. If you have a diet Low in GI AND GL it will be even better.

Consider carrots.

But really, I don't know what you're getting at. The crux of my vociferous fulmination is that the GI is a poor predictor of lipogenesis probability. If you're suggesting that GL is a good predictor, we're back to potatoes being fat pills.

The rest of your post is more your philosphy than anything.

Actually, the way GI is determined is very independent of my philosophy. It's also very relevant.

 

[Nabeshin]

It's hard to tell if you are being sarcastic... The truth is that while I have a very solid basis in science

I don't doubt that. :blink:

anecdotal reports, when consistent (as they are with the body composition effects of a diet high in unprocessed "whole" foods, particularly vegetables and grains) are a better indicator than in vitro experiments or even in vivo experiments that are done on animals, are poorly controlled or are only looking for certain isolated plasma markers of physiological processes.

No, I'm not being sarcastic at all. I honestly believe whole foods are superior all the way, every way, except for convenience (once again, ignoring pre/post-wo). I also agree that many experiments are flawed, and hence the conclusions they produce are questionable. Hence my feelings on the bearing the GI has on bodybuilders.

The term "complex carb" is meaningless. So what if it's a polysaccharide instead of a monosaccharide? Amylase works pretty quickly to turn that "complex carb" (with all its A1-6 linkages completely exposed because it's a refined powder rather than in cellular matrices with lipids/cellulose/etc) into glucose my friend.

I was kinda thinkin' all those linkages would make the amylase take longer to do its thing, i.e., time to completion scales at least linearly with number of links. If such is not the case, then pooh on me.

Plus, the hydroxyl groups on the glucose molecules cause maltose granules to swell up via spheres of hydration, making the molecule even easier for amylase to break down. End result, that "complex carb" causes a greater net effect on blood glucose levels than ice cream... Plus ice cream has calcium and protein and tastes great (if it weren't for the saturated fat :nono: )

OK, unless sucrose breaks down slower than maltodextrin, this is only true because ice cream contains protein (and fat). But since you're theoretically adding these ingredients to a protein shake, how much better does the ice cream really perform? And could that not be compensated for with a scoop of peanut butter?

 

[Nabeshin]

1. Not many people need 5,000 calories to grow. Out of all the people I have trained I have yet to find someone that needs that much to grow and I have people that are 280+.

Ja.

2. I don't have anyone that consumes that many oats in one serving. Its farily easy to find quality carbs. IF you can't find quick and easy carb sources that aren't 100+ on the GI scale then there is something wrong. Protien OTOH is a different story.

Yeah, the tried-n-true oats+banana+peanut butter approach. But pulling out a blender is just So Much Effort.:rasp:

 

[Nabeshin]

That statement is the most ridiclous thing I have ever seen. Really, you have to explain that because that makes zero sense from any nutritional standpoint.

Bad word choice --- mea culpa. The meaning I intended to convey was that they would be practically equivalent in terms of lipogenesis. And I should probably emphasize that this is for ectos, who I imagine are the target audience of gainers. An endo should tread carefully.

And in case anyone is wondering, I did use gainers and malto, and I'm now using oats and bananas. For me, it's a way to save money and boost nutrition, but at the cost of a little convenience. I'm an ecto, and this has made zippo impact on my fat metabolism. Depending on how you value your cash relative to your time, and contingent on your somatype, a malto based gainer might have a favorable cost/benefit ratio to you. I don't know. But, to restate my thesis, the idea that malto will make you fat is misleading, so don't be afraid to give Supermass a shot and draw your own conclusions.

No, I don't work for ATW. In fact, I buy my whey at costco.

 

[wheystation]

I'm ordering some right now.. But how do I get the $2.00 off? I mean, I can't afford it otherwise.

Order placed...

Hey, send me an email at [email protected] with your order number and I will give you the 2.00 off - I like to call it my "I LOVE AM" coupon.

Have a great weekend.

Laura

PS> lets get all you experts to answer my new thread - Talk to the Owner.....he needs to hear what you guys want _____000000 _______besides PB FLAVOR

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Agreed. But, the quantifiable difference between two different nutritional tactics may still be null.


Agreed.


I don't believe I ever said LPL activity is irrelevant to lipogenesis.


Consider carrots.

But really, I don't know what you're getting at. The crux of my vociferous fulmination is that the GI is a poor predictor of lipogenesis probability. If you're suggesting that GL is a good predictor, we're back to potatoes being fat pills.


Actually, the way GI is determined is very independent of my philosophy. It's also very relevant.

1. Are you kidding me? Null? Where do you ever get that from? The difference is VERY significant. Just look at the research.

2. Yet you are totally ignoring the role insulin has in increased LPL as well as increased triglyceride storage. There is very big correlation between GI and GL. You are basing your arguement on the exeptions to the rule, not the majority.

3. No we are not because the GL is 26 for 5oz. of potatoes compared to 10 for 1 Tablspoon of Maltodextrin. The difference is VERY large in terms of total glycemic load.

You are completly ignoring the relationship that the GI had on the GL. For the most part the GI is a good indicator of the GL. Granted there are exeptions and you are using potatoes (which is an exceptin) to validate you belief on the whole which isn't accurate. In fact many vegetables fit that category but the majority of food items follow a pattern and the GI is a good indicator of the GL. Increase the response and the amount of insulin in an enviroment with caloric excess and you WILL have an increase in adipose storage.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Bad word choice --- mea culpa. The meaning I intended to convey was that they would be practically equivalent in terms of lipogenesis.

I don't know where you are getting your information from but that is completely and totally false. Maltodextrin will definetly have much more an influence on lipogenesis than any oatmeal will. You can break it down into so many factors that I can't believe that you even mande that statement. Its so wrong on many levels.

 

[exnihilo]

No, I'm not being sarcastic at all. I honestly believe whole foods are superior all the way, every way, except for convenience (once again, ignoring pre/post-wo). I also agree that many experiments are flawed, and hence the conclusions they produce are questionable. Hence my feelings on the bearing the GI has on bodybuilders.

I was kinda thinkin' all those linkages would make the amylase take longer to do its thing, i.e., time to completion scales at least linearly with number of links. If such is not the case, then pooh on me.

It does take time for glucose molecules to be cleaved - but from a physical standpoint it's a lot like having a stack of legos, and proceeding to pull lego after lego off the end in rapid succession. The time it takes is negligible.

OK, unless sucrose breaks down slower than maltodextrin, this is only true because ice cream contains protein (and fat). But since you're theoretically adding these ingredients to a protein shake, how much better does the ice cream really perform? And could that not be compensated for with a scoop of peanut butter?

Ice cream's GI is irrelevant, I referenced it because it's a food that you can use as a "weight gainer" that's 10,000 times more palatable than maltodextrin, with an effect on the body that's marginally worse in most cases (this really depends on the saturated fat content). The issue is not how fast sucrose is broken down (it's a disaccharide) but the fact that the fructose molecule must be converted to glucose by the liver. If you're an ecto, and you honestly feel that not eating enough is the source of your problems, ice cream and oreo cookies will fix that problem in a most enjoyable manner. Some people like olive oil or peanut butter, those are healthier options, but you said that you didn't notice any change in leanness with maltose over oats, so I thought I'd suggest that you take advantage of that and have some fun

 

[Nabeshin]

1. Are you kidding me? Null? Where do you ever get that from? The difference is VERY significant. Just look at the research.

OK, so if we were to take two identical ectomorphs, and put them through the same paces, but have one of them get one meal a day from a serving of Supermass, then by then end of, say, a 32 week bulker, how much fatter is the gainer guy gonna be? If it's 10 pounds, then our gainer friend might be perturbed. But if it's one pound, he might consider the convenience he reaped and not give a damn. And if it's no pounds, then he pretty squarely lost nothing.

This is what I'm getting at. Even if, on a microbiological level, the gainer candidate really did put on more fat than his compadre, in the long run, it might not matter.

For 2 months, I bulked without a gainer. For another 2 months, I bulked with. I actually gained less fat the second session, most likely because I went from 3 days a week to 4 days a week of training. In fact, frustrated by the fact that I wasn't swole yet, I cut down on my gainer intake from 3 to 2 meals a day --- and I started using a custom blend of protein and malto that provided fewer calories and a greater portion of protein per meal --- and just boosted my intake of whole foods (brown rice and chicken breast, mostly). 2 months of 1,500 calories over maintenance got me fat.

My point is that the gainer seemed to do precisely dick to my fat metabolism. Even if it did do something, if I can't measure, who cares? All this talk about LPL activity, and it was plain eating too much whole food that actually made a discernable difference in my accumulation of lard.

In retrospect, I shouldn't have started two arguments in one thread, as this is getting confusing as hell. But right here, what I'm saying is, the dangers of a malto-based gainer are greatly exaggerated.


Here, on the other hand, is where I'm flinging poo at the GI:

You are basing your arguement on the exeptions to the rule, not the majority.

That's exactly my point --- there are many notable exceptions to this rule. Hence, it's not a very good rule. Here's a better one: eat whole foods.

3. No we are not because the GL is 26 for 5oz. of potatoes compared to 10 for 1 Tablspoon of Maltodextrin. The difference is VERY large in terms of total glycemic load.

Ah, ok, you meant the ratio of the GL to the serving size. (Gee, so that's why he kept mentioning quantities...) Well, that makes sense, in that malto is much more calorically dense than a potato, so if you eat equal volumes of each, the malto will cause a larger insulin spike than the potato. But bodybuilders don't eat for volume, they eat for mass --- calories in particular. What's important is not how much a particular volume of food affects insulin, but how, say, 50g of it does. Which would give you the GI of a food. And you know how I feel about that.

You are completly ignoring the relationship that the GI had on the GL. For the most part the GI is a good indicator of the GL.

I take it you consider the GL to be a good indicator of lipogenesis, then?

I don't disagree with the rest of your post.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Some people like olive oil or peanut butter, those are healthier options, but you said that you didn't notice any change in leanness with maltose over oats, so I thought I'd suggest that you take advantage of that and have some fun

That is more a results of his 20 year old metabolism more than anything. The body is constantly releasing and storing fats (constantly) and those with an increased metabolism have high energy requirements but the fact of the matter is that high insulin concentrations are causing more lipids to be sotred rather than oxidized. Lucky for him (and me when I was 20) that his energy requirements are so high that you don't see much of a difference. Given years, it will catch up and he will understand what I am talking about because it will become MUCH more a factor.

 

[Nabeshin]

I don't know where you are getting your information from but that is completely and totally false. Maltodextrin will definetly have much more an influence on lipogenesis than any oatmeal will. You can break it down into so many factors that I can't believe that you even mande that statement. Its so wrong on many levels.

Sigh. The meaning I intended to convey was that they would be practically equivalent in terms of lipogenesis in the context of a weight gainer from a macroscopic perspective over the long run.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

In retrospect, I shouldn't have started two arguments in one thread, as this is getting confusing as hell. But right here, what I'm saying is, the dangers of a malto-based gainer are greatly exaggerated.


Here, on the other hand, is where I'm flinging poo at the GI:


That's exactly my point --- there are many notable exceptions to this rule. Hence, it's not a very good rule. Here's a better one: eat whole foods.


Ah, ok, you meant the ratio of the GL to the serving size. (Gee, so that's why he kept mentioning quantities...) Well, that makes sense, in that malto is much more calorically dense than a potato, so if you eat equal volumes of each, the malto will cause a larger insulin spike than the potato. But bodybuilders don't eat for volume, they eat for mass --- calories in particular. What's important is not how much a particular volume of food affects insulin, but how, say, 50g of it does. Which would give you the GI of a food. And you know how I feel about that.


I take it you consider the GL to be a good indicator of lipogenesis, then?

I don't disagree with the rest of your post.

That is YOU, not the majority of people out there. I have trained over 400 people and I can tell you first hand the majority respond better to LOWER GI diets.

When I was 20 I could eat anything and everything but does that make the nutritonal advice invalid? NO.

For the majority of people the GI has a VERY significant impact on lipogenesis. You are always going to have ecto's who can metabolize lipids extremely fast but that fact remains that insulin will increase the storage of fat in an environment of calorice excess. That is fact and for most people is has a VERY pronounced effect.

Because there are exceptions to the rule its a bad rule? That is ridiculous. For the majority of foods the rule stands. Nobody in this thread said it was the only factor, just that it IS a factor. You OTOH seem to think that since their is an exception that you throw the whole concept out the window. That is absurb.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Sigh. The meaning I intended to convey was that they would be practically equivalent in terms of lipogenesis in the context of a weight gainer from a macroscopic perspective over the long run.

And you are completely wrong.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Ah, ok, you meant the ratio of the GL to the serving size. (Gee, so that's why he kept mentioning quantities...) Well, that makes sense, in that malto is much more calorically dense than a potato, so if you eat equal volumes of each, the malto will cause a larger insulin spike than the potato. But bodybuilders don't eat for volume, they eat for mass --- calories in particular. What's important is not how much a particular volume of food affects insulin, but how, say, 50g of it does. Which would give you the GI of a food. And you know how I feel about that.


I take it you consider the GL to be a good indicator of lipogenesis, then?

I don't disagree with the rest of your post.

Umm...That is WHY the GL exists because it determines the difference in portion size. That is why they created the Insulin Index in the first place.

No you are wrong again. The GL is BASED on the load that is release pertaining to portion size. 5oz. is 35-45g of carbohydrates (depending onf the type) where 1 Tablpsoon of Malto is 10g. So if matched the same amounts of carbs the GL of Malto would be 34-45 compared to 26 for the potato. The difference is significant.


The GI AND GL are good indicators. As I said in the beginning both are good factors. For the most part the higher the GI the higher the GL. There are exceptions to the rule and WHY teh GL was created but that doesn't invalidate the concept of GI and for the majority of foods its STILL a good indicator.

 

[wheystation]

One of the things that I love about this board is the raw honesty. I have been copying this thread for the owner for a while and he is learning something, too and this guy is scary smart already.......Thanks for keeping me in the loop.

Now, damn it - get back at it.

Laura

 

[Nabeshin]

It does take time for glucose molecules to be cleaved - but from a physical standpoint it's a lot like having a stack of legos, and proceeding to pull lego after lego off the end in rapid succession. The time it takes is negligible.

Oh. Well then. I just got served.

Ice cream's GI is irrelevant, I referenced it because it's a food that you can use as a "weight gainer" that's 10,000 times more palatable than maltodextrin, with an effect on the body that's marginally worse in most cases (this really depends on the saturated fat content). The issue is not how fast sucrose is broken down (it's a disaccharide) but the fact that the fructose molecule must be converted to glucose by the liver. If you're an ecto, and you honestly feel that not eating enough is the source of your problems, ice cream and oreo cookies will fix that problem in a most enjoyable manner. Some people like olive oil or peanut butter, those are healthier options, but you said that you didn't notice any change in leanness with maltose over oats, so I thought I'd suggest that you take advantage of that and have some fun

Fructose in ice cream? Hmm, maybe if you get that fruity stuff. Or the cheap "high fructose corn syrup" variety. Have to get tactical about my ice cream purchases...

All seriousness aside, I actually don't eat ice cream. I have no desire to eat sugary stuff, and my only unhealthy urge is sated in my weekly cheesesteak. I used malto because I thought it was better than sugar, and I wouldn't have to blend **** every morning --- my health-conscience since caught up with me and I don't use it anymore.

I still think you can't beat a malto-based gainer for convenience. During an 8 hour work shift, you probably aren't gonna get 3 meal breaks. So, two shaker cups full of gainer, and a tub full of chicken and rice, and you're good to go. That's what I view the gainer's purpose to be --- an easy on the road source of cals for ectos (and mesos, but **** them) which requires almost no prep work. And Supermass looks to fill that role nicely.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Here is my bottom line. The GI is still a good indicator but its not the most important. The GL is another great indicatorand they both are interralated for the most part.

Just because there are exceptions to the rule does not invalidate the whole concept and saying its not a good indicator is not accurate at all.

In a caloric excess the negatives of high insulin response/load is magnified.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I still think you can't beat a malto-based gainer for convenience. During an 8 hour work shift, you probably aren't gonna get 3 meal breaks. So, two shaker cups full of gainer, and a tub full of chicken and rice, and you're good to go. That's what I view the gainer's purpose to be --- an easy on the road source of cals for ectos (and mesos, but **** them) which requires almost no prep work. And Supermass looks to fill that role nicely.

THere are several weight gainers out there with better carb sources and if Supermass had Barley, Brown Rice or Hydrolyzed Oat Flour I bet their sales would go up by a very LARGE margin.

 

[Nabeshin]

That is YOU, not the majority of people out there. I have trained over 400 people and I can tell you first hand the majority respond better to LOWER GI diets.

And there are other people like ME, who might not get anything other than a throbbing pain in the ass from a LOWER GI diet.

When I was 20 I could eat anything and everything but does that make the nutritonal advice invalid? NO.

Great, but that's NOT what I'm suggesting.

For the majority of people the GI has a VERY significant impact on lipogenesis.

Look, in a nutshell, you argue that for most people and for most foods, a high GI equals greater lipogenesis. Well, I'm not gonna argue with that. But I do think it's akin to saying that for most feathers in most places, the acceleration of a feather will be less than that of a billiard. Both proposals are right. They both ignore some pretty severe contradictions, though. A potato is a high GI food, and plenty of 30 year old (and older) body builders eat them right up to the day of competition --- and get down into low single digit body fat percentages. Likewise, a feather dropped in a vaccuum is going to accelerate at 9.80 m/s^2, just like a billiard.

But there is a crucial difference between the GI and the acceleration scenario. And that is that, while both can be used a rule of thumb, one is crappy rule of thumb, whereas the other is really good.

Calculating the actual rate of acceleration of a feather in atmosphere is damn difficult, and it can't really be wrapped up in one neat equation, much less a tidy paragraph. Surface area, the deformation of such with increasing velocity, angle of descent, path of descent... it all works out to a migraine. So, we acknowledge that feathers, and other feathery type things, tend to accelerate slower than "solid" things.

The GI, on the other hand, is a solution without a problem --- at least for bodybuilders. You wanna minimize fat gain and maximize health? EAT. WHOLE. FOODS. You don't need to sit around fretting your GI/GL, just eat the brown rice and the oats and be done with it.

Because there are exceptions to the rule its a bad rule? That is ridiculous.

No, it is because there is a more accurate rule that is easier to employ that using the GI as your guiding light is ricockulous.

You OTOH seem to think that since their is an exception that you throw the whole concept out the window. That is absurb.

You seem to have read something I didn't write --- I never said the GI wasn't a factor. I just think it's relatively unimportant, and unwieldy vis-a-vis the whole foods rule. If it suits you fine, well... uh... fine. Have it. Now I'm gonna go have some tuna, potato, and carrots.

 

[Nabeshin]

So if matched the same amounts of carbs the GL of Malto would be 34-45 compared to 26 for the potato.

Hmmm... :think:

85 / 26 * 34 ~= 111
85 / 26 = 111 / 34
GIp / GLp = GIm / GLm
GI / GL = k
GI = k * GL

In other words, the GI is directly proportional the GL, and vice versa. When quantity of carbs are normalized, a high GI food will be a proportionately high GL food. There is no extra significance to be found in the GL when we are assuming an equivalent intake of carbohydrate. A potato would still be a "worse" choice than fructose.

 

[Nabeshin]

And you are completely wrong.

They would be practically equivalent in terms of lipogenesis in the context of a weight gainer from a macroscopic perspective over the long run for a young ectomorphic subject?

 

[Nabeshin]

Here is my bottom line. The GI is still a good indicator but its not the most important. The GL is another great indicatorand they both are interralated for the most part.

They are completely interrelated. It is a simple mathematical procedure to get the GL form the GI, or vice-versa. Each value is just a different way of interpreting the same data set, and neither one is more or less significant than the other than index 1 vs. index 2 GI values are.

Just because there are exceptions to the rule does not invalidate the whole concept and saying its not a good indicator is not accurate at all.

The 386 is not a piece of crap. It's a triumph of engineering. But the Opteron still pwns it.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

And there are other people like ME, who might not get anything other than a throbbing pain in the ass from a LOWER GI diet.


Great, but that's NOT what I'm suggesting.


Look, in a nutshell, you argue that for most people and for most foods, a high GI equals greater lipogenesis. Well, I'm not gonna argue with that. But I do think it's akin to saying that for most feathers in most places, the acceleration of a feather will be less than that of a billiard. Both proposals are right. They both ignore some pretty severe contradictions, though. A potato is a high GI food, and plenty of 30 year old (and older) body builders eat them right up to the day of competition --- and get down into low single digit body fat percentages. Likewise, a feather dropped in a vaccuum is going to accelerate at 9.80 m/s^2, just like a billiard.

But there is a crucial difference between the GI and the acceleration scenario. And that is that, while both can be used a rule of thumb, one is crappy rule of thumb, whereas the other is really good.

Calculating the actual rate of acceleration of a feather in atmosphere is damn difficult, and it can't really be wrapped up in one neat equation, much less a tidy paragraph. Surface area, the deformation of such with increasing velocity, angle of descent, path of descent... it all works out to a migraine. So, we acknowledge that feathers, and other feathery type things, tend to accelerate slower than "solid" things.

The GI, on the other hand, is a solution without a problem --- at least for bodybuilders. You wanna minimize fat gain and maximize health? EAT. WHOLE. FOODS. You don't need to sit around fretting your GI/GL, just eat the brown rice and the oats and be done with it.


No, it is because there is a more accurate rule that is easier to employ that using the GI as your guiding light is ricockulous.


You seem to have read something I didn't write --- I never said the GI wasn't a factor. I just think it's relatively unimportant, and unwieldy vis-a-vis the whole foods rule. If it suits you fine, well... uh... fine. Have it. Now I'm gonna go have some tuna, potato, and carrots.

1. How do you know its the GI causing your GI stress? There are others like you who have GREAT results with a lower GI as well. I train them. Do you? Do you have experience in the field other than yourself or do you abse everything of your own experience and disregard everyone esle when you make your arguements?

2. What a ridiculous comparison.

3. You want to maximize muscle gain and limit fat loss? EAT WHOLE FOODS THAT HAVE A LOW GLYCAEMIC LOAD!

4. Really? Waht is the rule because up until this thread you have shown that you didn't even understand the the correlation between GI and completely ignored the effect of insulin on LPL. Thank god I let you know or you would be posting those false and compeltely ridiculous statements.

5. If its relatively unimportant then its it wouldn't be much of a factor would it? We have already established that it has and you can search the enormous amount of reseach which confirms this.