PF3 protein?

[schizm]

I really don't feel like debating on about this stuff though, the product will speak for itself, for better or worse.

So in the meantime, you'll just stick to using Silk AA's supps...? Gotch ya.

:ntome:

 

[drewsicle3210]

....and am in contact with the BossMAN to iron out these issues.

The beta loggers all had positive experiences with PF3.

Whoa!! Wait one minute. You let the bossman know that I am hurt for not being a beta tester.

Ha! Kidding. (Kind of)

 

[Piston Honda]

Whoa!! Wait one minute. You let the bossman know that I am hurt for not being a beta tester.

Ha! Kidding. (Kind of)

I'll put in a good word for you. He repays good work!

 

[pyrobatt]

Lets all be honest. Pf3 is probably the "worst" * in my opinion* man has in their line up. Love some pr and nolvadern plus the sleep product even gameday has a solid profile minus the pf3 but thats 4 ATLEAST products I will purchase again. Im skeptical and a little disappointed but im not bashing man for just ONE product. All I can say is they need to jump on the powdered fat burner bandwaggon before its overdone. Or better yet skip ahead of the rest and come out with a GOOD AS **** protein powder. Just my 2 cents

 

[drewsicle3210]

Lets all be honest. Pf3 is probably the "worst" * in my opinion* man has in their line up. Love some pr and nolvadern plus the sleep product even gameday has a solid profile minus the pf3 but thats 4 ATLEAST products I will purchase again. Im skeptical and a little disappointed but im not bashing man for just ONE product. All I can say is they need to jump on the powdered fat burner bandwaggon before its overdone. Or better yet skip ahead of the rest and come out with a GOOD AS **** protein powder. Just my 2 cents

C'mon bro, you really can't say that until you have tried it or there is human data to review.
Why jump on the powdered fat burner wagon, because everyone else is? I disagree. They are doing something different and interesting, and I don't get why so many people are slandering MAN and this product. Try it, or don't. Right? Why the negativity?

 

[drewsicle3210]

And most of that is not directed at you Pyrobatt

 

[Admin]

Lots of people claimed for years and continue to claim to have significantly better recovery with glutamine. Yet a high protein diet already consists of more than enough glutamine for your bodies needs.

As painful as it is to say it (because I stated the same for years), I've seen people and myself benefit from Glutamine...mainly reduced DOMS. Its a bitch past 35...

..and I have no idea why or how. And I throw up a little when I state it.

 

[drewsicle3210]

As painful as it is to say it (because I stated the same for years), I've seen people and myself benefit from Glutamine...mainly reduced DOMS. Its a bitch past 35...

I agree. Post leg-day DOMS is made much more manageable by using Glutamine

 

[De__eB]

As painful as it is to say it (because I stated the same for years), I've seen people and myself benefit from Glutamine...mainly reduced DOMS. Its a bitch past 35...

See that's the thing. In *situations* Glutamine can be helpful, such as on a cut, in people whose glutamine metaoblism is compromised, or in older people who experience glutamine depletion.

And yet for years and years glutamine was and still is marketed as a recovery godsend to kids in their 20s who are already eating high protein diets. It just strikes me as disingenuous. If every single new innovative ground breaking product was as ground breaking as is claimed, we'd all be freaks of nature right now.

Look, I don't think any of the companies on here are out there trying to scam their customers. The supplement scammers are the as-seen on TV and multi-level marketed weight loss pills and such. Obviously every company wants to find a way to sell products that people want, at a profit, and for those products to be effective.

But what a lot of companies are doing in the face of a fiercely competitive sales-driven industry is jumping the shark with every single product they release. If the FDA were to read the PF3 write-up as it currently reads I can point to no less than a dozen 'illegal'(in the FDAs eyes) claims being made that they would cite MAN Sports for. And that sort of scrutiny IS coming, regardless of what legislation is passed. In regulatory overview the FDA has already been given a very broad ability to crack down HARD on claims being made in digital media. Currently they're only doing it to companies that slight them (e.g. the letter Purus Labs received after the FDA reviewed their website when they thought Purus was still selling DMAA), but eventually that sort of enforcement is coming to the entire industry.

I really don't come on here trying to target companies or harass people, I really do wish the best for the supplement industry and want everyone to be able to make their money while helping people perform better. But there are certain practices that really need to go before they start harming the industry and providing impetus for over-reaching regulation.

 

[T-Bone]

I'm still interested in glutamine for maybe helping my irritable bowel syndrome. Never tried it but I have read it can help with IBS symptoms?.

 

[mw1]

Interesting thread...........

 

[Celorza]

I'm still interested in glutamine for maybe helping my irritable bowel syndrome. Never tried it but I have read it can help with IBS symptoms?.

That's about one of the few things it might be useful for, there is also gut health which really helps with it too. I would recommend it more than or at least with Glutamine for that purpose.

 

[Admin]

And yet for years and years glutamine was and still is marketed as a recovery godsend to kids in their 20s who are already eating high protein diets.

I don't really see that. I see as it being marketed for recovery, which is many cases rings true. I don't see anything that specifically markets to 20yr olds with a high protein diet...thats your assumption and premise as to why it won't work for that demographic..but not everyone is in that demographic.

As for the legal issues, I really don't care about that. Marketing copy today is pretty tame compared to 5-10 years ago.

 

[pete8407]

C'mon bro, you really can't say that until you have tried it or there is human data to review.
Why jump on the powdered fat burner wagon, because everyone else is? I disagree. They are doing something different and interesting, and I don't get why so many people are slandering MAN and this product. Try it, or don't. Right? Why the negativity?

There ya go!!! Well said! This is getting a little crazy.

 

[kissdadookie]

I'm still interested in glutamine for maybe helping my irritable bowel syndrome. Never tried it but I have read it can help with IBS symptoms?.

Doesn't adding some extra fiber (preferably vegetable-based fiber such as from peas and leafy vegetables, etc., easier on the stomach) help quite a bit with IBS? Along with quality probiotics.

 

[T-Bone]

Doesn't adding some extra fiber (preferably vegetable-based fiber such as from peas and leafy vegetables, etc., easier on the stomach) help quite a bit with IBS? Along with quality probiotics.

Yep, since I discovered bulk Whole Psyllium Husks I haven't gone more than a day without it. Helps tremendously. I still think I may try glutamine in the future for IBS though.

 

[kissdadookie]

Yep, since I discovered bulk Whole Psyllium Husks I haven't gone more than a day without it. Helps tremendously. I still think I may try glutamine in the future for IBS though.

Man, psyllium husk I personally can't take. Pretty rough on my system. I don't do well with a lot of fiber from grains either unless the grains are basically powdered. If it's just whole grains, runs right out of me

 

[T-Bone]

Man, psyllium husk I personally can't take. Pretty rough on my system. I don't do well with a lot of fiber from grains either unless the grains are basically powdered. If it's just whole grains, runs right out of me

You have to start out really slowly with it. I've been taking it for maybe 5 years now. I'm up to two heaping Tablespoons of Whole Psyllium husks, combined with one heaping Tablespoon of Wal-mart brand "Metamucial" per day.

 

[kissdadookie]

You have to start out really slowly with it. I've been taking it for maybe 5 years now. I'm up to two heaping Tablespoons of Whole Psyllium husks, combined with one heaping Tablespoon of Wal-mart brand "Metamucial" per day.

Man, you must have some serious fluid issues with your gut Two tablespoons will probably back me way up. LoLs.

 

[hardwork25]

You have to start out really slowly with it. I've been taking it for maybe 5 years now. I'm up to two heaping Tablespoons of Whole Psyllium husks, combined with one heaping Tablespoon of Wal-mart brand "Metamucial" per day.

I have Crohn's ill have to try this. Thanks. I use glutamine and it def helps me. I take 5-6 servings daily and it def helps.

 

[Whacked]

PLEASE DO

Man, I finally made a thread that attracted some heavy hitters! Either way, I was able to get my hands on bio-gro. I'm highly skeptical, but the price was to low to pass up. If I notice anything worthy of note I'll be sure to fill y'all in. Coop as always makes me feel like a retard for buying something, all in good intentions though lol. Time will tell, I feel like both products will be a flop, although I've heard a lot of good things about bio-gro.

 

[thescience]

As painful as it is to say it (because I stated the same for years), I've seen people and myself benefit from Glutamine...mainly reduced DOMS. Its a bitch past 35...

..and I have no idea why or how. And I throw up a little when I state it.

ive heard a recent spin against glutamine going around these days. im a big fan of the forms ive taken (ie acetyl l glutamine and GAKG.) the arguments ive heard against it are ether that people don't need it since they make plenty according to some studies or that it mostly ends up in the intestines. since I know it works, I always try to look for an all inclusive explaination. one theory I have is that, If (l-glutamine) mostly ends up in the intestines, then there is more of what the body produces available for muscle. in terms of people saying it isn't needed since we make enough, I look at the nationwide spectracell bloodtests; my glutamine came up lower mid range of the thousands who took the test (they give you everyones results.) while any one of my college professors who knew anything about nutrition would say up and down people don't need supplements unless theyre in a third-world country, the fact is ALOT of americans had deficiencies on the spectracell test;

 

[thescience]

This is bio-gro lol wtf.... just 20$ more, serum protein isolate... which contains all the actives as biogro.... please tell me specifically why this is better/different

not trying to sound harsh, I realize I might be coming across that way. There is only love in this thread, even though I've never had a Man product since a fat burner like 8 years ago or something lol

that's a good question that I see coming up a lot. I hesitate to make any comparisons in terms of what each one is entirely comprised of, as that more or less looks proprietary. while we know they share some highlighted ingredients, their respective profiles could be very different depending on, for example, how biogrow is extracted. Im interested in biogrow; I see it has good reviews and some users have interestingly taken 8x the dosage to good effect but I have no idea what percentage of its exciting compounds are present in the extract; the label says there is 1.5grams. pf3 has a 2.5 grams serving with a listing of its the bioactive content standardized at 75%. I am going to reserve making any ingredient or price comparisons until I see the introductory offer nutraplanet is going to bust out. im sure its only a matter of time before I end up trying everything

 

[kissdadookie]

that's a good question that I see coming up a lot. I hesitate to make any comparisons in terms of what each one is entirely comprised of, as that more or less looks proprietary. while we know they share some highlighted ingredients, their respective profiles could be very different depending on, for example, how biogrow is extracted. Im interested in biogrow; I see it has good reviews and some users have interestingly taken 8x the dosage to good effect but I have no idea what percentage of its exciting compounds are present in the extract; the label says there is 1.5grams. pf3 has a 2.5 grams serving with a listing of its the bioactive content standardized at 75%. I am going to reserve making any ingredient or price comparisons until I see the introductory offer nutraplanet is going to bust out. im sure its only a matter of time before I end up trying everything

I think if we go by the labels, Bio-Gro is supposed to be all bio-actives and nothing else and PF3 is serum protein standardized for 75% bio-actives. However, if you do the math for PF3, each serving of PF3 nets you 1.875g of bio-actives. What is unknown is the ratios the bio-actives are in for Bio-Gro. However, if we go by the logic of whatever being listed first to be highest in content of, Bio-Gro would appear to favour the proline-rich peptides first and foremost whilst PF3 we already know that over 50% of the bio-actives are going to be the immunoglobulins (immunoglobulins is listed third for Bio-Gro, coming after the growth factors).

Which one will work better is still up in the air. It doesn't appear that any of the loggers have used Bio-Gro before so I don't think that there's going to be any insight in that respect from the logs. So MAN Sports, the faster you get your PF3 on to the NutraPlanet store, the sooner I can buy it and do this comparison (since I'm on my second bottle of Bio-Gro already)!

 

[thescience]

It's hard not to be negative when companies make laughably contradictory statements like this in the same write-upr when the write up pulls images like:

From entirely unrelated CANCER studies that have absolutely nothing to do with oral consumptionOr, when there's gems like this made as claims:--Am I really being unfairly negative about things like this?I'm all for novel ingredients that work, and that at least have a basic and plausible scientific backing, but stuff like this is just bad for the industry.

to your first point, i can see how the two statements might appear contradictory, but they arent. the 25 million dollar facility produces the stuff for the medical industry, where it is taken orally. some of that supply is going to MANSports release of PF3.with reference to the statement about the graph; i thought it was very relevant to pf3. all talk of digestion aside, the ingredients in PF3 dramatically reduce inflammation just by virtue of being in the GI track, specifically against the inflammation shown in the graph to negatively effect IGF-1's ability to synthesize protein

 

[thescience]

Never mind, it's the same spiel as Bio-gro...active IGF-1 and other growth factors and peptides. But these peptides all get hydrolyzed in the gut and are too large for jejunel transporters, so most of it will be absorbed and broken down into...2.6g of amino acids. The exceptions are neonates, people with Crohn's disease, and marathon runners, all of which have either leaky guts or severe immunological deficits

theres alot more going on here than 2.5 g of amino acids: heres something on how bioactive proteins change when acids and enzymes hit them in the gut; it also speaks to increased nutrient absorption:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22139569

at the 5g dose alot of people are taking for 25 days a bottle, 75% of that is ALOT of bioactive protein

 

[pete8407]

It's damn good, the leaning effect is worth ever penny. i didn't know whey made me look so puffy and bloated!

 

[thescience]

It's damn good, the leaning effect is worth ever penny. i didn't know whey made me look so puffy and bloated!

yeah, i lifter 10 years before taking protein powder, so i unmistakenly noticed the resulting bloat on my stomach when i started regular protein. did you stop taking protein powder altogether on you pf3 regime?

 

[fightbackhxc]

Of course it is but I also remember healthy skepticism about some of the most popular staples that sell well today. I'm just getting a little tired of some of the pessimistic and accusatory attitudes lately. Its not one person, and I don't think its intentional, but back when this place started way back when most of you weren't here, we were much more supportive of each other. And this doesn't have to do with any product...I have a tough time following whats new and good these days.

Its just a general feeling. I would hate to see rules implemented that limited what reps could do. That would defeat the purpose of interaction but lately, the negativity is increasing and its getting old.

I couldn't agree more! Everyone was so nice here it's what made me join honestly.

 

[pete8407]

yeah, i lifter 10 years before taking protein powder, so i unmistakenly noticed the resulting bloat on my stomach when i started regular protein. did you stop taking protein powder altogether on you pf3 regime?

Yes I quit whey all together, my first day on PF3 I had one shake and then actually sold the rest of my tub of whey to one of my best friends. He's just getting into working out, so he's all excited.

 

[fightbackhxc]

I am giving it a try.

 

[mr.cooper69]

theres alot more going on here than 2.5 g of amino acids: heres something on how bioactive proteins change when acids and enzymes hit them in the gut; it also speaks to increased nutrient absorption:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22139569

at the 5g dose alot of people are taking for 25 days a bottle, 75% of that is ALOT of bioactive protein

I'm genuinely not trying to start anything here, but in the abstract of what you just linked, they say:

"Because of their molecular size, intact absorption of proteins in the human gastrointestinal tract is limited. Therefore, most of the proteins with biological functions show physiological activity in the gastrointestinal tract by enhancing nutrient absorption, inhibiting enzymes, and modulating the immune system to defend against pathogens."

So in other words, they do not exert any "growth" effect. They inhibit stuff like P-glycoprotein and CYP3A4 in the GI lumen.


It goes on to say how fermentation can create smaller, more usable peptides:

"Intact absorption of these smaller peptides is more likely than that of the larger proteins."


In the writeup for PF3, it says you use a very high molecular weight (meaning a very large protein). So I'm not following you here. Again, not trying to start anything, I merely read the study you posted

 

[BigRigg]

Yes I quit whey all together, my first day on PF3 I had one shake and then actually sold the rest of my tub of whey to one of my best friends. He's just getting into working out, so he's all excited.

What made you drop whey protein after 1 scoop of PF3. Sounds a little crazy to me, what effects did u notice from 1 scoop

 

[pete8407]

What made you drop whey protein after 1 scoop of PF3. Sounds a little crazy to me, what effects did u notice from 1 scoop

No, I just wanted to replace all whey protein with PF3 to see the difference between the two. So instead of whey and food meals it's PF3 and food meals. So far recovery is amazing, I did arms yesterday and my tri's are always sore the next day but today the soreness was almost non existent. By noon I couldn't even tell I trained them yesterday

 

[hvactech]

im still using whey.....

 

[pete8407]

im still using whey.....

I just wanted to do a comparison

 

[kissdadookie]

I'm genuinely not trying to start anything here, but in the abstract of what you just linked, they say:

"Because of their molecular size, intact absorption of proteins in the human gastrointestinal tract is limited. Therefore, most of the proteins with biological functions show physiological activity in the gastrointestinal tract by enhancing nutrient absorption, inhibiting enzymes, and modulating the immune system to defend against pathogens."

So in other words, they do not exert any "growth" effect. They inhibit stuff like P-glycoprotein and CYP3A4 in the GI lumen.


It goes on to say how fermentation can create smaller, more usable peptides:

"Intact absorption of these smaller peptides is more likely than that of the larger proteins."


In the writeup for PF3, it says you use a very high molecular weight (meaning a very large protein). So I'm not following you here. Again, not trying to start anything, I merely read the study you posted

That was EXACTLY the main conflicting thing I found about the write up for PF3.

 

[thescience]

I'm genuinely not trying to start anything here, but in the abstract of what you just linked, they say:

"Because of their molecular size, intact absorption of proteins in the human gastrointestinal tract is limited. Therefore, most of the proteins with biological functions show physiological activity in the gastrointestinal tract by enhancing nutrient absorption, inhibiting enzymes, and modulating the immune system to defend against pathogens."

So in other words, they do not exert any "growth" effect. They inhibit stuff like P-glycoprotein and CYP3A4 in the GI lumen.


It goes on to say how fermentation can create smaller, more usable peptides:

"Intact absorption of these smaller peptides is more likely than that of the larger proteins."


In the writeup for PF3, it says you use a very high molecular weight (meaning a very large protein). So I'm not following you here. Again, not trying to start anything, I merely read the study you posted

if you read the publication, the limited absorption they refer to for colostrum is less than 30%; bear in mind colostrum has many factors in it also that resist digestion, as well as some pro-inflammatory substances, and it does not have any hcl added. that study also has some interesting references worth checking out about how when the large molecules are broken down by hcl and enzymes, peptides are synthsized which can get into the bloodstream. the "enhancing nutrient absorption" you mentioned sounds good for growth, so does countering pro-inflammatory cytokines from physical stress which can interfere with entire body systems needed for growth. by providing IGg, for examply, body IGg production can be spared, resulting in more available bioactive IGg in the body for the production of cellular nutrient receptor sites and protein synthesis ect.

 

[thescience]

No, I just wanted to replace all whey protein with PF3 to see the difference between the two. So instead of whey and food meals it's PF3 and food meals. So far recovery is amazing, I did arms yesterday and my tri's are always sore the next day but today the soreness was almost non existent. By noon I couldn't even tell I trained them yesterday

thats awesome. how much whey powder were you taking previously again?

 

[pete8407]

thats awesome. how much whey powder were you taking previously again?

Probably anywhere from 2 shakes/meals to 4 shakes/meals with whey a day. It just depended on the day and how busy I was or if I had my meals prepared or not.

 

[kissdadookie]

if you read the publication, the limited absorption they refer to for colostrum is less than 30%; bear in mind colostrum has many factors in it also that resist digestion, as well as some pro-inflammatory substances, and it does not have any hcl added. that study also has some interesting references worth checking out about how when the large molecules are broken down by hcl and enzymes, peptides are synthsized which can get into the bloodstream. the "enhancing nutrient absorption" you mentioned sounds good for growth, so does countering pro-inflammatory cytokines from physical stress which can interfere with entire body systems needed for growth. by providing IGg, for examply, body IGg production can be spared, resulting in more available bioactive IGg in the body for the production of cellular nutrient receptor sites and protein synthesis ect.

But the PF3 write up along with boss MAN's explanation not long ago highlights the high molecular weight of PF3. If the study suggests that it's due to larger proteins needing to be broken down thus in the process, bio-active peptides are then basically destroyed, this would suggest that if orally ingesting bio-active peptides, it would be highly preferable to have these peptides already into their most stripped down form (theoretically low molecular weight peptides) in order to theoretically bypass being destroyed in the gut.

So again from my molecular weight question weeks ago, Bio-Gro purports to have the peptides already in their stripped down state and thus supposedly having low molecular weight to theoretically bypass being destroyed in the gut whilst PF3 purports to have high molecular weight to create what you guys purport to be a vacuum effect. Now, if larger particles needs to be broken down and thus in the process bio-active peptides ends up being destroyed, how is the high molecular weight of PF3 be beneficial? Wouldn't it in theory end up having most of these bio-active peptides destroyed in the gut? It's impossible for what Bio-Gro is claiming and what PF3 is claiming to be true at the same time since the two concepts are completely contradicting.

So from what Cooper pointed out, the theory that study points out actually would suggest that PF3's peptides are actually not very bio available and likely to get destroyed in the gut since they are larger molecules. Also, keep in mind, Bio-Gro is purportedly cleaved down to just the peptides in what I assume are essentially free form peptides (if going by their literature and their label would suggest) whilst PF3 seems to be the serum protein isolate as intact proteins rather than cleaved down to the free form peptides (going by what you folks have explained thus far and going by the label on my grape flavour tub).

You can easily see how the PF3 marketing, write up, forum posts, have all been providing a lot of contradicting information. First the claim was made that PF3 is nothing like Bio-Gro but it's evident that this is only a technicality when the fact is that both serve the same purpose and both are essentially bio-active peptide products. Then there's the whole high molecular weight issue in which the literature which you have pointed to would in fact contradict the PF3 product based on molecular weight. Also, it absolutely DOES NOT MATTER if the study in question was for colostrum since we are talking exclusively about the bio-active peptides. Unless you're going to attempt to explain that the actual peptides like IgG from serum protein isolate is different from the IgG found it colostrum. Also, there seems to be a LOT of backtracking and selective interpretation going on to suit the points being made about PF3 which I find is kind of ridiculous because that throws the context of the studies being pointed at completely out the window. I mean, if serum protein isolate is so different in it's purpose to colostrum, then why are you using colostrum studies to demonstrate features of PF3? Why imply colostrum is inferior and then turn around and use colostrum studies? Makes no sense.

Just FYI to show that I'm not trying to give you guys a hard time just for chits and giggles, I am currently taking PF3 candy grape. I think the tub is going to last me probably less than half a month because @ 2 scoops a day, it doesn't feel as effective as the Bio-Gro I was using @ 4 scoops a day. I am going to bump it up to 3 scoops a day and see how that goes but at 3 scoops a day, this tub is not going to last very long It tastes good though and I don't really have any issues mixing it in my shaker.

 

[thescience]

But the PF3 write up along with boss MAN's explanation not long ago highlights the high molecular weight of PF3. If the study suggests that it's due to larger proteins needing to be broken down thus in the process, bio-active peptides are then basically destroyed,

i dont believe for a moment that the IGg, say, in pf3 is absorbed intact. i firmly believe what is unabsorbed exhibits tremendous influence of the gi track, and i put the publication up to show that there are other things that can happen to bioactive proteins when they are being broken down (not destroyed) besides the mere extraction of 2.5gs of amino acids. to say that only 2.5g of aminos comes from it, as cooper did, is a statement id like to see backed up with some kind of data. i think the pf3 is consistant with what i said about pf3 breaking down because they mention a "slowing down" which i presume to mean it needs time to be digested (my thought is what else would it need time to do?)

So again from my molecular weight question weeks ago, Bio-Gro purports to have the peptides already in their stripped down state

interesting post. i saw biogrows claim about a proprietary cleaving technology and im interested in the possibility that it could exist. they also state they have rendered the components into something bioavailable and easily absorbed; my question about that would be, if that were true, then it would mean that the IGF-1 is being absorbed and thus the product would very significantly raise igf-1 blood levels. there can be alot of igf-1 in colostrum; wouldnt there be some kind of legal issue if it were being taken in like that? awesome if its true, but if it were so, wouldnt we be able to prove drastic increases in igf-1 after consumption? ive seen first milking clostrum (which has a much stronger bioactive value) that had igf-1 content at 1.5%. when you take 6grams of biogrow, are you getting results consistant with taking in THAT much igf-1 to your bloodstream?

So from what Cooper pointed out, the theory that study points out actually would suggest that PF3's peptides are actually not very bio available

again, the publication i put up was about COLOSTRUM which contains digestive resistant elements, proinflammatory compounds and hcl is not added AND TO ITS CREDIT it STILL is 70% absorbed. i say we can derive from that study information on what can happen to igg when ingested orally, but when limitation of how sucessfully it is absorbed is discussed, i raise the fact that with colostrum there are some ant- digestive components that are unique to it,and hcl is not added so its not fair to say that a non-digested bit of IGg in colustrum is evidence that the Igg in pf3 wont digest when pf3 has hcl added, and it doesnt contain pro-inflammatory cytokines. also, i dont mean to make the cytokines and lack of added hcl in colostrum to sound worse than it is; the fact that only less than 30% is unabsorbed despite all that tells me those issues arent that big of a deal

lso, it absolutely DOES NOT MATTER if the study in question was for colostrum since we are talking exclusively about the bio-active peptides

. i know with regard to peptides. i put the study up for that reason. again, when i point out things colostrum has and doesnt have that differ from pf3 to negate the assumption that the 30% of colostrum that is unabsorbed is not transferable to pf3

Unless you're going to attempt to explain that the actual peptides like IgG from serum protein isolate is different from the IgG found it colostrum.

I mean, if serum protein isolate is so different in it's purpose to colostrum, then why are you using colostrum studies to demonstrate features of PF3?

i put the study up to introduce the idea that more happens when IGg is consumed that it just being broken down into 2.5 g of aminos. i would maintain that is true of colostrum as well. i only mentioned some of its particular digestive resistant properties to explain why the study ON COLOSTRUM showed 30% and less unabsorbed and that for all we know if hcl were added or if the pro-inflammatory compounds were removed the amound of igg unabsorbed could be at 0%. thats what i meant by the statment, nothing more. i think colostrum is good.

 

[thescience]

Probably anywhere from 2 shakes/meals to 4 shakes/meals with whey a day. It just depended on the day and how busy I was or if I had my meals prepared or not.

so youre saying you were taking 40 to 80 grams of whey a day and you quit cold turkey? very brave. i will be checking in with you in a few weeks to see how thats going

 

[kissdadookie]

interesting post. i saw biogrows claim about a proprietary cleaving technology and im interested in the possibility that it could exist. they also state they have rendered the components into something bioavailable and easily absorbed; my question about that would be, if that were true, then it would mean that the IGF-1 is being absorbed and thus the product would very significantly raise igf-1 blood levels. there can be alot of igf-1 in colostrum; wouldnt there be some kind of legal issue if it were being taken in like that? awesome if its true, but if it were so, wouldnt we be able to prove drastic increases in igf-1 after consumption? ive seen first milking clostrum (which has a much stronger bioactive value) that had igf-1 content at 1.5%. when you take 6grams of biogrow, are you getting results consistant with taking in THAT much igf-1 to your bloodstream?

I don't believe that orally ingesting Igf-1 would actually ever make it into circulation in serum but I do recall that ingesting Igf-1 seems to signal increased natural Igf-1 production (I think it was in the Mero colostrum study).

 

[thescience]

I don't believe that orally ingesting Igf-1 would actually ever make it into circulation in serum but I do recall that ingesting Igf-1 seems to signal increased natural Igf-1 production (I think it was in the Mero colostrum study).

yes, but if a product says they have a cleaving technology that somehow renders unabsorbed bioactives to become bioactives that are absorbed intact, then we are discussing igf-1 that is being absorbed. you see my point? if the cleaving tech does what you reasonably think it does, that is ALOT of igf-1 to be taking in; you should be putting on enormous slabs of muscle from it, considering ive seen igf-1 administered in 20 mcg doses (albeit in a stronger synthetic form) and 6g of colostrum could have 90 MG in it. otherwise we need a new theory to understand whats going on with it.. interesting about the colostrum study. was it the igf-1 in the colostrum that raised the igf-1 production, or the anti-inflammatory effect the other components had on the gi? how could we know unless we isolated them?

 

[kissdadookie]

yes, but if a product says they have a cleaving technology that somehow renders unabsorbed bioactives to become bioactives that are absorbed intact, then we are discussing igf-1 that is being absorbed. you see my point? if the cleaving tech does what you reasonably think it does, that is ALOT of igf-1 to be taking in; you should be putting on slabs of muscle from it, considering igf-1 is administered in mcg (albeit in a stronger synthetic form). otherwise we need a new theory to understand whats going on with it.. interesting about the colostrum study. was it the igf-1 in the colostrum that raised the igf-1 production, or the anti-inflammatory effect the other components had on the gi? how could we know unless we isolated them?

If you read through their literature and watch their videos, all they did was suggest that the peptides should be absorbed and void being destroyed in the gut but they never tell you which peptides. If going by what they highlight for the Bio-Gro product, it would appear that they don't really note the Igf-1 content much but instead highlight the PRP, IGg, and lactoferrin, but mostly the PRP.

In the Mero colostrum study, it's suggested that it may be the combination of IgG, IgA, and IGF-1 which may be promoting the increased IGF-1 in plasma and increased IgA in saliva. So I assume that since the IGF-1 content is very high in colostrum, it may suggest that it has something to do with the increased IGF-1 in plasma. So honestly, I don't think anybody has ever figured out how the oral consumption of something like colostrum truly works in the body in terms of signalling things like IGF-1 production.

So with that in mind, I think the whole idea is less about if the peptides are absorbed or not into plasma and more to do with the possible signalling properties they may have (though I think PRPs are actually bio-available and has appreciable effects as there is the Colostrinin study to look at, which is a product that consists of just the PRPs).

To be fair though, I don't recall iSatori ever really pushing on the idea that the actual Igf-1 is absorbed into plasma, they are very vague when they suggest that the peptides are bio-available (there's many peptides in colostrum, mostly PRPs). So with that product, it's more of a "hey, we know that 50 grams or so of colostrum actually does something, so here's a product that gives you the bio-actives of 50 or so grams of colostrum in roughly 4 1.5 gram scoops." Honestly, I think the focus is off on the criticism on these products (PF3 and Bio-Gro) as I see a lot of focus on if these peptides will absorb and go into circulation in plasma rather than if these peptides can lead to signaling actions in the body (colostrum studies would suggest that they may, Colostrinin study definitely suggests that at least PRPs does something notable in the body). However, the marketing is what is to be blamed for causing the onslaught of criticism. When you start tossing out ideas like "90+% of the protein your consuming is useless," that's going to ruffle feathers. You simply can not suggest or imply that macro nutrients are useless. Protein supplements ARE FOOD. It's ridiculous to suggest that something like PF3 can replace food (which let's face it, that's what the ad-copy practically implies without literally saying that). In this regard, I think the iSatori marketing was a bit better as they just straight out tell you that the stuff is not meant to replace your protein powder, it's supposed to help make better use of the protein you are already taking in.

 

[pete8407]

so youre saying you were taking 40 to 80 grams of whey a day and you quit cold turkey? very brave. i will be checking in with you in a few weeks to see how thats going

Sounds good, this will be my first full week

 

[thescience]

If you read through their literature and watch their videos, all they did was suggest that the peptides should be absorbed and void being destroyed in the gut but they never tell you which peptides. If going by what they highlight for the Bio-Gro product, it would appear that they don't really note the Igf-1 content much but instead highlight the PRP, IGg, and lactoferrin, but mostly the PRP. In the Mero colostrum study, it's suggested that it may be the combination of IgG, IgA, and IGF-1 which may be promoting the increased IGF-1 in plasma and increased IgA in saliva. So I assume that since the IGF-1 content is very high in colostrum, it may suggest that it has something to do with the increased IGF-1 in plasma. So honestly, I don't think anybody has ever figured out how the oral consumption of something like colostrum truly works in the body in terms of signalling things like IGF-1 production.So with that in mind, I think the whole idea is less about if the peptides are absorbed or not into plasma and more to do with the possible signalling properties they may have (though I think PRPs are actually bio-available and has appreciable effects as there is the Colostrinin study to look at, which is a product that consists of just the PRPs).To be fair though, I don't recall iSatori ever really pushing on the idea that the actual Igf-1 is absorbed into plasma, they are very vague when they suggest that the peptides are bio-available (there's many peptides in colostrum, mostly PRPs). So with that product, it's more of a "hey, we know that 50 grams or so of colostrum actually does something, so here's a product that gives you the bio-actives of 50 or so grams of colostrum in roughly 4 1.5 gram scoops." Honestly, I think the focus is off on the criticism on these products (PF3 and Bio-Gro) as I see a lot of focus on if these peptides will absorb and go into circulation in plasma rather than if these peptides can lead to signaling actions in the body (colostrum studies would suggest that they may, Colostrinin study definitely suggests that at least PRPs does something notable in the body). However, the marketing is what is to be blamed for causing the onslaught of criticism. When you start tossing out ideas like "90+% of the protein your consuming is useless," that's going to ruffle feathers. You simply can not suggest or imply that macro nutrients are useless. Protein supplements ARE FOOD. It's ridiculous to suggest that something like PF3 can replace food (which let's face it, that's what the ad-copy practically implies without literally saying that). In this regard, I think the iSatori marketing was a bit better as they just straight out tell you that the stuff is not meant to replace your protein powder, it's supposed to help make better use of the protein you are already taking in.

well, my feeling is if biogrow delivers, and i see alot of people like it, thats whats important regardeless of whether altered peptide chains ect can still be considered the the chains that are listed on the label. i agree with you there are many unknowns about all of this, and im on the side of being excited to try things out. the pf3 ad makes a comparison to whey isolate, which cannot be called a meal replacement. and i didnt see anywhere that pf3 is intended to replace food. the comparison of pf3 to whey isolate distinguishes "bioactive value" from the stated "nutritional value" of whey isolate; note it said nutritional value, which in no way implies the whey isolate is worthless. sure, there were some jabs at isolate in stating how low in bioactives it is, and they mentioned some problems people have with whey isolate but i took that as more of an effort to describe distinction between the two (which is necessary when describing something people dont know about) than an advocation to henceforth abandon whey, although pete8407 has done just that.

 

[thescience]

If you read through their literature and watch their videos, all they did was suggest that the peptides should be absorbed and void being destroyed in the gut but they never tell you which peptides. If going by what they highlight for the Bio-Gro product, it would appear that they don't really note the Igf-1 content much but instead highlight the PRP, IGg, and lactoferrin, but mostly the PRP. In the Mero colostrum study, it's suggested that it may be the combination of IgG, IgA, and IGF-1 which may be promoting the increased IGF-1 in plasma and increased IgA in saliva. So I assume that since the IGF-1 content is very high in colostrum, it may suggest that it has something to do with the increased IGF-1 in plasma. So honestly, I don't think anybody has ever figured out how the oral consumption of something like colostrum truly works in the body in terms of signalling things like IGF-1 production.So with that in mind, I think the whole idea is less about if the peptides are absorbed or not into plasma and more to do with the possible signalling properties they may have (though I think PRPs are actually bio-available and has appreciable effects as there is the Colostrinin study to look at, which is a product that consists of just the PRPs).To be fair though, I don't recall iSatori ever really pushing on the idea that the actual Igf-1 is absorbed into plasma, they are very vague when they suggest that the peptides are bio-available (there's many peptides in colostrum, mostly PRPs). So with that product, it's more of a "hey, we know that 50 grams or so of colostrum actually does something, so here's a product that gives you the bio-actives of 50 or so grams of colostrum in roughly 4 1.5 gram scoops." Honestly, I think the focus is off on the criticism on these products (PF3 and Bio-Gro) as I see a lot of focus on if these peptides will absorb and go into circulation in plasma rather than if these peptides can lead to signaling actions in the body (colostrum studies would suggest that they may, Colostrinin study definitely suggests that at least PRPs does something notable in the body). However, the marketing is what is to be blamed for causing the onslaught of criticism. When you start tossing out ideas like "90+% of the protein your consuming is useless," that's going to ruffle feathers. You simply can not suggest or imply that macro nutrients are useless. Protein supplements ARE FOOD. It's ridiculous to suggest that something like PF3 can replace food (which let's face it, that's what the ad-copy practically implies without literally saying that). In this regard, I think the iSatori marketing was a bit better as they just straight out tell you that the stuff is not meant to replace your protein powder, it's supposed to help make better use of the protein you are already taking in.

also, thanks for referencing the video. i just saw it. they did use first milking colostrum which is better and im amazed they didnt mention that before in their ad. i agree with you that prp's offer a unique benefit and are absorbed differently. with regards to the topic here of absoption and cleavage tech: the video described the cleavage as a process that removed the fat and sugar, which is common as colostrum is typically defatted. when the science guy was asked about how it differed from regular colostrum, he said it was a finer concentration of the bioactives (meaning it had the bioactives with less of the regular protein found in colostrum) and that consequently there was less time digesting them as opposed to a less concentrated colostrum where the bioactives would have to be separated from the other protein. so it is, this all said he answered a question without stating the peptides themselves were altered. im going to try it, based on your experience however, as youve inspired me with it. i recently invested a few hundred bucks on a boatload of colostrum , so i will be looking to see at some point if biogrow is better than this stuff.

 

[kissdadookie]

also, thanks for referencing the video. i just saw it. they did use first milking colostrum which is better and im amazed they didnt mention that before in their ad. i agree with you that prp's offer a unique benefit and are absorbed differently. with regards to the topic here of absoption and cleavage tech: the video described the cleavage as a process that removed the fat and sugar, which is common as colostrum is typically defatted. when the science guy was asked about how it differed from regular colostrum, he said it was a finer concentration of the bioactives (meaning it had the bioactives with less of the regular protein found in colostrum) and that consequently there was less time digesting them as opposed to a less concentrated colostrum where the bioactives would have to be separated from the other protein. so it is, this all said he answered a question without stating the peptides themselves were altered. im going to try it, based on your experience however, as youve inspired me with it. i recently invested a few hundred bucks on a boatload of colostrum , so i will be looking to see at some point if biogrow is better than this stuff.

I wouldn't buy Bio-Gro @ $40 just FYI. LoL. The reason I have so many tubs is because for a short while, it was being sold @ $18 a tub

I bought this tub of PF3 at the intro price but as with Bio-Gro, if I continue to use PF3, it would most definitely be if I was able to find really good deals on it

Improved recovery is a welcome thing, but the asking price for it currently just makes it a bit non-economical. Lulz.