Quality Protein Powder

Page 4 of 6 First ... 23456 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Powercage View Post
    These are extremely poor criteria for judging how good a protein is. Many of the best on the market use WPC.
    Not saying its perfect. But it's 3 criteria. From a health perspective, what would 3 from you be? And not all WPC = bad, several mentioned in this thread as quality powders have WPC as #1 but still look great.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Powercage View Post
    I would be very careful in blindly accepting vague information from a marketing publication as fact.

    If you want a "natural" protein, you should really go Kaizen.

    what was vague?
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by Powercage View Post
    These are extremely poor criteria for judging how good a protein is. Many of the best on the market use WPC.

    What is good criteria?

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Powercage View Post
    You have yet to realize that the first post is marketing material by a company in this thread, not an actual scientific publication.


    That scientific correlation is tenuous at best, even HFCS has been shown to be metabolized in the same manner as regular sugar.
    Are you sure?

    before i go on, What is "regular sugar"?

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Powercage View Post
    Speaking of splitting hairs
    How so? Digestion rates are totally different and so is composition. Reduce some of the fat and lactose from WPC and you have WPI.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by DCbuilder View Post
    Not saying its perfect. But it's 3 criteria. From a health perspective, what would 3 from you be? And not all WPC = bad, several mentioned in this thread as quality powders have WPC as #1 but still look great.
    its scientific fact that the combination of protein (fast and slow) is superior to whey or casein alone, that is not debatable.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by DCbuilder View Post
    I hear you on that, but still, I know barely enough to know that if there are options aside from voluntarily ingesting corn syrup, I'll probably try to find an alternative. Not that I didn't ingest it before, the protein I have now has it in there. But I'd rather avoid it if possible.

    In terms of Kaizen, I'll look into it. First search came back that they sell it in Canadian Costcos and I'm seeing some version being sold in *** for $80/5 lbs. Are there any other options to purchase it if you are aware?
    Here is a good read..

    Metabolic Dangers of High-Fructose Corn Syrup - Life Extension

    Fructose, on the other hand, is more rapidly metabolized in the liver, flooding metabolic pathways and leading to increased triglyceride synthesis and fat storage in the liver. This can cause a rise in serum triglycerides, promoting an atherogenic lipid profile and elevating cardiovascular risk. Increased fat storage in the liver may lead to an increased incidence in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and this is one of several links between HFCS consumption and obesity as well as the metabolic syndrome.7
    Fructose may have less impact on appetite than glucose, so processed foods rich in fructose can contribute to weight gain, obesity, and its related consequences by failing to manage appetite.20 Additionally, loading of the liver with large amounts of fructose leads to increased uric acid formation, which may contribute to gout in susceptible individuals.7

  8. Quote Originally Posted by USPlabsRep View Post
    How so? Digestion rates are totally different and so is composition. Reduce some of the fat and lactose from WPC and you have WPI.

    Honestly, it's not really worth it to me to answer each question individually as you have a vested interest in pushing your products.

    WPC is the gold standard for a reason, it cant be beat in the grand scheme for price and effectiveness. Sure WPI and MPI are nice for those that are lactose intolerant, but it wont yield any better results. Most people can handle WPC just fine, and for those that wish...they have those other options. Digestion rates are irrelevant in the grand scheme as far as body comp goes. Saying not to buy WPC or suggesting it's poor quality is laughable.

    Vilifying fructose makes no sense. Within moderation its fine, it wont increase appetite...in fact, it appears to have a suppressive effect if anything. For those of you who actually would like to learn a little about fructose/hfcs and how they relate to health:
    The bitter truth about fructose alarmism. | Alan Aragon's Blog


    Should we limit the amount of sugars we intake? Absolutely. Should we freak out if a protein has it? Absolutely not. It can very easily be managed into a diet with no health issues.


    Quote Originally Posted by USPlabsRep View Post
    You should really take some time to read the link above. What you havent mentioned is the dose dependent nature.
    Controlled Labs Warder
    Powercage [at] controlledlabs.com

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Powercage View Post
    Honestly, it's not really worth it to me to answer each question individually as you have a vested interest in pushing your products.

    WPC is the gold standard for a reason, it cant be beat in the grand scheme for price and effectiveness. Sure WPI and MPI are nice for those that are lactose intolerant, but it wont yield any better results. Most people can handle WPC just fine, and for those that wish...they have those other options. Digestion rates are irrelevant in the grand scheme. Saying not to buy WPC or suggesting it's poor quality is laughable.

    Vilifying fructose makes no sense. Within moderation its fine, it wont increase appetite...in fact, it appears to have a suppressive effect if anything. For those of you who actually would like to learn a little about fructose/hfcs and how they relate to health:
    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...tose-alarmism/


    Should we limit the amount of sugars we intake? Absolutely. Should we freak out if a protein has it? Absolutely not. It can very easily be managed into a diet with no health issues.




    You should really take some time to read the link above.
    You are not pushing a product?

  10. Quote Originally Posted by USPlabsRep View Post
    You are not pushing a product?
    I think people have enough info from above to make an informed decision. We can leave it at that. If anyone has any questions, feel free to PM me.
    Controlled Labs Warder
    Powercage [at] controlledlabs.com

  11. I would just like to add, I support quality protein sources from companies that don't cut corners. Also, just received my USPLABS OxyElite protein, only one request. Please offer bigger tub sizes, 25 servings (not criticizing just suggesting) doesn't really last that long.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by Powercage View Post
    Honestly, it's not really worth it to me to answer each question individually as you have a vested interest in pushing your products.WPC is the gold standard for a reason, it cant be beat in the grand scheme for price and effectiveness. Sure WPI and MPI are nice for those that are lactose intolerant, but it wont yield any better results. Most people can handle WPC just fine, and for those that wish...they have those other options. Digestion rates are irrelevant in the grand scheme as far as body comp goes. Saying not to buy WPC or suggesting it's poor quality is laughable.Vilifying fructose makes no sense. Within moderation its fine, it wont increase appetite...in fact, it appears to have a suppressive effect if anything. For those of you who actually would like to learn a little about fructose/hfcs and how they relate to health:The bitter truth about fructose alarmism. | Alan Aragon's BlogShould we limit the amount of sugars we intake? Absolutely. Should we freak out if a protein has it? Absolutely not. It can very easily be managed into a diet with no health issues.You should really take some time to read the link above. What you arent grasping, or conveniently leaving out...is the dose dependent nature
    fructose should come from fruits not from your protein. HFCS has no nutritional value just a caloric load and that goes for most processed sugars. If you can avoid, you should. Protein powders also contain hydrogenated fats, are you proposing that is also acceptable in moderation? Probably but rather i get it from a snickers bar not my protein powder.

  13. So......Chicken or Fish?

  14. OxyElite Protein aside, if you are drinking whey or casein, you should combine them and not drink them separately.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by T-Bone View Post
    So......Chicken or Fish?
    Emu

  16. Quote Originally Posted by Powercage View Post
    I think people have enough info from above to make an informed decision. We can leave it at that. If anyone has any questions, feel free to PM me.
    People need to get informed.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by mw1 View Post
    True^^^Adulterated Dietary Supplements

    In addition, even if your product listed above was not an unapproved new and misbranded drug, it and the other products distributed under your firm's label would be adulterated dietary supplements within the meaning of section 402(g)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 342(g)(1)] in that the dietary supplements have been prepared, packed, or held under conditions that do not meet the requirements set forth in the Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) in Manufacturing, Packaging, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements regulation, Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 111, (21 CFR Part 111).

    Based on the records reviewed during this inspection, your firm sends raw materials to contract manufacturers who manufacture (b)(4) dietary supplements including Jack3d, OxyElite Pro, Prime, and Super Cissus various packaging configurations and flavors, and then return the finished products to USPlabs for distribution under your firm's own label. As a dietary supplement distributor that contracts with another contract manufacturer to manufacture dietary supplement under your firm's name, your firm is ultimately responsible for complying with the requirements relating to manufacturing operations [see 72 Fed. Reg. 34752, 34790; June 25, 2007]. Your firm has an obligation to know what and how manufacturing activities are performed so that you can make decisions related to whether your dietary supplement products conform to established specifications and whether to approve and release the products for distribution.

    Furthermore, we received your firm's written responses with attachments from Lorena Macias, Quality Assurance and Quality Control Director, dated March 14 and June 1, 2012, to the Form FDA 483 (inspectional observations) that was issued to your firm at the conclusion of the inspection on February 21, 2012. We respond to your firm's written responses, below.

    Specific violations are as follows:

    1. Your firm failed to establish and follow written procedures, as required by 21 CFR 111.553, for the review and investigation of product complaints, as required by 21 CFR 111.560(c). Specifically, your firm's revised procedures related to product complaints in your written procedures entitled "Consumer Complaints (QA-020)" submitted in your March 14, 2012 response to the FDA-483 do not account for the requirements of 21 CFR 111.560(c) in that the procedures do not provide written instructions that quality control personnel review and approve decisions about whether to investigate a product complaint and review and approve the findings and follow-up action of any investigation performed.

    2. Your firm failed to establish product specifications for the identity and purity of the finished batch of dietary supplement, and for limits on those types of contamination that may adulterate, or that may lead to adulteration of, the finished batch of dietary supplement to ensure the quality of the dietary supplement, as required by 21 CFR 111.70(e). For each dietary supplement you have manufactured, it is your firm's responsibility to establish product specifications for limits on those types of contamination that may adulterate, or that may lead to adulteration of the finished batch of the dietary supplement, as required by 21 CFR 111.70(e). As stated in the final rule (72 FR 34752 at 34837; June 25, 2007), "the manufacturer has the responsibility to determine what types of contamination are likely or certain to contaminate a given product and to determine what types of tests to conduct and when to test for such contamination."

    Based on information in your supplier's COAs for certain raw materials, chemicals and pesticides are likely or certain to contaminate these raw materials; however, your firm did not establish specifications related to chemicals and pesticides for products that contain these raw materials, including Jack3d Lemon Lime, OxyElite Pro, and Prime.

    Your firm's March 14 and June 1, 2012 responses, including attachments, were reviewed and determined to be inadequate. The product specification sheets you provided for many of your dietary supplement products, including Jack3d Lemon Lime, OxyElite Pro, and Prime were inadequate because the product specifications sheets failed to include identity and purity specifications for these products. You also failed to include any specifications related to chemical and pesticides listed on these sheets.

    3. Your firm's quality control operations for the master manufacturing record (MMR) failed to include reviewing and approving all master manufacturing records and all modifications to the master manufacturing records, as required by 21 CFR 111.123(a)(1). Specifically, our review of your Jack3d Master Formula revealed that it was not approved by your quality control operations.

    Your firm's March 14 and June 1, 2012 responses were reviewed and determined to be inadequate. Your response included your firm's Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) # QA-036, Finished Dietary Supplement Formula and MMR Approval, which indicates that your contract manufacturers submit all product formulas and master manufacturing records for review and approval. However, your response did not include an MMR reviewed and approved for Jack3d.

    4. Your firm did not conduct at least one appropriate test or examination to verify the identity of a component that is a dietary ingredient, prior to its use, as required by 21 CFR 111.75(a)(1)(i). Your firm supplies its contract manufacturer with raw materials, including dietary ingredients, which are used by another manufacturer in the manufacture of your firm's dietary supplements; however, our investigators found that you did not conduct at least one test or examination to verify the identity of such dietary ingredients, as required by 21 CFR 111.75(a)(1).

    Instead, your firm relied on Certificates of Analysis (COA) from your suppliers.

    A COA from a supplier may not be used to verify the identity of any component that is a dietary ingredient [see 21 CFR 111.75(a)]. Specifically, your firm supplies (b)(4) dietary ingredients to its contract manufacturer for the use in production of two of your own label dietary supplement products, Jack3d and OxyELITE Pro. Your firm routinely receives and accepts (b)(4) incoming dietary ingredients into its facility with accompanying Certificates of Analysis and does not verify the identity of these dietary ingredients before sending them to the contract manufacturer for use in the manufacture of your own label dietary supplement products.

    Before using a component that is a dietary ingredient, you must conduct at least one appropriate test or examination to verify the identity of any component that is a dietary ingredient, unless you have petitioned FDA for an exemption from such testing, consistent with the requirements in 21 CFR 111.75(a)(1)(ii), and FDA has granted such petition. Your firm has not petitioned FDA for such an exemption.

    Furthermore, if you would like to rely on a certificate of analysis from the supplier of the components (other than dietary ingredients) you receive for use in your firm's dietary supplement products to confirm the identity of such components, you must comply with the requirements in 21 CFR 111.75(a)(2)(ii).

    5. Your firm's quality control personnel failed to approve or reject all processes, written procedures, controls, tests and examinations, and deviations from or modifications to them, that may affect the identity, purity, strength, or composition of a dietary supplement, as required by 21 CFR 111.105(a). For example, your firm's quality control personnel did not approve testing methods for (b)(4)

    Your firm's March 14 and June 1, 2012 responses were reviewed and determined to be inadequate. You indicated that your Quality Assurance and Quality Control Director will review all test methods, but you did not provide any supporting documentation that any test methods were actually reviewed by your Director.

    6. Your firm's master manufacturing record (MMR) for the dietary supplement product Jack3d failed to identify specifications for the points, steps, or stages in the manufacturing process where control is necessary to ensure the quality of the dietary supplement and that the dietary supplement is packaged and labeled as specified in your MMR, as required by 21 CFR 111.205(b)(1). In addition, your firm's MMR for this product failed to establish controls and procedures to ensure that each batch of dietary supplements that you manufacture meets the specifications identified, as required by 21 CFR 111.205(b)(2)

    http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Enforcement.../ucm339936.htm
    Cliff notes? Jesus that's long lol
    Purus labs Rep
    doin it mountain dog style in here come along for the shred fest-http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/229302-danbs-mountain-dog.html

  18. I personally don't feel WPC is a terribly inferior protein. The arguement could be made, as mentioned, that the less processing of the product (WPC vs. WPI vs HydroWhey) might have its advantages.

    I don't think Non-Dairy creamer should be part of a quality protein product. Nor should sodium casienate. Also, I think its nice to see many of the companies offering products with natural sweeteners.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by Danb2285 View Post
    Cliff notes? Jesus that's long lol
    Don't make accusations on other companies proteins when you have your own skeletons in the closet edit: trust me all sup companies have their own skeletons locked away

    Serious Nutrition Solution ~~

    mw at seriousnutritionsolutions dot com
    mike at competitiveedgelabs dot com


  20. Quote Originally Posted by mw1 View Post
    True^^^Adulterated Dietary Supplements

    In addition, even if your product listed above was not an unapproved new and misbranded drug, it and the other products distributed under your firm's label would be adulterated dietary supplements within the meaning of section 402(g)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 342(g)(1)] in that the dietary supplements have been prepared, packed, or held under conditions that do not meet the requirements set forth in the Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) in Manufacturing, Packaging, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements regulation, Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 111, (21 CFR Part 111).

    Based on the records reviewed during this inspection, your firm sends raw materials to contract manufacturers who manufacture (b)(4) dietary supplements including Jack3d, OxyElite Pro, Prime, and Super Cissus various packaging configurations and flavors, and then return the finished products to USPlabs for distribution under your firm's own label. As a dietary supplement distributor that contracts with another contract manufacturer to manufacture dietary supplement under your firm's name, your firm is ultimately responsible for complying with the requirements relating to manufacturing operations [see 72 Fed. Reg. 34752, 34790; June 25, 2007]. Your firm has an obligation to know what and how manufacturing activities are performed so that you can make decisions related to whether your dietary supplement products conform to established specifications and whether to approve and release the products for distribution.

    Furthermore, we received your firm's written responses with attachments from Lorena Macias, Quality Assurance and Quality Control Director, dated March 14 and June 1, 2012, to the Form FDA 483 (inspectional observations) that was issued to your firm at the conclusion of the inspection on February 21, 2012. We respond to your firm's written responses, below.

    Specific violations are as follows:

    1. Your firm failed to establish and follow written procedures, as required by 21 CFR 111.553, for the review and investigation of product complaints, as required by 21 CFR 111.560(c). Specifically, your firm's revised procedures related to product complaints in your written procedures entitled "Consumer Complaints (QA-020)" submitted in your March 14, 2012 response to the FDA-483 do not account for the requirements of 21 CFR 111.560(c) in that the procedures do not provide written instructions that quality control personnel review and approve decisions about whether to investigate a product complaint and review and approve the findings and follow-up action of any investigation performed.

    2. Your firm failed to establish product specifications for the identity and purity of the finished batch of dietary supplement, and for limits on those types of contamination that may adulterate, or that may lead to adulteration of, the finished batch of dietary supplement to ensure the quality of the dietary supplement, as required by 21 CFR 111.70(e). For each dietary supplement you have manufactured, it is your firm's responsibility to establish product specifications for limits on those types of contamination that may adulterate, or that may lead to adulteration of the finished batch of the dietary supplement, as required by 21 CFR 111.70(e). As stated in the final rule (72 FR 34752 at 34837; June 25, 2007), "the manufacturer has the responsibility to determine what types of contamination are likely or certain to contaminate a given product and to determine what types of tests to conduct and when to test for such contamination."

    Based on information in your supplier's COAs for certain raw materials, chemicals and pesticides are likely or certain to contaminate these raw materials; however, your firm did not establish specifications related to chemicals and pesticides for products that contain these raw materials, including Jack3d Lemon Lime, OxyElite Pro, and Prime.

    Your firm's March 14 and June 1, 2012 responses, including attachments, were reviewed and determined to be inadequate. The product specification sheets you provided for many of your dietary supplement products, including Jack3d Lemon Lime, OxyElite Pro, and Prime were inadequate because the product specifications sheets failed to include identity and purity specifications for these products. You also failed to include any specifications related to chemical and pesticides listed on these sheets.

    3. Your firm's quality control operations for the master manufacturing record (MMR) failed to include reviewing and approving all master manufacturing records and all modifications to the master manufacturing records, as required by 21 CFR 111.123(a)(1). Specifically, our review of your Jack3d Master Formula revealed that it was not approved by your quality control operations.

    Your firm's March 14 and June 1, 2012 responses were reviewed and determined to be inadequate. Your response included your firm's Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) # QA-036, Finished Dietary Supplement Formula and MMR Approval, which indicates that your contract manufacturers submit all product formulas and master manufacturing records for review and approval. However, your response did not include an MMR reviewed and approved for Jack3d.

    4. Your firm did not conduct at least one appropriate test or examination to verify the identity of a component that is a dietary ingredient, prior to its use, as required by 21 CFR 111.75(a)(1)(i). Your firm supplies its contract manufacturer with raw materials, including dietary ingredients, which are used by another manufacturer in the manufacture of your firm's dietary supplements; however, our investigators found that you did not conduct at least one test or examination to verify the identity of such dietary ingredients, as required by 21 CFR 111.75(a)(1).

    Instead, your firm relied on Certificates of Analysis (COA) from your suppliers.

    A COA from a supplier may not be used to verify the identity of any component that is a dietary ingredient [see 21 CFR 111.75(a)]. Specifically, your firm supplies (b)(4) dietary ingredients to its contract manufacturer for the use in production of two of your own label dietary supplement products, Jack3d and OxyELITE Pro. Your firm routinely receives and accepts (b)(4) incoming dietary ingredients into its facility with accompanying Certificates of Analysis and does not verify the identity of these dietary ingredients before sending them to the contract manufacturer for use in the manufacture of your own label dietary supplement products.

    Before using a component that is a dietary ingredient, you must conduct at least one appropriate test or examination to verify the identity of any component that is a dietary ingredient, unless you have petitioned FDA for an exemption from such testing, consistent with the requirements in 21 CFR 111.75(a)(1)(ii), and FDA has granted such petition. Your firm has not petitioned FDA for such an exemption.

    Furthermore, if you would like to rely on a certificate of analysis from the supplier of the components (other than dietary ingredients) you receive for use in your firm's dietary supplement products to confirm the identity of such components, you must comply with the requirements in 21 CFR 111.75(a)(2)(ii).

    5. Your firm's quality control personnel failed to approve or reject all processes, written procedures, controls, tests and examinations, and deviations from or modifications to them, that may affect the identity, purity, strength, or composition of a dietary supplement, as required by 21 CFR 111.105(a). For example, your firm's quality control personnel did not approve testing methods for (b)(4)

    Your firm's March 14 and June 1, 2012 responses were reviewed and determined to be inadequate. You indicated that your Quality Assurance and Quality Control Director will review all test methods, but you did not provide any supporting documentation that any test methods were actually reviewed by your Director.

    6. Your firm's master manufacturing record (MMR) for the dietary supplement product Jack3d failed to identify specifications for the points, steps, or stages in the manufacturing process where control is necessary to ensure the quality of the dietary supplement and that the dietary supplement is packaged and labeled as specified in your MMR, as required by 21 CFR 111.205(b)(1). In addition, your firm's MMR for this product failed to establish controls and procedures to ensure that each batch of dietary supplements that you manufacture meets the specifications identified, as required by 21 CFR 111.205(b)(2)

    http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Enforcement.../ucm339936.htm
    old news.

  21. Nothing beats food so. Best protein is food!

  22. Lets stay on topic.

    Critique and criticism has its place as we're discussing bad products in search of the good.

    But stick to protein powder. And no unneeded jabs at any particular company, stick to the ingredients in the protein. Thanks.

  23. I can't believe no one has brought up ON gold standard and casein since its such a popular company.
    Purus labs Rep
    doin it mountain dog style in here come along for the shred fest-http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/229302-danbs-mountain-dog.html

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Danb2285 View Post
    I can't believe no one has brought up ON gold standard and casein since its such a popular company.
    I have not looked at ON proteins in years so I am unsure of their quality but populatity has nothing to do with quality. Many of the protein powders mentioned in this thread are quite popular but are also filled with non-dairy creamers and other inferior ingredients.

  25. The IronMag Labs WPI is pretty clean and sweetened with Stevia. Persoanlly I didn't like the vanilla very much.

    The Species Nutrition WPI is pretty solid as well.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. digestive enzymes for protein powder?
    By Number 5 in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-16-2012, 11:53 PM
  2. Can protein powder go bad?
    By Rock Lee in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-11-2004, 11:20 PM
  3. A good weight gainer and protein powder
    By drei in forum Supplements
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-16-2003, 10:36 PM
  4. Cooking w/ Protein Powder
    By Dwight Schrute in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-02-2003, 01:46 AM
  5. best protein powder brand and type?
    By Jfcripped21 in forum Supplements
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-08-2003, 05:18 PM
Log in
Log in