New Product - Super Mass600

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
  1. New Member
    Methyl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Age
    36
    Posts
    191
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    72.62%

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Bone
    Thanks a lot for "workin it" for me. I love to see a woman "work it". Also to know shes doin it just for me....Keep on "workin it" woman!
    I personally use ProLabs N-Large II every morning for breakfast. I mix two scoops of Vanilla N-Large, glass of skim Milk and a Banana in the Blender and instant high carb, high protien breakfast Been doing that for the past 4 months.

    BTW, what is wrong with the Prolab N-Large?

  2. Senior Member
    exnihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,577
    Rep Power
    926
    Level
    29
    Lv. Percent
    99.08%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    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.
  3. Registered User
    glenihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,679
    Rep Power
    1966
    Level
    44
    Lv. Percent
    6.96%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    their chocolate whey is the best tasting chocolate shake i've ever had
    •   
       

  4. Senior Member
    exnihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,577
    Rep Power
    926
    Level
    29
    Lv. Percent
    99.08%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    I've got about 4lbs of it sitting in my closet that I'll never use, you're welcome to it
  5. Board Sponsor
    wheystation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Age
    53
    Posts
    960
    Rep Power
    600
    Level
    25
    Lv. Percent
    26.51%

    I hear you - I took the liberty of copying this and sending to the home office - you are right, some people are happy, but we are always looking for new ideas and improvements and this is the place that we learn........ the next three ideas coming out this coming month have all been generated by thoughts shared on these boards.

    1. Peanut Butter as a flavor
    2. Individual flavor packets
    3. Bulk Orders with the ability to order FIVE FLAVORS in FIFTY POUNDS.

    These three things are coming out soon and it never would have happened if we didn't learn about it from you guys.....so I am glad for the insight.

    Laura
  6. Registered User
    BOHICA's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  222 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,196
    Rep Power
    723
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    10.36%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by wheystation
    2. Individual flavor packets
    3. Bulk Orders with the ability to order FIVE FLAVORS in FIFTY POUNDS.
    Can I trade in my remainder unflavored 50 lbs for some flavor?
  7. Board Sponsor
    wheystation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Age
    53
    Posts
    960
    Rep Power
    600
    Level
    25
    Lv. Percent
    26.51%

    [QUOTE=BOHICA]Can I trade in my remainder unflavored 50 lbs for some flavor? [/Q



    No - but as soon as the flavor packs are ready - I will throw some at you.

    Laura
  8. Registered User
    glenihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,679
    Rep Power
    1966
    Level
    44
    Lv. Percent
    6.96%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo
    I've got about 4lbs of it sitting in my closet that I'll never use, you're welcome to it
    i'll give you 8 dollars and a picture of me smiling ... i can even autograph it if you like
  9. Senior Member
    exnihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,577
    Rep Power
    926
    Level
    29
    Lv. Percent
    99.08%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Woooo. Make it a picture in your pretty pretty pink thong all shaved and oiled up and you have a deal
  10. Registered User
    glenihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,679
    Rep Power
    1966
    Level
    44
    Lv. Percent
    6.96%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    hahaahahah done!
  11. Diamond Member
    T-Bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,570
    Rep Power
    6728227
    Level
    101
    Lv. Percent
    35.28%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranActivity RoyaltyPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo
    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.
  12. Senior Member
    exnihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,577
    Rep Power
    926
    Level
    29
    Lv. Percent
    99.08%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    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.
  13. Registered User
    BOHICA's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  222 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,196
    Rep Power
    723
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    10.36%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    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.
  14. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by ryansm
    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.
  15. Senior Member
    exnihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,577
    Rep Power
    926
    Level
    29
    Lv. Percent
    99.08%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    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.
  16. Diamond Member
    T-Bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,570
    Rep Power
    6728227
    Level
    101
    Lv. Percent
    35.28%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranActivity RoyaltyPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    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.
  17. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Bone
    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.
  18. Elite Member
    ryansm's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  305 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,125
    Rep Power
    22020
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    95.04%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

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

  19. Registered User
    BOHICA's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  222 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,196
    Rep Power
    723
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    10.36%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    I just food process my oates, low enough gi for me
  20. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by BOHICA
    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.
  21. Registered User
    BOHICA's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  222 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,196
    Rep Power
    723
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    10.36%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    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.
  22. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    265
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.25%

    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.
  23. Registered User
    BOHICA's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  222 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,196
    Rep Power
    723
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    10.36%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    "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.
  24. New Member
    Methyl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Age
    36
    Posts
    191
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    72.62%

    I personally like two scoops of Prolab Vanilla N-Large after a heavy workout
  25. Board Sponsor
    tattoopierced1's Avatar
    Stats
    6'7"  270 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    5,230
    Rep Power
    8353
    Level
    50
    Lv. Percent
    34.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    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..
  26. Registered User
    Zero Tolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,328
    Rep Power
    790
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    68.13%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    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...
  27. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.

    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.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  28. Elite Member
    bioman's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,713
    Rep Power
    513546
    Level
    59
    Lv. Percent
    89.74%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    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.
  29. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    265
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.25%

    Quote Originally Posted by BOHICA
    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.
  30. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    265
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.25%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    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.
  31. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    If you're in a caloric surplus, this applies to anything.
    But moreso when insulin levels and responses are high.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  32. Senior Member
    exnihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,577
    Rep Power
    926
    Level
    29
    Lv. Percent
    99.08%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    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).
  33. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    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.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  34. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    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.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  35. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    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.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  36. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    265
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.25%

    Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo
    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.
  37. Senior Member
    exnihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,577
    Rep Power
    926
    Level
    29
    Lv. Percent
    99.08%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    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 )
  38. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    265
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.25%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    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.
  39. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    265
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.25%

    Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo
    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.

    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 )
    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?
  40. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    265
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.25%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    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.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. T-gel and new products?
    By lifted in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-16-2003, 01:22 PM
  2. New product labels include trans fatty acids!
    By LakeMountD in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-10-2003, 02:58 PM
  3. Nutrex Vitrix - New Product
    By Nelson in forum Supplements
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-12-2003, 10:00 AM
  4. Question about the new products available at BDC
    By CROWLER in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-04-2003, 12:47 AM
  5. EQL releases new Product
    By YellowJacket in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-02-2003, 08:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in