New Product - Super Mass600

Page 3 of 4 First 1234 Last

  1. 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.


  2. 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.
    •   
       


  3. 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.

  4. I personally like two scoops of Prolab Vanilla N-Large after a heavy workout
  5. tattoopierced1
    tattoopierced1's Avatar

    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..

  6. 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...

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
    •   
       


  11. 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.

  12. 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).

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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 )

  18. 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.

  19. 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?

  20. 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.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    That statement is the most ridiclous thing I have ever seen. Really, you have to explain that because that makes zero sense from any nutritional standpoint.
    Bad word choice --- mea culpa. The meaning I intended to convey was that they would be practically equivalent in terms of lipogenesis. And I should probably emphasize that this is for ectos, who I imagine are the target audience of gainers. An endo should tread carefully.

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

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

  22. Quote Originally Posted by Zero Tolerance
    I'm ordering some right now.. But how do I get the $2.00 off? I mean, I can't afford it otherwise.

    Order placed...

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

    Have a great weekend.

    Laura

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

  23. Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    Agreed. But, the quantifiable difference between two different nutritional tactics may still be null.


    Agreed.


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


    Consider carrots.

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


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

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

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

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

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

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    Bad word choice --- mea culpa. The meaning I intended to convey was that they would be practically equivalent in terms of lipogenesis.
    I don't know where you are getting your information from but that is completely and totally false. Maltodextrin will definetly have much more an influence on lipogenesis than any oatmeal will. You can break it down into so many factors that I can't believe that you even mande that statement. Its so wrong on many levels.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

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

    I was kinda thinkin' all those linkages would make the amylase take longer to do its thing, i.e., time to completion scales at least linearly with number of links. If such is not the case, then pooh on me.
    It does take time for glucose molecules to be cleaved - but from a physical standpoint it's a lot like having a stack of legos, and proceeding to pull lego after lego off the end in rapid succession. The time it takes is negligible.

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

  26. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    1. Are you kidding me? Null? Where do you ever get that from? The difference is VERY significant. Just look at the research.
    OK, so if we were to take two identical ectomorphs, and put them through the same paces, but have one of them get one meal a day from a serving of Supermass, then by then end of, say, a 32 week bulker, how much fatter is the gainer guy gonna be? If it's 10 pounds, then our gainer friend might be perturbed. But if it's one pound, he might consider the convenience he reaped and not give a damn. And if it's no pounds, then he pretty squarely lost nothing.

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

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

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

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


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

    You are basing your arguement on the exeptions to the rule, not the majority.
    That's exactly my point --- there are many notable exceptions to this rule. Hence, it's not a very good rule. Here's a better one: eat whole foods.

    3. No we are not because the GL is 26 for 5oz. of potatoes compared to 10 for 1 Tablspoon of Maltodextrin. The difference is VERY large in terms of total glycemic load.
    Ah, ok, you meant the ratio of the GL to the serving size. (Gee, so that's why he kept mentioning quantities...) Well, that makes sense, in that malto is much more calorically dense than a potato, so if you eat equal volumes of each, the malto will cause a larger insulin spike than the potato. But bodybuilders don't eat for volume, they eat for mass --- calories in particular. What's important is not how much a particular volume of food affects insulin, but how, say, 50g of it does. Which would give you the GI of a food. And you know how I feel about that.

    You are completly ignoring the relationship that the GI had on the GL. For the most part the GI is a good indicator of the GL.
    I take it you consider the GL to be a good indicator of lipogenesis, then?

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

  27. Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo
    Some people like olive oil or peanut butter, those are healthier options, but you said that you didn't notice any change in leanness with maltose over oats, so I thought I'd suggest that you take advantage of that and have some fun
    That is more a results of his 20 year old metabolism more than anything. The body is constantly releasing and storing fats (constantly) and those with an increased metabolism have high energy requirements but the fact of the matter is that high insulin concentrations are causing more lipids to be sotred rather than oxidized. Lucky for him (and me when I was 20) that his energy requirements are so high that you don't see much of a difference. Given years, it will catch up and he will understand what I am talking about because it will become MUCH more a factor.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    I don't know where you are getting your information from but that is completely and totally false. Maltodextrin will definetly have much more an influence on lipogenesis than any oatmeal will. You can break it down into so many factors that I can't believe that you even mande that statement. Its so wrong on many levels.
    Sigh. The meaning I intended to convey was that they would be practically equivalent in terms of lipogenesis in the context of a weight gainer from a macroscopic perspective over the long run.

  29. Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

  30. Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    Sigh. The meaning I intended to convey was that they would be practically equivalent in terms of lipogenesis in the context of a weight gainer from a macroscopic perspective over the long run.
    And you are completely wrong.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  

  
 

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
Log in
Log in