[BOHICA]

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.

[Nabeshin]

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

Consider that:

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

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

[BOHICA]

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.

[Methyl1]

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

[tattoopierced1]

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

[Zero Tolerance]

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

Order placed...

[Yukon Cornelius]

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.

[bioman]

Thus spaketh Bobo.

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

[Nabeshin]

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.

[Nabeshin]

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.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Nabeshin

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

But moreso when insulin levels and responses are high.

[exnihilo]

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).

[Yukon Cornelius]

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.

[Yukon Cornelius]

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.