Guest viewing is limited

70 protein powders tested for protein content - how did they fare?

VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed


A South African pharmacy chain, Dischem, recently tested 70 leading protein powders. Well…they tested 70 protein powders that qualify as leading in South Africa. If you’re from The U.S. of A., some of their names will be unfamiliar to you.

Actually, if you’re from the U.S., you’re probably wondering who Dischem is…
They’re a large pharmacy chain in South Africa, founded in 1978, and currently operating about 400 (+/-) locations with a 15% marketshare. They also sell sports supplements (basically there like CVS or Walgreens here in the ‘states).

So now that you who they are, here are the results from Dischem’s testing that I found most interesting :
BPI Whey HD contained 44.38% less protein than label claims

MHP Up Your Mass contained 19.34% less protein than the label claimed, but their Paleo Protein had 5.26% more protein than the label claim
MuscleMeds “failed” the test by virtue of not having accurate labels, but that’s because their Carnivore Mass product contained 13.7% more protein than stated and Carnivore contained 9.31% more
Weider 100% Whey Isolate Protein contained 12.98% less protein than label claims
BSN’s Syntha 6 contained 7.28% less protein than the label claim, but True Mass contained 2.39% more
Optimum Nutrition’s Gold Standard Whey contained 6.21% less protein than the label claimed (two other ON products contained about 5% less protein than the label claim — so remember, here in a 20g serving we are talking about a gram of difference, give or take)

The biggest disaster was a South African brand, Supplements SA, which had two separate products register a protein content of that was under the stated label claims by 77.41 and 51.86%
Click to expand...

full test results in link above.




discuss.
 
I'd be interested to see the specific testing standard they used, and also to know which if any of the products have regionally contracted manufacturing/licensing before passing too much judgement.
 
De__eB said:
I'd be interested to see the specific testing standard they used, and also to know which if any of the products have regionally contracted manufacturing/licensing before passing too much judgement.
Click to expand...

I agree. Testing methodology as well as chain of custody are crucial here
 
De__eB said:
I'd be interested to see the specific testing standard they used, and also to know which if any of the products have regionally contracted manufacturing/licensing before passing too much judgement.
Click to expand...

I am also fairly interested to see that before having an opinion on any of it others like labdoor have shown similar and they are highly suspect when they cannot even test products to it's own label directions ;)

VaughnTrue said:
I agree. Testing methodology as well as chain of custody are crucial here
Click to expand...


wut u did there I c sir
 
Sample size and number of samples and distribution of samples over lot size and quantities of lots makes a huge difference in fair and accurate representation of product and its manufacturing process capability.

Additionally I see no reference to the identity of the material of the deviated value that is not protein. Therefore one cannot assume it is an adulterant or foreign matter. It may very well be a constituent (sugar, fat, flavoring, sweetener, etc.) of the product but it's distribution throughout the whole of the product lot(s) may be inefficient.
 
De__eB said:
I'd be interested to see the specific testing standard they used, and also to know which if any of the products have regionally contracted manufacturing/licensing before passing too much judgement.
Click to expand...

5% variance is allowed anyway, no?

Some people take food labels as being accurate, but they are an average
 
Jiigzz said:
5% variance is allowed anyway, no?

Some people take food labels as being accurate, but they are an average
Click to expand...

The allowance is / can be far higher than 5% more along the lines of 20% and I have wrote on this many times elsewhere.

Invalid Link Removed

You will see in this post even 20% margin passable because those are US label laws and are in compliance
 
one thing I've noticed is that a lot of these tests use companies that not many ppl seem to use anyway or at least companies not are help in such a high regard

anyway, moral of the story is find a trusted protein and stick with it unless you hear otherwise....I've also seen a few guys go the amino route recently with products like humapro and xtend and get their protein from strictly whole food
 
Honestly, I've tried mixing bulk powders and capping stuff myself enough times that I realize some deviation is almost unavoidable. Anyone who is within 10% is doing OK, within 5% and I trust they are doing what they can to produce the best quality possible. Some of these companies were within 1-3% even. And some companies may have been low on one product and high on another...to me that shows some attempt at honesty. IDEALLY, everything would be exactly as labeled, but realistically (as Jigzz said) it's an average and if it averages out and is within 5% most of the time, that's spot on in my book.

Companies claiming 30+ grams of protein and showing 7....I wouldn't ever buy anything from them again and would be upset I even bough the samples to test.
 
The other thing that's interesting - a lot of these companies actually have the same sources for protein powders. Look at some of the muscletech labels and compare them to Met-Rx labels sometime...you can see the sourcing is the same because the ingredients are near identical (maybe some tweaks or marketing name changes)...yet, despite getting powder from the same source and dumping it in a bottle and putting a label on it, the items tested slightly differently. Shows batch deviation, IMO, more than anything.
 
LLN said:
B.bb.bb.bbbbbbut....but....but...Chromadex? Samples? Creamy-ness?
Click to expand...

-when were these tests done?
-and does it reference batches or any specific tubs that can be pin pointed to what time periods this was?

Oxy elite from usp is their old line and on that list and has been discontinued for a while. anyone know when was bpi's first whey hd launched, perhaps before (and/or the reason) they started up the chromadex program? im not defending anyone, im just trying to objectively collect information and it seems this testing isnt all on current products.
 
PES, ON are good enough for me. If iForce ever brought back the OG Red Velvet I'd come back to them also
 
I'm not sure what the study actually adds to what we already know. Also, I have serious issues with somebody who lists author and journalist in their title who can't seem to run a basic spell/grammar check before posting a blog entry
 
Nice !
I love tests!
Met-rx is always good as I sea. I dont know why it is less popular than others...

I wonder how inner-armour got a legit score... have they fixed the spiking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top