Same result in either scenario: I don’t get the nutrition I was counting on, and I’m overpaying for it to add insult. I don’t believe the spikers following the old regulations of the time have any moral high ground
From the nutrition standpoint, it may be the same - but from an intent standpoint, very different.
What a lot of people don't realize is that back then, there was conflicting guidelines as to whether amino acids were supposed to be labeled as protein intake. There were literally brands with EAA's that had gotten soft warnings about not declaring their product to contain a protein content on the nutrition panel.
There was a lot of confusion as to whether brands were or weren't supposed to declare amino acid content as protein on the product labels. So in the case of some of the brands, if their compliance attorneys are telling them to declare it as protein and they're declaring it as protein, it still is deceiving to customers, but the lack of definitive labeling guidelines was also deceiving and confusing as hell for brands.
If you started a company during that time and you got a price from a contract manufacturer for a protein powder, you may truly not have known about the amino acid issue - bc the cm would have been giving you label specs/supplement facts and then you were supposed to have your compliance attorney review it and then you apply it to your labels accordingly.
That was the issue - that by law, it was legal to label them that way at the time - and some of the brands that got **** on for it likely didn't even know it was happening. Did the big brands? Sure. Were there brands that did it to intentionally cut costs? Sure. But were there some brands that thought they were being given the correct info by their cm and doing the right thing by having their attorney review it and that got caught up in it having no idea they were doing anything wrong? Absolutely.
That's all I'm saying. It wasn't the big conspiracy that some industry sites made it out to be; there was a lot of legitimate confusion back then bc of mixed signals as to how the FDA wanted amino acids labeled at the time.
^^^ all of that is very different than what I was saying about some companies now days blatantly lying about their macros - not because of any type of labeling guideline confusion, but bc they're shady scammers that are intentionally mislabeling products claiming to have more protein and less sugar than they actually do. That's what I mean about 2 completely different contexts.
If you want to discuss it further, you're welcome to text me and I'll be glad to go into more details.
This is one of those times where I thought I was trying to be informative and explain something that people may be interested in and it seems like its just getting taken the wrong way.
Bc I am in no way defending Gaspari on anything bc I can promise everyone reading I have reasons to dislike them that go well beyond anyone else on here's reasons for disliking them.
I simply use their HBCD product bc it tastes good, I got it on sale, and its real HBCD. I had tried a brand previously that wound up not being all HBCD like it claimed, and then another brand that is well liked here by some people and it had gluten in it - which is super f'd up because its labeled as gluten free and there's no reason gluten should ever even be in an HBCD product to begin with. I dislike Gaspari myself - but not nearly as much as the company that put me in the hospital by putting gluten in an HBCD product that they specifically labeled as gluten free.
