djbombsquad
Board Sponsor

Is DL-185 a Scam? - TLDR
Is DL-185 a Scam? Nutrition Scam is a non-profit website that reviews and gives opinions on branded ingredients for scientific validity and safety.

They claim it’s a scam. Thoughts?
I’ve really been looking forward to this one. I’ve wanted to try it for a while, but could not justify the price of the products out there today. I bet Steve helps us out in that area.![]()
Is DL-185 a Scam? - TLDR
Is DL-185 a Scam? Nutrition Scam is a non-profit website that reviews and gives opinions on branded ingredients for scientific validity and safety.nutritionscam.com
They claim it’s a scam. Thoughts?
![]()
Is DL-185 a Scam? - TLDR
Is DL-185 a Scam? Nutrition Scam is a non-profit website that reviews and gives opinions on branded ingredients for scientific validity and safety.nutritionscam.com
They claim it’s a scam. Thoughts?
There’s been Leucine alternatives before. I remember specifically something called leukic or something like that from muscle tech, yeah it turned out to be hype. I think I read this do 185 is made by a parent company of muscle tech, same people. With that said I also realize science has come a long way in 15 years, so I’m interested but very skeptical. Not trying to be a bad guy, just trying to save you a few bucks and heartache.I’ve really been looking forward to this one. I’ve wanted to try it for a while, but could not justify the price of the products out there today. I bet Steve helps us out in that area.
There’s been Leucine alternatives before. I remember specifically something called leukic or something like that from muscle tech, yeah it turned out to be hype. I think I read this do 185 is made by a parent company of muscle tech, same people. With that said I also realize science has come a long way in 15 years, so I’m interested but very skeptical. Not trying to be a bad guy, just trying to save you a few bucks and heartache.
Google “DL-185, also known as Dileucine, was created by researchers at MuscleTech, who developed a patented dipeptide structure consisting of two leucine molecules bonded together, making it a unique form of leucine often used in muscle building supplements; essentially, the "DL" stands for "di-leucine" and "185" is likely a reference to the specific chemical structure of the compound.“ it’s saying they literally developed the patented dipeptide structureNNB is not a parent company for Muscletech. They are just one of the first to get to use the ingredient.
I also realize that reply sounded mean, didnt mean to, so NNB might not be the parent company but something still feels weird about it, muscletech hasn’t made a legitimate formulation since spiking their protein with pro hormones lolNNB is not a parent company for Muscletech. They are just one of the first to get to use the ingredient.
Bro you know what’s a scam? Your obsession with protein factory.
Of course your doctor friend (who owns the company) thinks his stuff is better.
I bet protein factory would get a scam rating from the site you posted.
I honestly don’t care enough to even highlight the things that don’t make sense in your post, but this reeks of your usual bias and feels slightly targeted again
It’s fine if I was wrong, but you can check NNB Nutritions site. I don’t have time to go through all the studies, but didn’t see MT specifically with this ingredient like some they’ve done in the past. Just looked more like they were first to license it from NNB again like that caffeine analogue and something else they did recently (I honestly don’t follow close enough to remember).I also realize that reply sounded mean, didnt mean to, so NNB might not be the parent company but something still feels weird about it, muscletech hasn’t made a legitimate formulation since spiking their protein with pro hormones lol
There’s been Leucine alternatives before. I remember specifically something called leukic or something like that from muscle tech, yeah it turned out to be hype. I think I read this do 185 is made by a parent company of muscle tech, same people. With that said I also realize science has come a long way in 15 years, so I’m interested but very skeptical. Not trying to be a bad guy, just trying to save you a few bucks and heartache.
Google “DL-185, also known as Dileucine, was created by researchers at MuscleTech, who developed a patented dipeptide structure consisting of two leucine molecules bonded together, making it a unique form of leucine often used in muscle building supplements; essentially, the "DL" stands for "di-leucine" and "185" is likely a reference to the specific chemical structure of the compound.“ it’s saying they literally developed the patented dipeptide structure
I also realize that reply sounded mean, didnt mean to, so NNB might not be the parent company but something still feels weird about it, muscletech hasn’t made a legitimate formulation since spiking their protein with pro hormones lol
Of course, my friend (who happens to be a doctor) has his own opinion, but that doesnt mean he owns the company. Youre reaching hard trying to discredit Protein Factory like that.
My friend is not the owner of Protein Factory I just happen to use their protein as one of my sources. I asked my friend Pascal for his opinion on Protein Factories leucine peptides compared to MuscleTech DL-leucine. I like branded ingredients that actually work, and while some do, I lost respect for MuscleTech a long time ago.
![]()
Is DL-185 a Scam? - TLDR
Is DL-185 a Scam? Nutrition Scam is a non-profit website that reviews and gives opinions on branded ingredients for scientific validity and safety.nutritionscam.com
They claim it’s a scam. Thoughts?
Their entire website consists of bashing ingredients and saying that certain things are scams.
They literally state on their that its an opinion website:
View attachment 249114
^^^ so basically their stance is they have an opinion based website and try to say that "The author of this website cannot in any way whatsoever be responsible for the use of information contained on it".
They literally have a section on there that tells people to never buy from Nootropics Depot, Muscletech, Jym, Six Star, Cutler, and more.
So gee, does it come as a big surprise that an ingredient that Muscletech was the first to market is one that they could claim is a scam?
I appreciate the discussion, but lets keep things constructive. Im not here to push any specific company I talk about ingredients and formulations based on what I believe is effective. If Protein Factory comes up in conversation, its because they offer some unique formulations, just like many other companies in the industry.
Regarding DL-185, no one is denying that it has human clinical studies. The real question is whether it delivers significant advantages over alternatives like leucine peptides, which have their own established benefits. Healthy skepticism about new ingredients isn’t †misinformation as part of evaluating whether they truly stand out beyond the marketing.
As for the claim that I misquoted or edited your post, I have no intention of misrepresenting anyones words. If there was any misunderstanding, Im happy to clear it up. I respect the contributions of knowledgeable members like @Resolve10 and others, but calling out potential bias or conflicts of interest is a fair part of any discussion.
At the end of the day, I am here to talk science and formulations, not get caught up in personal disputes. Lets focus on the ingredients and their merits rather than turning this into something personal
I appreciate the discussion, but lets keep things constructive. Im not here to push any specific company I talk about ingredients and formulations based on what I believe is effective. If Protein Factory comes up in conversation, its because they offer some unique formulations, just like many other companies in the industry.
Regarding DL-185, no one is denying that it has human clinical studies. The real question is whether it delivers significant advantages over alternatives like leucine peptides, which have their own established benefits. Healthy skepticism about new ingredients isn’t †misinformation as part of evaluating whether they truly stand out beyond the marketing.
As for the claim that I misquoted or edited your post, I have no intention of misrepresenting anyones words. If there was any misunderstanding, Im happy to clear it up. I respect the contributions of knowledgeable members like @Resolve10 and others, but calling out potential bias or conflicts of interest is a fair part of any discussion.
At the end of the day, I am here to talk science and formulations, not get caught up in personal disputes. Lets focus on the ingredients and their merits rather than turning this into something personal
I see where you’re coming from, but let’s be clear—I didn’t start a thread just to bash an ingredient. The point was to have a discussion about the science behind it, and I gave my opinion based on what I believe is most effective. If you’re so focused on defending a single ingredient or brand, it’s easy to dismiss anything critical as ‘bashing.’
As for the source, opinions and biases are a part of every website, but I’m not saying that everything with clinical studies is a scam. I just think that sometimes those studies are misinterpreted or used to market something that’s not as revolutionary as it’s made out to be. Each of those examples you gave seems to ignore that the issue isn’t about whether studies exist, but whether the actual benefit for the consumer outweighs the marketing.
Bioperine’s absorption effects are widely recognized, sure, but that doesn’t make every product using it the best solution. Velositol’s studies are valid in their context, but claiming it’s a one-size-fits-all solution for protein absorption is where I think the disconnect happens. And with KSM-66, sure, standardized Ashwagandha might be more reliable, but the idea of promoting the ‘generic’ version or dismissing an ingredient as a scam because it doesn’t meet every possible condition isn’t a clear-cut issue.
I think a healthy dose of skepticism about ingredients—especially when it comes to how they’re marketed—is always warranted. It’s not about throwing shade on specific brands or ingredients, but about trying to look at the bigger picture of whether they truly benefit us as consumers.
I also realize that reply sounded mean, didnt mean to, so NNB might not be the parent company but something still feels weird about it, muscletech hasn’t made a legitimate formulation since spiking their protein with pro hormones lol
Sorry to reply again just bumping because I realized Steve addressed this above.
I just want to make it clear I am not necessarily defending the ingredient or MT. Too lazy to go quote or link the old thread (which hey surprise has some of the same faces), but I was skeptical in that thread about the ingredient and there are lots of reasons for various similar products. That said if it was cheap enough or in the right formula I might give it a shot as I am a sucker for these kinds of ingredients even though I am pretty critical (maybe that is why I am so critical).
MT does this all the time though, I pretty much don't buy their products, but they constantly are pumping out newer ingredients like this first (they have the money to buy initial exclusivity) and there are plenty of things that they've used that are popular ingredients (like Phosphatidic Acid just off the top of my head), just they usually cost twice as much as when they are available from other brands later. Just find the MT straight hate weird when we have literal board sponsors that drop slop all the time that if they released the literal same thing we'd have people on here losing their minds
I have a strong dislike for muscletech because of that exact reason. Any company that price gouges like that, is taking advantage of newer customers, which in my mind, is the same thing as a scam. So I simply can’t stand behind them.Sorry to reply again just bumping because I realized Steve addressed this above.
I just want to make it clear I am not necessarily defending the ingredient or MT. Too lazy to go quote or link the old thread (which hey surprise has some of the same faces), but I was skeptical in that thread about the ingredient and there are lots of reasons for various similar products. That said if it was cheap enough or in the right formula I might give it a shot as I am a sucker for these kinds of ingredients even though I am pretty critical (maybe that is why I am so critical).
MT does this all the time though, I pretty much don't buy their products, but they constantly are pumping out newer ingredients like this first (they have the money to buy initial exclusivity) and there are plenty of things that they've used that are popular ingredients (like Phosphatidic Acid just off the top of my head), just they usually cost twice as much as when they are available from other brands later. Just find the MT straight hate weird when we have literal board sponsors that drop slop all the time that if they released the literal same thing we'd have people on here losing their minds over.![]()
This study presents intriguing evidence that dileucine is more effective than free leucine in stimulating muscle protein synthesis (MPS).![]()
Dileucine ingestion is more effective than leucine in stimulating muscle protein turnover in young males: a double blind randomized controlled trial - PubMed
Leucine is regarded as an anabolic trigger for the mTORC1 pathway and the stimulation muscle protein synthesis rates. More recently, there has been an interest in underpinning the relevance of branched-chain amino acid (BCAA)-containing dipeptides and their intact absorption into circulation to...pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I have a strong dislike for muscletech because of that exact reason. Any company that price gouges like that, is taking advantage of newer customers, which in my mind, is the same thing as a scam. So I simply can’t stand behind them.
My biggest problem is they only used 2g of leucine, which isn’t the amount studied for maximal protein synthesis, I think it’s like 3 or 3.5. So to me this is like comparing 2 grams of protein to 2 grams of leucine and saying how much better the leucine is, well of course it did better because you didn’t have enough protein. I feel like until the test is done with a full dose of leucine, it doesn’t prove much.This study presents intriguing evidence that dileucine is more effective than free leucine in stimulating muscle protein synthesis (MPS).
1. Small Sample Size
The study involved only 10 participants, making it difficult to generalize the results. Larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm the reliability of these findings.
2. Short-Term Effects Only
The study measured acute (180 minutes) MPS rates. While this provides insight into immediate protein metabolism, it does not necessarily translate to long-term muscle growth. A study analyzing chronic supplementation over weeks or months would be more informative.
A small, short-term study with only 10 participants doesnt provide enough data to justify switching to dileucine over what’s out already.
Would love to see:
1. Larger, long-term studies
2. Direct comparisons with leucine peptides and other BCAA sources
I’m hopeful though
That does make sense, to be fair though when you google it, it does come up saying that muscletech researchers created it, so I believed it too.And there's nothing wrong with having that opinion towards Muscletech; that's your and a lot of people's opinion. I don't like it either.
And that's where its important to distinguish between products and ingredients - because Muscletech's product is Peptide-185, which yes, I agree is overpriced.
But they have nothing to do with the ingredient, DL-185, which is owned by different people.
Muscletech overcharging for products is a completely separate topic than whether an ingredient works.
For example:
If you came up with a branded ingredient, 3Chained Aminos Super Special Aminos, if you spent a couple hundred k in clinical studies and had the chance to recoup that by giving Muscletech a years exclusive, common sense would dictate that you should do that - you'd get your money back faster and they'd do a great job letting people know about your Super Special Aminos.
Now of course in this example, this wouldn't mean that bc you licensed it to Muscletech that it would make your ingredient work or not work; that's a completely separate subject and the whole reason you did the first clinical is that you thought it would, and you wouldn't have paid for more clinicals if it didn't.
I hope that makes sense.
This whole thing is exactly my point of how when he posted this thread, he knew what he was doing - he posted a source saying it was Muscletech's ingredient when it isn't, knowing that it would get people thinking negatively of it bc a lot of people on here don't like Muscletech. If he had wanted honest discussion, he would have posted the ingredient studies &/or the Price Plow articles that went into detail and provided factual information on the ingredient itself.
That does make sense, to be fair though when you google it, it does come up saying that muscletech researchers created it, so I believed it too.
My biggest problem is they only used 2g of leucine, which isn’t the amount studied for maximal protein synthesis, I think it’s like 3 or 3.5. So to me this is like comparing 2 grams of protein to 2 grams of leucine and saying how much better the leucine is, well of course it did better because you didn’t have enough protein. I feel like until the test is done with a full dose of leucine, it doesn’t prove much.
This study presents intriguing evidence that dileucine is more effective than free leucine in stimulating muscle protein synthesis (MPS).
1. Small Sample Size
The study involved only 10 participants, making it difficult to generalize the results. Larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm the reliability of these findings.
2. Short-Term Effects Only
The study measured acute (180 minutes) MPS rates. While this provides insight into immediate protein metabolism, it does not necessarily translate to long-term muscle growth. A study analyzing chronic supplementation over weeks or months would be more informative.
A small, short-term study with only 10 participants doesnt provide enough data to justify switching to dileucine over what’s out already.
Would love to see:
1. Larger, long-term studies
2. Direct comparisons with leucine peptides and other BCAA sources
I’m hopeful though
Blr no longer has reps here including meThe guy that posted this thread is a rep for another company and he does stuff like this often.
I normally let it go and overlook it, but last week he quoted a post of mine and edited it to try to make it look like I said something that I didn't say.
The whole reason he posted this yesterday was because it was the night before, Stack3d had announced that we may be using this ingredient under CEL. So he comes on and posts information that he knows is false.
I’m looking at the study that was posted here . I will look at the other ones now and seeMan, you have some serious honesty issues.
I'm really not trying to give you a hard time, but you keep posting stuff that isn't true and half-truths.
Again, let's break down your post part by part - what you said is in red and italics:
1. Small Sample Size
The study involved only 10 participants, making it difficult to generalize the results. Larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm the reliability of these findings.
The first study was done on 10 participants, because almost every first human study is done on a small number of participants and then if the results are positive, then more are used in subsequent ones.
You conveniently left out that their was another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that on 34 resistance-trained males for 10 weeks!
-------------------------------
2. Short-Term Effects Only
The study measured acute (180 minutes) MPS rates. While this provides insight into immediate protein metabolism, it does not necessarily translate to long-term muscle growth. A study analyzing chronic supplementation over weeks or months would be more informative.
When you're measuring MPS rates for acute spikes, spikes after ingestion, 120 minutes is a common measure - measuring at 180 minutes is even more impressive.
That is completely different than the analyzed results and data comparison over days, weeks, or months.
You analyze the acute spikes as the comparison versus controls (in this case leucine and placebo) and then you measure a person's results at the end of the study period.
------------------------------
A small, short-term study with only 10 participants doesnt provide enough data to justify switching to dileucine over what’s out already.
Would love to see:
1. Larger, long-term studies
2. Direct comparisons with leucine peptides and other BCAA sources
You mean like the one you intentionally left out that was a 10 week double-blind, placebo-controlled study on 34 resistance-trained males?
Man, you have some serious honesty issues.
I'm really not trying to give you a hard time, but you keep posting stuff that isn't true and half-truths.
Again, let's break down your post part by part - what you said is in red and italics:
1. Small Sample Size
The study involved only 10 participants, making it difficult to generalize the results. Larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm the reliability of these findings.
The first study was done on 10 participants, because almost every first human study is done on a small number of participants and then if the results are positive, then more are used in subsequent ones.
You conveniently left out that their was another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that on 34 resistance-trained males for 10 weeks!
-------------------------------
2. Short-Term Effects Only
The study measured acute (180 minutes) MPS rates. While this provides insight into immediate protein metabolism, it does not necessarily translate to long-term muscle growth. A study analyzing chronic supplementation over weeks or months would be more informative.
When you're measuring MPS rates for acute spikes, spikes after ingestion, 120 minutes is a common measure - measuring at 180 minutes is even more impressive.
That is completely different than the analyzed results and data comparison over days, weeks, or months.
You analyze the acute spikes as the comparison versus controls (in this case leucine and placebo) and then you measure a person's results at the end of the study period.
------------------------------
A small, short-term study with only 10 participants doesnt provide enough data to justify switching to dileucine over what’s out already.
Would love to see:
1. Larger, long-term studies
2. Direct comparisons with leucine peptides and other BCAA sources
You mean like the one you intentionally left out that was a 10 week double-blind, placebo-controlled study on 34 resistance-trained males?
There have been studies showing it to be 2 and others showing that it is 3.
I would suggest reading the Price Plow articles on it because they go into great detail.
There's no study that's going to please everyone - but heck, at least they've done human studies.
I appreciate that there are human studies on it, but the real question is whether dileucine provides a significant, real-world advantage over existing leucine-based options, especially leucine peptides at 50% leucine. Faster absorption alone doesn’t necessarily translate to superior muscle growth or recovery. Plus, the total body of research is still limited compared to well-established alternatives. PricePlow does a good job breaking things down, but they also have industry ties, so it’s worth considering multiple sources. Have you seen any studies directly comparing dileucine to leucine peptides in trained individuals?
This study suggests that dileucine may enhance lower body strength and endurance more than leucine alone, but it has limitations. The study does not compare dileucine to leucine peptides, which offer a sustained release of leucine along with other dipeptides that may further support muscle protein synthesis. Additionally, while the results show a benefit in leg press strength and endurance, there were no significant differences in upper body strength, anaerobic capacity, or muscle mass. This raises questions about whether the effects are specific to lower body performance or if other factors contributed.Dileucine ingestion, but not leucine, increases lower body strength and performance following resistance training: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial
Abstract
Background
The essential amino acid leucine (LEU) plays a crucial role in promoting resistance-training adaptations. Dileucine (DILEU), a LEU-LEU dipeptide, increases MPS rates, however its impact on resistance training outcomes remains unexplored. This study assessed the effects of DILEU supplementation on resistance training adaptations.
Methods
Using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled approach, 34 resistance-trained males (age: 28.3 ± 5.9 years) consumed 2 grams of either DILEU monohydrate (RAMPS™, Ingenious Ingredients, L.P.), LEU, or placebo (PLA) while following a 4-day per week resistance training program for 10 weeks. Changes in body composition, 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and repetitions to failure (RTF) for leg press (LP) and bench press (BP), anaerobic capacity, countermovement jump (CMJ), and maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) were assessed after 0 and 10 weeks.
Results
Significant main effects for time (p < 0.001) were realized for LP and BP 1RM and RTF. A significant group × time interaction was identified for changes in LP 1RM (p = 0.02) and LP RTF (p = 0.03). Greater increases in LP 1RM were observed in DILEU compared to PLA (p = 0.02; 95% CI: 5.8, 73.2 kg), and greater increases in LP RTF in DILEU compared to LEU (p = 0.04; 95% CI: 0.58, 20.3 reps). No significant differences were found in other measures.
Conclusions
DILEU supplementation at 2 grams daily enhanced lower body strength and muscular endurance in resistance-trained males more effectively than LEU or PLA. These findings suggest DILEU as a potentially effective supplement for improving adaptations to resistance training.
Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11687731/
If you’re referring to a study with 34 participants, that’s still a relatively small sample size, especially for something as complex as muscle protein synthesis and performance outcomes. A larger, more diverse group over a longer period would provide stronger, more generalizable results.
Also, context matters—was it comparing the ingredient to an equivalent dose of leucine peptides or just free leucine? If it wasn’t tested against the most relevant alternative (like leucine peptides at 50% leucine), then claiming superiority is premature.
Got a link to the full study there site does not let me see it.
My biggest problem is they only used 2g of leucine, which isn’t the amount studied for maximal protein synthesis, I think it’s like 3 or 3.5. So to me this is like comparing 2 grams of protein to 2 grams of leucine and saying how much better the leucine is, well of course it did better because you didn’t have enough protein. I feel like until the test is done with a full dose of leucine, it doesn’t prove much.
This study suggests that dileucine may enhance lower body strength and endurance more than leucine alone, but it has limitations. The study does not compare dileucine to leucine peptides, which offer a sustained release of leucine along with other dipeptides that may further support muscle protein synthesis. Additionally, while the results show a benefit in leg press strength and endurance, there were no significant differences in upper body strength, anaerobic capacity, or muscle mass. This raises questions about whether the effects are specific to lower body performance or if other factors contributed.
Furthermore, 2 grams of leucine (or dileucine) is below the threshold for maximally stimulating muscle protein synthesis (typically 3-4 grams), and without the presence of all essential amino acids, the full benefits of protein synthesis cannot be realized. Leucine alone even in dipeptide form is not enough to sustain muscle growth without the other necessary amino acids for nitrogen balance.
A more relevant comparison would be between dileucine and a well-formulated EAA or leucine peptide blend that provides a broader spectrum of anabolic support.
Again you beat me to it. Like come on, none of this is in good faith at all. I am still waiting for all those peptide and salmon protein studies already.Where are the human clinicals on the bs garbage that you promote that doesn't even have the supplement facts listed on their website?
I am also leaning towards many of these responses being AI (or cut and pasted from elsewhere).Dude, you win. I give up. You either don't understand wtf you're reading or you're just going to continue to try to pimp your bs.
Be careful and think hard bc I might start critiquing some studies myself that you and companies you're associated with have presented in the past in certain ways that were absolutely out of context.
This study presents intriguing evidence that dileucine is more effective than free leucine in stimulating muscle protein synthesis (MPS).
1. Small Sample Size
The study involved only 10 participants, making it difficult to generalize the results. Larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm the reliability of these findings.
2. Short-Term Effects Only
The study measured acute (180 minutes) MPS rates. While this provides insight into immediate protein metabolism, it does not necessarily translate to long-term muscle growth. A study analyzing chronic supplementation over weeks or months would be more informative.
A small, short-term study with only 10 participants doesnt provide enough data to justify switching to dileucine over what’s out already.
Would love to see:
1. Larger, long-term studies
2. Direct comparisons with leucine peptides and other BCAA sources
I’m hopeful though