Dl leucine

djbombsquad

Board Sponsor


They claim it’s a scam. Thoughts?
 


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.
 
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.
 
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.

NNB is not a parent company for Muscletech. They are just one of the first to get to use the ingredient.
 
NNB is not a parent company for Muscletech. They are just one of the first to get to use the ingredient.
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
 
NNB 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 lol
 
currently used by MuscleTech Peptide 185 is a scam. Its study is conflicted and incorrectly designed. We believe the study actually shows that DL-185 is worse than normal leucine.

DL-185 is just two leucine molecules bonded together; that's it. The creators claim the Dileucine DL-185 is faster and more completely absorbed because the leucine is bonded together.
 
From my doctor friend

Both are forms of leucine, but leucine peptides (like the ones from ProteinFactory) are likely more anabolic than free-form leucine (as in Muscletech’s formulated DL-185) due to faster absorption and better utilization.

Breakdown:
• Leucine Peptides (ProteinFactory)
• Peptide-bonded leucine absorbs faster than free-form leucine.
• Peptides may have better bioavailability, leading to greater mTOR activation.
• Peptides can provide a more sustained release, preventing rapid oxidation.
• DL-185 (Muscletech)
• Uses free-form leucine and leucine salts, which still activate mTOR.
• Might have higher peak blood levels, but free-form amino acids are more prone to oxidation.
• The additional compounds in DL-185 may enhance absorption, but peptides still tend to outperform free-form leucine in protein synthesis.

Verdict:

Leucine peptides (ProteinFactory) win in terms of anabolic potential, as peptide-bonded aminos tend to be better absorbed and utilized than free-form leucine alone. If your goal is maximizing muscle protein synthesis (MPS) and mTOR activation, leucine peptides are the superior choice.
 
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


Bro, you know what s actually a scam? Your obsession with hating on Protein Factory jk.

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.
 
Last edited:
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
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).
 

Read through that and ended up with the conclusion PF is the scam.
 
My first thought in reading this thread - is wow, this type of lying nonsense is why a lot of people stopped posting here.
 
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

DL-185 is a patented ingredient from Ingenious Ingredients, which is owned by Shawn Wells, Kylin Liao, and partners. It's an ingredient that has multiple real human clinical studies on it.

Muscletech was the first company that launched the ingredient and had an exclusive on it for a period of time.

Why did they let Muscletech have an exclusive for a certain period?
I can't speak for them, but the obvious reasons are that they spent a lot of money by having real human clinical studies done on the ingredient - therefore, by giving someone like Muscletech a licensing exclusive, it helps recoup a lot of that money and Muscletech is also very good at getting ingredient information seen because there are a lot of eyes on them.


NNB is one of, if not the fastest growing branded ingredient company in the world - MitoBurn, GlucoVantage, CaloriBurn GP, RhodioPrime, and more.

Why did Ingenious Ingredients choose NNB Nutrition to distribute DL-185?
Because Kylin Liao, one of the owners of Ingenious Ingredients is the owner of NNB.

In regards to the comment about Muscletech not making a decent formula since whenever - their Peptide 185 product is not a formula, it is a single ingredient offering of an interesting ingredient that has real human clinical studies done on it.

Yes, Muscletech products like this are expensive, but any dislike someone has towards Muscletech doesn't change the fact that the ingredient has nothing to do with them except that they were the first to offer it.
 
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.

You promote Protein Factory more on here than you promote the company that you actually rep for.

I don't care one way or the other about Protein Factory, but your lying and intentionally spreading misinformation on here is getting out of control - trying to pass off sarm's and research chemicals as supplements, quoting and editing a post of mine in a creatine thread and changing the wording in my quote to make it appear that I said something I didn't etc.

I used to try to just overlook it - but not after you quoting and editing my post to try to make it look like something it didn't say. That's one of the shadiest things I've experienced in 20 years of posting here, and that's really saying something.

You want to accuse @Resolve10 , who is one of the smartest science minded posters here on this forum of trying to discredit Protein Factory - when you're the one that started this thread posting false information and trying to discredit an ingredient that has real human clinical studies on it to promote Protein Factory's ingredient, which is just basic leucine peptides.

Here are facts:
  • Muscletech doesn't own branded ingredients, they sell supplements.
  • Muscletech is a massive company so sometimes they make deals to be the first company to introduce ingredients and have exclusives on them; that's smart business, but has nothing to do with the ingredients.
  • DL-185, Dileucine Peptide, has multiple HUMAN clinical studies on it.

If you don't want to buy an ingredient, cool, but don't intentionally spread misinformation about it.
 

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 there that its an opinion website:

Nutrition Scam screen shot.webp


^^^ 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?
 
Last edited:
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
 
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?

Telling ppl not to buy ND should be a red flag....
 
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

You're the one that posted a thread claiming something was a scam.

You didn't post a thread asking for discussion on something, you posted a thread to bash on an ingredient and promote Protein Factory.

Your source was an opinion website that openly displays their dislike of Muscletech and that claims that a lot of ingredients that have multiple clinical studies are 'scams'. The author may disagree with the way certain studies were done, or wish that certain ones had more studies, but that doesn't make them a scam.

Example 1:
They call Bioperine a scam because they say it only has clinical studies on it for certain ingredients; intentionally ignoring that Bioperine is high % Piperine and Piperine has studies on many more things, and also ignoring that once a method of action is established, that method of action qualifies to other things that their absorption is negatively impacted by the same action.

Example 2:
They call Velositol a scam because the studies were done on it increasing the absorption of 6 grams of protein. Velositol is primarily marketed for inclusion in protein bars and food, so of course the study performed on it targeted the dosage range associated with what it was marketed towards. But they call it a scam because they didn't do the study on 25+ grams. But if they'd done the studies on 25+ grams, then it wouldn't be applicable to the demographic to which their ingredient is marketed.

Example 3:
They say that KSM-66 isn't a scam only bc they funded studies but they encourage people to try generic Ashwagandha instead - uh, Ashwagandha doesn't have the same composition as standardized Ashwagandha and the Indian government themselves even issued a health advisory against generic Ashwagandha bc oftentimes in order to drive down costs, the wrong parts of the plant are used.
 
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.
 
Dude it's obvious what you are doing. Starting threads to bash one company while promoting another.

I don't care how many paragraphs you write in defense. It's obvious what your intent is here.

Didn't we have an ignore button in the past?

EDIT: Found it. Problem solved.
 
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

If you want discussion, post a thread asking for a discussion - not a thread claiming that something is a scam with your supporting information being an opinion website that bashes companies and ingredients.

Here are the facts:
  • You posted a thread and used a website as your reference source that openly acknowledges its an author opinion site and that hates Muscletech so much that they have a section dedicated to telling people not to buy from them.
  • That website's piece on DL-185 represents it as being from Muscletech - which is false; they were just the first company to market it.
  • Therefore, you presented it as being from Muscletech rather than having done any research on your own about the ingredient to know that it wasn't or to intentionally mislead people into thinking it was.
  • DL-185 is from Ingenious Ingredients - Shawn Wells, Kylin Liao, Ralf Jager, and Martin Purpura.
  • If you follow the science side of this industry at all, then you know that accusing them of lying is a serious accusation. Mr. Wells and Mr. Liao both have hugely successful ventures and the last thing they need to do is lie about ingredients or studies.
Your statement:
As for the claim that I misquoted or edited your post, I have no intention of misrepresenting anyones words.

Claim? You want to insinuate I'm lying?
Here's the damn link - https://anabolicminds.com/community/threads/best-creatine.339087/#post-6843688

And here's the screen shots:

My actual post:

My actual post screenshot.webp


What you edited my post to say when you quoted it:

Djbombsquad screenshot.webp
 
I realize I might have clipped the post earlier, and I apologize if it came across wrong. Typing on my phone isnt the easiest, and I may not have phrased things as clearly as I intended. Thanks for understanding
 
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.

Let's break this down. What you said is in bold and italics.

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

You didn't post a thread asking for discussion.

Your very first post was accusing DL-185 of being a scam and your source was a link to an opinion site that acknowledges on their own site that its an opinion site and has a section devoted to saying negative things about Muscletech and in the DL-185 piece, they identified DL-185 as being from Muscletech - even though they were just the first to offer the ingredient.

Then you rolled with that as saying it was Muscletech's ingredient, so you either didn't do any research on your own to realize that it wasn't or you did, and you were intentionally trying to mislead people here bc many have a negative perception of Muscletech bc they are a big marketing brand.

The point was to have a discussion about the science behind it

Really? Then why did you post an opinion piece bashing it?
Why didn't you post the scientific studies on them?
If you didn't feel like going through them and summarizing them, Price Plow did a nice breakdown on it:
Link 1 - https://blog.priceplow.com/supplement-news/muscletech-peptide-185
Link 2 - https://blog.priceplow.com/supplement-research/dl185-dileucine-anti-aging

I gave my opinion based on what I believe is most effective.
You said that you wanted to discuss the science, correct?
Because everything that you posted was opinion - an article from an opinion site and your opinion.

See, nothing wrong with giving your opinion - but you don't have bash other companies products or ingredients to do it.

If you’re so focused on defending a single ingredient or brand, it’s easy to dismiss anything critical as ‘bashing.’
Anyone with eyes can see that the way you went about this was bashing and a lead in to you promoting the Protein Factory product.

Muscletech doesn't care about your opinion and certainly doesn't need me to defend them.
Shawn Wells and Kylin are very successful and don't need me defending them.

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.

Absolutely, sometimes things are misinterpreted and sometimes marketing companies do what? - market ingredients and products.

Let's say that Ingenious did the first round of human clinical studies and it didn't show the results that they expected - do you think they would do more? Of course not. Because one HUMAN clinical study is more than a lot of ingredients have to begin with. So they would have stopped there. You don't keep sinking money into studies if the studies aren't showing results.

The fact is, the study results were impressive and that's why they did more.

It's not their fault how Muscletech or anyone else chooses to market something. You didn't make a thread about Muscletech's marketing practices did you? You made the thread calling an ingredient with multiple human clinical studies a scam.

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.
WTF are you talking about?

In my examples, I explained exactly why the context matters to the consumer.

The consumer demographic that Velositol is primarily marketed to is food and protein bars - so the studies showing that it increases protein absorption is very relevant to that - and it being shown in the studies to work at 6 grams is very relevant to those consumers bc that's a more typical amount in a snack bar or protein bar.

The example I gave on Bioperine was perfectly relevant - Bioperine is high % Piperine and therefore the studies on Piperine would also apply to Bioperine. The studies that were done on certain ingredients were meant to show that it could help increase the absorption of certain ones AND to also scientifically validate the way that it works to increase absorption. Therefore, other ingredients that have issues with poor absorption because of the same factors, there would be validity that it would help those as well.

Bioperine’s absorption effects are widely recognized, sure, but that doesn’t make every product using it the best solution.
Did I say that it was? No, I didn't. I explained it crystal clear.

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.
Did I say it was? No.
Did the owners of the patents say it was? No.

I pointed out how that site called it a scam because the studies were done on 6 grams - and I explained very clearly that they were done on a lower dose because that is the dose that is most relevant to their target demographic. If they had done the study on 50 grams, that wouldn't have anything to do with 6 grams and no one would know if it would work on 6 grams or not.

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.

Here you go again with trying to make it out like I said something that I didn't.

There is no question as to if KSM-66 works better than regular Ashwagandha; there are over 2 dozen clinical studies on it. Those studies do not translate to generic Ashwagandha because the standardization isn't the same. With generics, you don't know how its extracted, to what standardization, and if there is any consistency to the standardizations. That's not opinion, that's science, and that's not debatable.

Did I say anything about - dismissing an ingredient as a scam because it doesn’t meet every possible condition isn’t a clear-cut issue.

Did I say that generic was a scam? No, I didn't.
Did I say that KSM-66 was better? Yes, because 24+ clinical studies say so.

And I also mentioned how the Indian government, who profits from Ashwagandha exports, was even so concerned with the parts of the plant being used in generics that they issued a warning against generic Ashwagandha.

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.

It's not about throwing shade?

Says the guy who posted a link to an opinion site that tries to get people not to buy from certain brands, some of which are very well liked and trusted, and used that as his source for this while thread.

About trying to look at the bigger picture of whether they truly benefit us as consumers?
Says the guy bashing an ingredient that the patent holders have already funded multiple HUMAN clinical studies in.


I've wasted way too much time out of my work day dealing with you and this nonsense. I was always nice to you and tried to help you in any way that I could, and I overlooked a lot of the misinformation you'd post until last week when you came into a thread about SNS supplements in the supplement section and tried to promote sarm's and research chemicals and then quoted a post of mine and edited it to make it look like I said something that I didn't say. All the while being a rep for another company that is supposed to have it clearly listed in his sig but doesn't.
 
Unsubbing.

I was going to write something, but honestly I should have just ignored this like I've been doing with most of the stupid people who post crap on here a lot. It sometimes is tough to tell if people are posting in bad faith or just honestly that dumb, but honestly don't know if it even matters.
 
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 over. :rolleyes:
 
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
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. :rolleyes:
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.
 
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
 
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.

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.
 
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
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.
 
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.
 
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.

The 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.
 
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.

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.
 
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

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?
 

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/
 
The 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.
Blr no longer has reps here including me
 
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?
I’m looking at the study that was posted here . I will look at the other ones now and see
 
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?


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.
 
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?
 
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?

Where are the human clinicals on the bs garbage that you promote that doesn't even have the supplement facts listed on their website?
 

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/
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.
 
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.

I don't think anyone besides you considers regular Leucine Peptides as a better alternative than Leucine.

A 10 week randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study on 34 resistance trained males isn't large enoug and diverse enough for you?

Uh, this is mind-numbing - we are having this conversation on a forum that is 99% made up of resistance trained males - and you're arguing that an ingredient that is being sold to resistance trained males needs more generalized results?

Dang, and here I thought that resistance trained males would appreciate and prefer something that had clinical studies on resistance trained males - versus how some studies will pull non-resistance trained individuals off the couch in order to show better improvements.

See, if you wanted a real discussion on science, we could easily have one - but you started this whole thread off with that bs opinion piece link and followed it up trying to promote protein factory.
 
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.

Ya, again there are kind of like two separate threads going on in here, but that is basically what I concluded when this was brought up previously.

The thing to keep in mind, and again I am not being critical of your viewpoint (especially since it echos my own), is the entire context of some of this when lobbying critiques. In isolation I fully agree. When zooming out though I think it is important to ask what else could they even do in this situation? Most people don't understand research, let alone the process that goes into it on all levels. Steve already pretty much beat me to the punch, but the first study linked in this thread is basically ancient. Of course you would start with a tiny sample size, to prove viability. Then you expand. While consumers and users of course would want all these end point style studies, you have to work your way there (unless you have unlimited funding, which then everyone will complain about, where did it come from, you are now biased, not even getting into government funding and all the people who would just conspiracize about that when they lack basic understanding of even fundamentals of science, etc.). So then you compare like doses to show that at similar dosage this is "better" than what it is compared to. Once we have that then you can keep moving to more "interesting" or "compelling" research. But consumers are also lazy and want it now! So instead of waiting for DL-185 (in this theoretical) to keep making its way to that end point (and who knows if you can even keep funding to keep going that far!) it gets marketed already and sold. It almost feels like a lose-lose. You either try to release these things to public like this and get some hype, money, and momentum to push on, or you don't and you probably don't get the kind of studies end users like us would want anyways.

Hope that makes sense. I am not saying I am entirely correct either and I don't want to seem like I am just blindly propping up these things and saying we shouldn't be critical. I just felt I should respond because you seem to be doing all this in good faith and I also don't disagree (I just like to play contrarian a lot too).
 
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.

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.
 
Where are the human clinicals on the bs garbage that you promote that doesn't even have the supplement facts listed on their website?
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.
 
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.
I am also leaning towards many of these responses being AI (or cut and pasted from elsewhere).

Again I am unsubbing I just caught these since I wanted to respond to 3 chains again.
 
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

I don't really think a long term study would really be of benefit here, considering the benefit of leucine is seen in the immediate short term. If the goal of the research is to address MPS, and compare it to other forms of leucine in that regard, then it achieves that goal without needing a 10-12 week study.

Protein and Calorie intake are going to be the main determinants of muscle mass over the longer term.

I mean, you could still run a study to see what happens when those things are standardized, but the costs involved start to increase with that amount of work.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top