MAN SPORTS REPS come on in......

thescience said:
call it what you want, but im not going to place bioactive protein in the same category as vitamins and minerals.i havent flip-floped at all. my previous statement (in another thread that you are bringing up) referred to the pf3 ad which was being challenged for claims that i never saw it make. after seeing reviews where people are actually experimenting making the switch and reporting positive effects, im observing it and speculating into why that may be the case.bro, its an observation of what people are actually doing, not an arguement, and i happen to be curious about it since these people are leaders in so experimenting. again, the people im referring to are not replacing the protein powder they dropped with food. i take protein powder for two reasons only: to make gains and to combat doms, and yes protein powder has an anti doms effect for me to a certain extent. again, as those are the only two reasons im interested in taking protein and people who have dropped protein powder without making up for it in food while taking pf3 have reported those areas are good, ive become interested in potentially trying that.
Click to expand...
what do you mean implying? i posted a review by stak3d where people did exactly what you are talking about. what people are doing warrents my curiousity, and i dont understand why that would inflame anybody[/QUOTE]

So you are ALSO calling it a micro nutrient then, since you are placing it with vitamins and minerals (as would I).

So with THAT out of the way, you have stated SEVERAL times that PF3 could POSSIBLY replace your whey protein. Last time I checked, whey protein is a PROTEIN MACRONUTRIENT SOURCE. So if YOU are going to categorize PF3 as a MICRONUTRIENT, PLEASE explain the logic behind you mentioning several times the possibility of PF3 replacing whey protein.

Again, a MICRONUTRIENT does NOT replace a MACRONUTRIENT. It is quite obvious at this point that you have some sort of distorted view on what whey protein actually is.
 
ccnAbolic said:
How does MPI make you fat?
Click to expand...
i assume you mean wpi. the fact is, if every gram of protein we ate turned into muscle, we would just keep getting more and more muscle by taking more and more protein. the body has other ways of using the protein we eat besides our intention to build muscle. technically, you could blame the body and not the protein powder
 
mpaquett said:
You are an extremely butt-hurt individual for some reason. Did you miss the part about micro-nutrients only being vitamins or minerals? Regardless of the serving size it is a macro nutrient. Does only taking 2.5mg of L-leucine make it a micronutrient? No, it's still a macronutrient. If you look at iForce's Compete it is the same thing; 2500mg of WPI listed as 2.5g of protein. The product is marketed as a Pharma grade protein with emphasis given to the bio-actives.

We're taking about a supplement here. Why would taking PF3 make some malnourished if they are supplementing their diet with it? That statement doesn't even make sense. I take PF3 daily and can assure you I am doing just fine.
Click to expand...

Your very own rep, The Science, has also just pointed out TODAY that he considers PF3 to be in the same category as vitamins and minerals.

As for us talking about supplements. Protein supplements does not SUPPLEMENT ones protein macro intake, it actually figures in DIRECTLY into ones protein macro intake. That is how it is used. It's only labeled as a supplement but lets face it, it's essentially powdered food. PF3 as it is marketed and designed for, is NOT a replacement of macronutrients. It is very obvious that it truly IS a supplement one takes IN ADDITION to ones diet. It AUGMENTS ones diet. Protein powder on the other hand, that actually DOES displace protein macro intake from whole foods. Or are you suggesting that if I was to need 170 grams of protein a day, supplementing with whey protein is going to be in addition to the 170 grams of protein I get from whole foods? Obviously not, it's going to displace some of the protein I would have originally taken in from whole foods.

This is the entire problem, the advertising and The Science consistently IMPLY that people take protein supplements SPECIFICIALLY for the microfractions, thus PF3 is going to be superior. HOWEVER, NOBODY, at least no sensible person I know of, is actually taking protein supplements specifically for the microfractions, they are taking it specifically to help hit their protein macro goals.
 
People are still talking about PF3?

I haven't taken any yet and I'm getting bigger by the week.
I guess I'll survive without it?
 
kissdadookie said:
Your very own rep, The Science, has also just pointed out TODAY that he considers PF3 to be in the same category as vitamins and minerals.

As for us talking about supplements. Protein supplements does not SUPPLEMENT ones protein macro intake, it actually figures in DIRECTLY into ones protein macro intake. That is how it is used. It's only labeled as a supplement but lets face it, it's essentially powdered food. PF3 as it is marketed and designed for, is NOT a replacement of macronutrients. It is very obvious that it truly IS a supplement one takes IN ADDITION to ones diet. It AUGMENTS ones diet. Protein powder on the other hand, that actually DOES displace protein macro intake from whole foods. Or are you suggesting that if I was to need 170 grams of protein a day, supplementing with whey protein is going to be in addition to the 170 grams of protein I get from whole foods? Obviously not, it's going to displace some of the protein I would have originally taken in from whole foods.

This is the entire problem, the advertising and The Science consistently IMPLY that people take protein supplements SPECIFICIALLY for the microfractions, thus PF3 is going to be superior. HOWEVER, NOBODY, at least no sensible person I know of, is actually taking protein supplements specifically for the microfractions, they are taking it specifically to help hit their protein macro goals.
Click to expand...

What in the wild world of ****s are you raving about?

Is there a point to your ramblings, or am I just bert staring for the fun of it?
 
I often wonder if people walking into this thread for the first time have any idea what anyone's central thesis is in one succinct line.

I urge anybody interested to check the promo logs we have going to see how PF3 is treating users IN THE REAL WORLD OF ACTUAL USE AND TRAINING
 
kissdadookie said:
Your very own rep, The Science, has also just pointed out TODAY that he considers PF3 to be in the same category as vitamins and minerals.
Click to expand...

i think maybe you misread my post. i said i do NOT put them into the category that you have.



This is the entire problem, the advertising and The Science consistently IMPLY that people take protein supplements SPECIFICIALLY for the microfractions, thus PF3 is going to be superior. HOWEVER, NOBODY, at least no sensible person I know of, is actually taking protein supplements specifically for the microfractions, they are taking it specifically to help hit their protein macro goals.
Click to expand...

i have entertained switching for the sole purpose of keeping/making my gains and keeping my doms away. ive specifically said those are the only reasons i take protein and that i dont care about any others. thats all ive said. i never said people take protein purely for the subfractions and neither did the ad; in fact, ive advocated for its nutritional value. if there is another way for me to get that benefit that people are describing, im interested. the ad itself had to pit the bioactive content of pure pf3 to the bioactive content of protein powder; this wasnt done to trick anybody. if that graphic wasnt put up there, people would think they may have all the bioactives they could benefit from in their protein already, or perhaps theyde thinks its no different from protein. the graphic very excellently portrayed that.
 
FL3X MAGNUM said:
People are still talking about PF3?

I haven't taken any yet and I'm getting bigger by the week.
I guess I'll survive without it?
Click to expand...

Yes, but how much bigger could you be had you been using it? Hmmmmmm?...the world will never know now! :doh:
 
thescience said:
i assume you mean wpi. the fact is, if every gram of protein we ate turned into muscle, we would just keep getting more and more muscle by taking more and more protein. the body has other ways of using the protein we eat besides our intention to build muscle. technically, you could blame the body and not the protein powder
Click to expand...

I meant milk protein isolate, but "insert isolate here" works too. Either way, I think that would depend on the individual's own body as well as how they are using the protein.

Edit: Milk protein in general for that matter...
 
ccnAbolic said:
I meant milk protein isolate, but "insert isolate here" works too. Either way, I think that would depend on the individual's own body as well as how they are using the protein.

Edit: Milk protein in general for that matter...
Click to expand...

well, i mean, nobody has a body type that will keep building muscle endlessly by eating protein endlessly unless there is some kind of freak genetic mutation. iflex wheeler's body wasnt able to work with myostatin and as a result he was all muscle and still he took all kinds of things to increase protein synthesis. for everyone else, the body thinks it is better to store calories as fat as having muscle consumes calories, and from a survival perspective a muscular person would be worse off if food supply was low. yeah, im sure there are a million ways to reduce the fat. i just eat alot of protein powder and hit the weights without any strategy beyond that
 
thescience said:
call it what you want, but im not going to place bioactive protein in the same category as vitamins and minerals.
Click to expand...

kissdadookie said:
So you are ALSO calling it a micro nutrient then, since you are placing it with vitamins and minerals (as would I).
Click to expand...

kissdadookie said:
Your very own rep, The Science, has also just pointed out TODAY that he considers PF3 to be in the same category as vitamins and minerals.

As for us talking about supplements. Protein supplements does not SUPPLEMENT ones protein macro intake, it actually figures in DIRECTLY into ones protein macro intake. That is how it is used. It's only labeled as a supplement but lets face it, it's essentially powdered food. PF3 as it is marketed and designed for, is NOT a replacement of macronutrients. It is very obvious that it truly IS a supplement one takes IN ADDITION to ones diet. It AUGMENTS ones diet. Protein powder on the other hand, that actually DOES displace protein macro intake from whole foods. Or are you suggesting that if I was to need 170 grams of protein a day, supplementing with whey protein is going to be in addition to the 170 grams of protein I get from whole foods? Obviously not, it's going to displace some of the protein I would have originally taken in from whole foods.

This is the entire problem, the advertising and The Science consistently IMPLY that people take protein supplements SPECIFICIALLY for the microfractions, thus PF3 is going to be superior. HOWEVER, NOBODY, at least no sensible person I know of, is actually taking protein supplements specifically for the microfractions, they are taking it specifically to help hit their protein macro goals.
Click to expand...
You literally make me want to smash a keyboard into this monitor. Do you even read these posts? Have your rants resorted to just trolling?

Protein powders help supplement whole foods. They are obviously added into your daily macronutrient count. Duh. Welcome to 2013. What does that have to do with this thread on PF3?

How do you not understand the difference between a macro and micronutrient? Seriously, how do you not understand that PF3 is a protein thus being a macronutrient? There is 2.5g of protein per serving translating to 10 calories. Micronutrients are not calories. Do you count zinc and vitamin C towards your calories? No.
 
Kissdadookie aka twstyprtzl aka KerplunkKDD; all aliases once or currently banned on bodybuilding.com forum for trolling under aliases and posting in his own log under an alias once his original account was banned.



Invalid Link Removed
 
FL3X MAGNUM said:
People are still talking about PF3?

I haven't taken any yet and I'm getting bigger by the week.
I guess I'll survive without it?
Click to expand...

STEROIDS are the answer . . . to any question
 
p5sky said:
STEROIDS are the answer . . . to any question
Click to expand...

I'm going to try some of those.
Then I will find a way to harvest the accelerated protein synthesis process that takes place within my body so I can replicate it and then mass produce it and put it in supplements.
That way people can just drink it and get swole.
 
Piston Honda said:
Kissdadookie aka twstyprtzl aka KerplunkKDD; all aliases once or currently banned on bodybuilding.com forum for trolling under aliases and posting in his own log under an alias once his original account was banned.



Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Hilarious that you wish to bring that up right now. I made NO attempt at hiding my identity when I posted with those alt usernames on bb.com as can OBVIOUSLY be seen in the contents of those posts. As for trolling? Go look on my bb.com posts and rep. It's alive, it was a temporary ban, and the whole ban started with ONE person that got REAL nasty with me on PM's which INCLUDED threatening to hack my computer. I still have those PM's in my inbox. So don't even dare attempt to tarnish my reputation with such a childish post.

Let's face it, NONE of you reps actually knows what PF3 is. I admit I misread The Science's posts in regards to micronutrients but let's face it, who the heck is idiotic enough to consider antibodies a macronutrient? Serious? SO you have The Science which has YET to display any credible science in his posts and flip flops all over the place, then you have the other reps whom really have no clue what PF3 really is intended for and thus mostly stayed mum on the matters, but NOT before claiming that PF3 is completely different from Bio-Gro which since the PF3 release, it is quite obvious that PF3 and Bio-Gro serves the same purpose. The difference? The difference here is that iSatori CLEARLY states that Bio-Gro is NOT a protein replacement and is NOT a macro nutrient. Rightfully so. You guys on the other hand still can't make heads and tails out of your own product. Seriously? Now you post up this screen grab in an attempt to discredit and defame me? Laughable at best.

Now, NOTHING is more hilarious at this point that claims that PF3 serves as a macronutrient. For it to indeed serve as that, it's going to have to displace food. However, CLEARLY the product is boasting the 75% or more of bio-actives as the selling point. Bio-actives are NOT what is traditionally considered to be protein macros. The are the microfractions that are contained within the long chains of aminos which makes up protein macronutrients in the traditional sense.
 
Piston Honda said:
Kissdadookie aka twstyprtzl aka KerplunkKDD; all aliases once or currently banned on bodybuilding.com forum for trolling under aliases and posting in his own log under an alias once his original account was banned.



Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Hilarious that you wish to bring that up right now. I made NO attempt at hiding my identity when I posted with those alt usernames on bb.com as can OBVIOUSLY be seen in the contents of those posts. As for trolling? Go look on my bb.com posts and rep. It's alive, it was a temporary ban, and the whole ban started with ONE person that got REAL nasty with me on PM's which INCLUDED threatening to hack my computer. I still have those PM's in my inbox. So don't even dare attempt to tarnish my reputation with such a childish post.

Let's face it, NONE of you reps actually knows what PF3 is. I admit I misread The Science's posts in regards to micronutrients but let's face it, who the heck is idiotic enough to consider antibodies a macronutrient? Serious? SO you have The Science which has YET to display any credible science in his posts and flip flops all over the place, then you have the other reps whom really have no clue what PF3 really is intended for and thus mostly stayed mum on the matters, but NOT before claiming that PF3 is completely different from Bio-Gro which since the PF3 release, it is quite obvious that PF3 and Bio-Gro serves the same purpose. The difference? The difference here is that iSatori CLEARLY states that Bio-Gro is NOT a protein replacement and is NOT a macro nutrient. Rightfully so. You guys on the other hand still can't make heads and tails out of your own product. Seriously? Now you post up this screen grab in an attempt to discredit and defame me? Laughable at best.

Now, NOTHING is more hilarious at this point that claims that PF3 serves as a macronutrient. For it to indeed serve as that, it's going to have to displace food. However, CLEARLY the product is boasting the 75% or more of bio-actives as the selling point. Bio-actives are NOT what is traditionally considered to be protein macros. The are the microfractions that are contained within the long chains of aminos which makes up protein macronutrients in the traditional sense. Ok, nothing is funnier except for maybe how you posted that screenshot in an attempt to deflect the fact that questions in regards to the marketing of PF3 and how The Science is presenting the product as. I mean, I can understand if you have things of worth to add to the discussion but your post which boils down to "Oh, don't listen to this guy, he's just a troll" is hilariously childish.

mpaquett said:
You literally make me want to smash a keyboard into this monitor. Do you even read these posts? Have your rants resorted to just trolling?

Protein powders help supplement whole foods. They are obviously added into your daily macronutrient count. Duh. Welcome to 2013. What does that have to do with this thread on PF3?

How do you not understand the difference between a macro and micronutrient? Seriously, how do you not understand that PF3 is a protein thus being a macronutrient? There is 2.5g of protein per serving translating to 10 calories. Micronutrients are not calories. Do you count zinc and vitamin C towards your calories? No.
Click to expand...

According to your logic then, Slim Fast is a supplement. Powdered milk is a supplement. Protein bars are a supplement. However, let's be realistic here shall we? They are all convenience foods. They all provide significant amounts of macronutrients as they are a good source of calories. End of the day, for something to be a macronutrient, it needs to follow the simple principal of it being a main source of calories. Thus protein powder DISPLACES calories one would get from food AS WELL as DISPLACES the protein macros one would have otherwise gotten from food.
 
Your increasingly combative attitude in the face of the explanations we're giving speaks clearly enough about your reputation. I really don't know what your complaints or questions are any more to be honest. I do know I won't respond to the statements you made above regarding us reps.

Maybe we should do a poll somewhere in this thread: do any of you really care about this micro/macro debate being perpetuated by one user? Just curious.

Again, see what our loggers are experiencing. Much easier to understand than microcellular biology.
 
Piston Honda said:
Your increasingly combative attitude in the face of the explanations we're giving speaks clearly enough about your reputation. I really don't know what your complaints or questions are any more to be honest. I do know I won't respond to the statements you made above regarding us reps.

Maybe we should do a poll somewhere in this thread: do any of you really care about this micro/macro debate being perpetuated by one user? Just curious.

Again, see what our loggers are experiencing. Much easier to understand than microcellular biology.
Click to expand...

Combative? Lulz, after what you have posted?

All I originally went out to point out is the inconsistency of the messaging from The Science especially after him implying that PF3 could possibly replace whey protein powder. Protein powder is just food, it's powdered food, what he was implying (though admittedly he did not outright state it as so, but it's OBVIOUS what he was implying) was that PF3 displaces food intake which is clearly ridiculous. There's also the whole notion that he is presenting that people take protein supplements solely for the bio-actives. Bio-active supplementation is pretty new and that category was only really created this year (as far as Europa's products categorizations are concerned). PF3 and Bio-Gro are essentially new supplement category products. Whey protein is clearly a protein macronutrient source, people do not take whey protein for the purpose of getting in more IgG, IgF, lactoferrin, etc. People take whey protein as a convenient protein source, it's displacing that chicken breast you would have otherwise had.
 
kissdadookie

I could care less about your bb.com happenings. It doesn't make a difference here. I have nothing against you, you and I have had positive interactions thus far.

As for the argument, it is good that you have an opinion and are willing to fight for it. I have been following these threads and been reading the arguments on both sides. I personally feel that overall this debate has been unproductive for both sides. It would be beneficial for the AM community and MAN Sports for this to cease fire.

Like I said this is my opinion, and I am sure some people will retort for me having posted this. Let users decide for themselves whether the product is beneficial, or whether it is crap. I am sure that many users will respond to PF3 and like any other supplement some will be non responders.

My .02
 
drewsicle3210 said:
kissdadookie

I could care less about your bb.com happenings. It doesn't make a difference here. I have nothing against you, you and I have had positive interactions thus far.

As for the argument, it is good that you have an opinion and are willing to fight for it. I have been following these threads and been reading the arguments on both sides. I personally feel that overall this debate has been unproductive for both sides. It would be beneficial for the AM community and MAN Sports for this to cease fire.

Like I said this is my opinion, and I am sure some people will retort for me having posted this. Let users decide for themselves whether the product is beneficial, or whether it is crap. I am sure that many users will respond to PF3 and like any other supplement some will be non responders.

My .02
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I only made my recent critical post after seeing the idea of PF3 replacing whey protein one too many times. Just wanted to make sure the curious out there was clear that whey protein is essentially powdered food so PF3 is not meant to replace actual food. Like I've said many a times, I bought a tub of PF3 when it came out a few weeks back off NP. The product has it's place in ones supplement stack IMO, but it's not interchangeable with protein powder/protein macros intake.

But it is what it is, and I'm going to stay clear of further comments on PF3, for the sake of my own sanity :P
 
kissdadookie said:
Let's face it, NONE of you reps actually knows what PF3 is. I admit I misread The Science's posts in regards to micronutrients but let's face it, who the heck is idiotic enough to consider antibodies a macronutrient? Serious?
Click to expand...

IGg is an antibody, and antibodies are globular proteins. immunoglobins are made up of light and heavy polypeptide chains. they can be broken down in the GI tract.

Now, NOTHING is more hilarious at this point that claims that PF3 serves as a macronutrient. For it to indeed serve as that, it's going to have to displace food
Click to expand...

protein is a macronutrient. because i eat protein powder, it doesnt mean i have to stop eating/"displace" food.


SO you have The Science which has YET to display any credible science in his posts and flip flops all over the place,
Click to expand...
whoa, hey! why the digs at me bro? i explained how what you percieved as an inconsistantcy isnt one, and you respond by saying im inconsistant all over the place? all i did previously in another thread was correct someone who was misquoting the ad; i said the ad isnt instructing everyone to drop protein and in fact it acknowledged proteins nutritional value. at that time i also stated i did not intend to drop my protein powder. that doesnt make me a hypocrite when, since then, i observe people are dropping protein powder for pf3 and are happy about it 4 weeks in; when i see that, it makes me wonder and now im forming a hypothesis that i may attempt to prove or disprove with my own protein resources. theres nothing inconsistant about that, and i never would have imagined someone would have found anything offensive about that.
Click to expand...
 
thescience said:
IGg is an antibody, and antibodies are globular proteins. immunoglobins are made up of light and heavy polypeptide chains. they can be broken down in the GI tract.



protein is a macronutrient. because i eat protein powder, it doesnt mean i have to stop eating/"displace" food.



why the digs at me bro? i explained how what you percieved as an inconsistantcy isnt one, and you respond by saying im inconsistant all over the place? all i did previously in another thread was correct someone who was misquoting the ad; i said the ad isnt instructing everyone to drop protein and in fact it acknowledged proteins nutritional value. at that time i also stated i did not intend to drop my protein powder. that doesnt make me a hypocrite when, since then, i observe people are dropping protein powder for pf3 and are happy about it 4 weeks in; when i see that, it makes me wonder and now im forming a hypothesis that i may attempt to prove or disprove with my own protein resources. theres nothing inconsistant about that, and i never would have imagined someone would have found anything offensive about that.
Click to expand...

How is your protein powder intake not displacing food? If your protein macros are 200 grams a day, and you take 60 grams from whey, you're not going to eat 200 grams of protein that day in whole foods. This by definition is displacing one food source with a different food source.

What riled me up this time around is in this thread, a few days ago, you CLEARLY posted the following:

" i would stand to save some money if dumping protein for pf3 was, in terms of keeping my gains and reducing doms, equivalent (or better in the case with reducing doms) as several other people have said it is after several weeks, but my plan is to check in with these people after several months to see whats going on with it before i try dropping protein powder"

THAT CLEARLY has you implying that PF3 is a replacement for food. Again, protein powder let that be whey or a blend, is essentially a convenience food source. The fact that on SOME posts you agree that whey protein is essentially powdered food and then in some posts you imply that whey protein is being used mainly for its bioactives, it has you flip flopping all over in this regard. For your notions of PF3 replacing whey, that works IF you are strictly talking about the bioactive content BUT the problem here is that people DO NOT use whey protein for the bioactives, they use it as a significant protein macro source. It's being used as food, not a source of bioactives.

As for your comment about somebody else misreading the ad-copy. Let's be honest and truthful here, there was no misreading and if there is that's due to the fact that the ad-copy actually WANTS people to misread it to sell the product. THAT is another issue altogether which has been covered ad nauseum.

Like I've said many a times already, the PF3 product HAS MERIT but the way it's being explained/marketed is confusing and consistently throws around the notion that PF3 replaces protein powder. You called it a fun poke at whey protein but let's be honest, any sane person knows that it's obviously a marketing gimmick. Again, TECHNICALLY if we are STRICTLY talking about bioactives, yeah, PF3 is far superior BUT the problem again is who the friggin heck actually uses protein powder specifically for the bioactive content? People don't, people use it as a protein macros source thus the whole PF3 vs whey comparisons are really invalid in a practical sense since they are essentially two very different types of products.

But hey, it is what it is, I'mma just leave this alone.
Click to expand...
 
kissdadookie said:
How is your protein powder intake not displacing food? If your protein macros are 200 grams a day, and you take 60 grams from whey, you're not going to eat 200 grams of protein that day in whole foods. This by definition is displacing one food source with a different food source.
Click to expand...
you just said that a macronutrient "by definition" replaces a food source. i contend that statement because it doesnt have to displace it. if someone choses to drop protein, they are displacing something they used to eat, but that has nothing to do with whether a substance is a micro or macronutrient.
What riled me up this time around is in this thread, a few days ago, you CLEARLY posted the following:" i would stand to save some money if dumping protein for pf3 was, in terms of keeping my gains and reducing doms, equivalent (or better in the case with reducing doms) as several other people have said it is after several weeks, but my plan is to check in with these people after several months to see whats going on with it before i try dropping protein powder"
Click to expand...
why does that rile you up? people are reporting just that, and they are influencing me. please note the word "IF" in my hypothesis, as i havent attempted that yet and ive been very vocal about my hesistation to do so
THAT CLEARLY has you implying that PF3 is a replacement for food.
Click to expand...
again, im talking about people who are dropping protein powder for pf3, not food. while white sugar may have calories, i wouldnt call it food, as it has many nutrients stripped out of it, and it took along time for significant portions of the population to realize that the body will use nutrient researves just to process the stripped down crap.im not comparing white sugar to protein powder, but i bring up white sugar to demonstrate these are food extracts and that there should be a distinction between protein powder and protein in actual meals.
The fact that on SOME posts you agree that whey protein is essentially powdered food and then in some posts you imply that whey protein is being used mainly for its bioactives, it has you flip flopping all over in this regard.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]again, i never said people only use proteins only for their bioactives and i never implied it. why are you saying i did? ive consistantly acknowledged protein powders nutritional value. period.
 
thescience said:
kissdadookie said:
you just said that a macronutrient "by definition" replaces a food source. i contend that statement because it doesnt have to displace it. if someone choses to drop protein, they are displacing something they used to eat, but that has nothing to do with whether a substance is a micro or macronutrient.
Click to expand...

How is it not displacing whole foods protein intake? Again, let's look at the definition of what a macronutrient is shall we:

Macronutrients constitute the bulk of the diet and supply energy and many essential nutrients. Carbohydrates, proteins (including essential amino acids), fats (including essential fatty acids), macrominerals, and water are macronutrients. Carbohydrates, fats, and proteins are interchangeable as sources of energy; fats yield 9 kcal/g (37.8 kJ/g); proteins and carbohydrates yield 4 kcal/g (16.8 kJ/g).

So for something to be a macronutrient, FIRST AND FOREMOST it needs to be a significant part of the diet and provide a significant amount of energy (calories). Even where proteins are concerned, it is implied that we are talking about complex chained/peptide bonded AA proteins and AT BEST free form EAAs. So how in the world does IgG, IgF, lactoferrin, etc. all of a sudden turn into a macronutrient?

As for your comment about your "hypothesis." Again, I never once said that you DIRECTLY stated PF3 replacing whey or protein macros, but I DID say that you have IMPLIED it. Let that be intentional or not, it is implied in what you have posted. Just as you are now falling back on what you have posted as "hypothesis," I've used "IMPLIED" in a similar fashion. So with that in mind, you getting upset at what someone has interpreted as you implying something is a fault that lies within how you have worded things.

As for you stating that you never said people only use proteins only for their bio-actives, I never stated that you said it and only stated that you implied it. One can not read your mind so if you are going to be confusing with your words, you should do something about that. As for you consistently acknowledging the nutritional value of protein powders, again, if you acknowledge that and know full well that protein powders are taken first and foremost for their protein macro content, then why even throw around "hypothetical" notions of PF3 replacing whey? They are obviously two completely different things meant for very different purposes. You're essentially saying one is a apple and one is a orange and they are different but at the same time you're also saying that they are the same thing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
*yawn*
 
kissdadookie said:
According to your logic then, Slim Fast is a supplement. Powdered milk is a supplement. Protein bars are a supplement. However, let's be realistic here shall we? They are all convenience foods. They all provide significant amounts of macronutrients as they are a good source of calories. End of the day, for something to be a macronutrient, it needs to follow the simple principal of it being a main source of calories. Thus protein powder DISPLACES calories one would get from food AS WELL as DISPLACES the protein macros one would have otherwise gotten from food.
Click to expand...
Kissadookie,

You are by far the most infuriating poster I have ever seen, and you have contributed absolutely nothing to this thread. I am done with the back and forth after this post because Drewsicle is correct this is going no where, and I ask that if you have anything to actually contribute to this thread and the original purpose of this thread (remember that there was an actual OP and had nothing to do with anything you've posted on the last 3 pages).

As I sit here staring at my Exercise Physiology textbook on the chapter of "Body Composition and Nutrition for Sport" it lists the 7 classifications of nutrients.

Carbohydrates
Lipid
Protein
Vitamins
Minerals
Water

Macronutrients, Micronutrients and Water; I can assure you that PF3 is neither a vitamin or mineral. Micronutrients are trace elements which are naturally occuring (or man-made in the case of supplementation). PF3 does not fit into that category. This is one case where size simply does not matter. Per my previous example of supplementing with 2.5 milligrams (or 0.0025g) of L-leucine does the fact that it is only 2.5mg make it a micronutrient? No. It is still a macronutrient. It is still calories even at that small of a dose. 2.5mg of supplemented leucine still causes a small insulin spike, and it is still the equivalent to 0.01kcal, or 10 calories. Micronutrients do not provide the body with calories. The fact that it is listed on the label as 2.5g of protein and 10kcals means that it is indeed a macro.

Now, with that being said this debate is absolutely absurd and I am finished. With that being laid out if you want to continue believing it to be a micronutrient by all means proceed. If you have something to actually contribute to this thread then by all means feel free to post, but constantly trying to attack my fellow associates and bashing my product is not welcome here.

-Mpaquett
 
kissdadookie said:
thescience said:
So for something to be a macronutrient, FIRST AND FOREMOST it needs to be a significant part of the diet
Click to expand...
huh? if i eat a 1/4 teaspoon of fruit a day, i wouldnt consider that a significant part of my diet, but nevertheless it still contains macronutrients

Even where proteins are concerned, it is implied that we are talking about complex chained/peptide bonded AA proteins and AT BEST free form EAAs. So how in the world does IgG, IgF, lactoferrin, etc. all of a sudden turn into a macronutrient?
Click to expand...
speaking to IGg, to the extend that it is broken down into individual amino acids ect , it is macronutrient.


As for your comment about your "hypothesis." Again, I never once said that you DIRECTLY stated PF3 replacing whey or protein macros, but I DID say that you have IMPLIED it. Let that be intentional or not, it is implied in what you have posted. Just as you are now falling back on what you have posted as "hypothesis," I've used "IMPLIED" in a similar fashion. So with that in mind, you getting upset at what someone has interpreted as you implying something is a fault that lies within how you have worded things.
Click to expand...
how am i falling back on anything? whats wrong with how i word things now? are you talking about when i say i would NOT put IGg into the same category as vitamins and minerals and you interpret that as agreeing with you that i would put IGg into that category with vitamins and minerals?

As for you stating that you never said people only use proteins only for their bio-actives, I never stated that you said it and only stated that you implied it. One can not read your mind so if you are going to be confusing with your words, you should do something about that. As for you consistently acknowledging the nutritional value of protein powders,
again, if you acknowledge that and know full well that protein powders are taken first and foremost for their protein macro content, then why even throw around "hypothetical" notions of PF3 replacing whey?
Click to expand...
just because you switch two substances, doesnt mean the exchange is equal in every way. for me, i have made it clear already i am only interested in protein powder insofar as it keeps my gains and reduces doms, so if something else accomplished that, as some are claiming pure pf3 does, then i would be interested and i dont care about what nutritional value i may be giving up. do you see the distiction? for all practical purposes, i wouldnt care whatever nutritional value i lost as long as i got what people who have dropped the protein powder claimed to have gotten., i could make gains by eatin BUCKETS OF CHEEZE everyday, but that doesnt mean thats the best way for me to make gains. if i decided then to quit taking buckets of cheeze everyday, its true id be missing out on all kinds of nutritional value but i wouldnt care.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
mpaquett said:
Kissadookie,

You are by far the most infuriating poster I have ever seen, and you have contributed absolutely nothing to this thread. I am done with the back and forth after this post because Drewsicle is correct this is going no where, and I ask that if you have anything to actually contribute to this thread and the original purpose of this thread (remember that there was an actual OP and had nothing to do with anything you've posted on the last 3 pages).

As I sit here staring at my Exercise Physiology textbook on the chapter of "Body Composition and Nutrition for Sport" it lists the 7 classifications of nutrients.

Carbohydrates
Lipid
Protein
Vitamins
Minerals
Water

Macronutrients, Micronutrients and Water; I can assure you that PF3 is neither a vitamin or mineral. Micronutrients are trace elements which are naturally occuring (or man-made in the case of supplementation). PF3 does not fit into that category. This is one case where size simply does not matter. Per my previous example of supplementing with 2.5 milligrams (or 0.0025g) of L-leucine does the fact that it is only 2.5mg make it a micronutrient? No. It is still a macronutrient. It is still calories even at that small of a dose. 2.5mg of supplemented leucine still causes a small insulin spike, and it is still the equivalent to 0.01kcal, or 10 calories. Micronutrients do not provide the body with calories. The fact that it is listed on the label as 2.5g of protein and 10kcals means that it is indeed a macro.

Now, with that being said this debate is absolutely absurd and I am finished. With that being laid out if you want to continue believing it to be a micronutrient by all means proceed. If you have something to actually contribute to this thread then by all means feel free to post, but constantly trying to attack my fellow associates and bashing my product is not welcome here.

-Mpaquett
Click to expand...

The actual definition of macronutrients:

Macronutrients constitute the bulk of the diet and supply energy and many essential nutrients. Carbohydrates, proteins (including essential amino acids), fats (including essential fatty acids), macrominerals, and water are macronutrients. Carbohydrates, fats, and proteins are interchangeable as sources of energy; fats yield 9 kcal/g (37.8 kJ/g); proteins and carbohydrates yield 4 kcal/g (16.8 kJ/g).

There are three primary macronutrients defined as being the classes of chemical compounds humans consume in the largest quantities and which provide bulk energy. These are protein, fat, and carbohydrate. This list shows the categorization of the most common food components by these macronutrients. Macronutrients can also refer to the chemical elements humans consume in the largest quantities, see Nutrient.

Now, definition of a protein macronutrient:

Proteins are organic compounds that consist of the amino acids joined by peptide bonds. The body cannot manufacture some of the amino acids (termed essential amino acids); the diet must supply these. Proteins, in nutrition, are broken down through digestion by proteases back into free amino acids.


I mean, if we go by what you are implying to constitute as protein macros, I guess we can just live off of free form AA's then eh? I mean, obviously you are implying that IgG, IgF, lactoferring, etc., which makes up more than 75% of the content of PF3, are considered macronutrients.
 
thescience said:
kissdadookie said:
thescience said:
huh? if i eat a 1/4 teaspoon of fruit a day, i wouldnt consider that a significant part of my diet, but nevertheless it still contains macronutrients

speaking to IGg, to the extend that it is broken down into individual amino acids ect , it is macronutrient.


how am i falling back on anything? whats wrong with how i word things now? are you talking about when i say i would NOT put IGg into the same category as vitamins and minerals and you interpret that as agreeing with you that i would put IGg into that category with vitamins and minerals?

As for you stating that you never said people only use proteins only for their bio-actives, I never stated that you said it and only stated that you implied it. One can not read your mind so if you are going to be confusing with your words, you should do something about that. As for you consistently acknowledging the nutritional value of protein powders, just because you switch two substances, doesnt mean the exchange is equal in every way. for me, i have made it clear already i am only interested in protein powder insofar as it keeps my gains and reduces doms, so if something else accomplished that, as some are claiming pure pf3 does, then i would be interested and i dont care about what nutritional value i may be giving up. do you see the distiction? for all practical purposes, i wouldnt care whatever nutritional value i lost as long as i got what people who have dropped the protein powder claimed to have gotten., i could make gains by eatin BUCKETS OF CHEEZE everyday, but that doesnt mean thats the best way for me to make gains. if i decided then to quit taking buckets of cheeze everyday, its true id be missing out on all kinds of nutritional value but i wouldnt care.
Click to expand...

One thing I do appreciate is how you have never committed to state absolute statements, thus you've left yourself plenty of wiggle room for you to fall back on "I never said that!"

So, for the last time:

Macronutrients constitute the bulk of the diet and supply energy and many essential nutrients. Carbohydrates, proteins (including essential amino acids), fats (including essential fatty acids), macrominerals, and water are macronutrients. Carbohydrates, fats, and proteins are interchangeable as sources of energy; fats yield 9 kcal/g (37.8 kJ/g); proteins and carbohydrates yield 4 kcal/g (16.8 kJ/g).

There are three primary macronutrients defined as being the classes of chemical compounds humans consume in the largest quantities and which provide bulk energy. These are protein, fat, and carbohydrate. This list shows the categorization of the most common food components by these macronutrients. Macronutrients can also refer to the chemical elements humans consume in the largest quantities, see Nutrient.

Now, definition of a protein macronutrient:

Proteins are organic compounds that consist of the amino acids joined by peptide bonds. The body cannot manufacture some of the amino acids (termed essential amino acids); the diet must supply these. Proteins, in nutrition, are broken down through digestion by proteases back into free amino acids.

It's painfully obvious that it is implied that when talking about protein macros, we are specifically talking about complex peptide bonded amino acids. Not freeform or proteins which contains over 75% of just antibodies.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
kissdadookie said:
I mean, if we go by what you are implying to constitute as protein macros, I guess we can just live off of free form AA's then eh? I mean, obviously you are implying that IgG, IgF, lactoferring, etc., which makes up more than 75% of the content of PF3, are considered macronutrients.
Click to expand...
I didnt draw this conclusion from his post at all. just because something is a digestable protein and a macronutrient doesnt mean one has to forsake all other macro and micronutrients.
 
thescience said:
I didnt draw this conclusion from his post at all. just because something is a digestable protein and a macronutrient doesnt mean one has to forsake all other macro and micronutrients.
Click to expand...

I think at this point, the best course to take is to agree to disagree. For the sake of our sanity.
 
It's 2.5g or whatever of protein with cool stuff in it that is supposed to make you grow. Lets move on already.
 
My brother makes great oatmeal cookies with white chocolate chips and dried cranberries. Very hearty!
 
Invalid Link Removed
 
I'm not a big fan of cookies but I got one with my tropical smoothie for lunch.
 
What if i'm a keto dieter? Are carbs still considered a macronutrient to me given they represent almost 0% of my diet?

I'm not actually sure what the issue here even is? Why does it matter what classification PF3 falls under?
 
And then Coop and I would hug it out under a beautiful Rainbow on a white sand beach somewhere with the tide cascading in on our bare feet. ....
 
drewsicle3210 said:
Total nonsense. Sure, some loggers may say stuff to make the company look good. I am all about being honest, and I don't think that MOST loggers are liars. Is that the way that you log products? By being dishonest?
Click to expand...


I don't log, I get everything I need from the wonderful company I work for.

Protein. Tasty protein.

And we don't shill BS supplements :hump:
 
Final review for pf3 up.

Cliffs:

Best pump product in my opinion, pre w/o.

Strength increase def noticeable, as well as recovery.

Leaning I feel is from a total decrease in protein content.

It's expensive.

Mixability issue's.
 
jbryand101b said:
Final review for pf3 up.

Cliffs:

Best pump product in my opinion, pre w/o.

Strength increase def noticeable, as well as recovery.

Leaning I feel is from a total decrease in protein content.

It's expensive.

Mixability issue's.
Click to expand...

lol gtfo
 
jbryand101b said:
Final review for pf3 up.

Cliffs:

Best pump product in my opinion, pre w/o.

Strength increase def noticeable, as well as recovery.

Leaning I feel is from a total decrease in protein content.

It's expensive.

Mixability issue's.
Click to expand...

solid review here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top