So many questions re: protein

trollybus

rubadub wrote:

Thats advertising for you, I think only a fool believes everything that is claimed by ads, take everything with a pinch of salt.

I think he looks pretty good, he is not huge by any means, but I certainly would not call him skinny, unless you are just referring to bodyfat. Most of the replies are from serious bodybuilders, I wonder if they are spending too long in gyms or looking at mags/sites with big brawny men and have a skewed idea as to what is normal. Saying he is skinny is like saying a 6ft 2" guy is not tall, "I have seen basketball players who are 7ft".

The guy is obviously bigger than the average guy, I go swimming a fair bit and most guys with a similar bodyfat are tiny! little whippets. Woody allen is skinny, stephen merchant (the lanky guy in the office and extras) is skinny.

Out of curiosity what is his height and weight? If you can find out we can figure out his BMI, i would guess it is about 21 or so

t-ha

rubadub wrote:

I think he looks pretty good, he is not huge by any means, but I certainly would not call him skinny, unless you are just referring to bodyfat. Most of the replies are from serious bodybuilders, I wonder if they are spending too long in gyms or looking at mags/sites with big brawny men and have a skewed idea as to what is normal.

Whether or not you think he looks good or normal is besides the point. His build is easily achievable by most people & does not make him an authority on what supplements to use/not use to build muscle.

rubadub

t-ha wrote:

Whether or not you think he looks good or normal is besides the point. His build is easily achievable by most people & does not make him an authority on what supplements to use/not use to build muscle.

I totally agree with you!, my earlier posts were questioning his opinions. I see no reason why protein production would be any more "unregulated" than any other dairy product (including organic eggs).

turbot

I'm not sure what his weight is, or what his protein needs would be but the simple fact is that whey is a very useful tool to use for adding size. As I said before, but you seem to have ignored, is that yes some companies make poor products, but this is the same as any industry. Three companies that make fantastic products are Nutrition-X, Reflex and Optimum Nutition.

Dragan - in terms of UK supplement manufacturers, the only one I'm aware of that has ISO 9001 quality control certification is Reflex.

BTW, the guy in the photo, years ago said that Reflex was the way to go if I wanted to get a protein power! AFAIK, Reflex offer a pretty solid money back guarantee on their products also.

I wouldn't agree, it takes a long time to isolate something that is working/isn't working, so when it comes to practical experience I would sooner take the word of someone who has been working out a long time & made real strides towards a physique that I would like. That guy is very ripped & the last thing I want to do is be one of those internet warrior guys that rips on other peoples pics, but I looked pretty much like that about 7/8 months after I started serious training (and I started out as a weakling fat-ass). I also used whey.

Like I say, I'm not trying to drag the guy down, but his physique is achievable with a minimum of resistance training and a low enough bodyfat. The more muscle you pack on to a frame the harder it becomes to progress further, so while the physique in that pic is achievable for most people within a year if they focus on that goal completely, a more built physique is a completely different story. People who have attained that will tend to know more about what works/doesn't work because they will have had to have figured out how to get through several plateau's on their way up. Virtually all of these people use protein supplements.

T-Ha - it would be ridiculous for me to attempt to disprove your subjective opinion of how achieveable his physique is, even if I completely disagree with you. This same guy has been training very hard for 8 years - not with the intention of becoming huge, but instead, athletically versatile. He's got pretty strong opinions in this area, and even wrote a thesis on "Bigorexia"

I also think you're right - if his physique is not what you're aiming for, then advice from him isn't so appropriate for you.

Out of curiosity what is his height and weight? If you can find out we can figure out his BMI, i would guess it is about 21 or so

Well I asked him and showed him the thread. He's 6ft exactly and 75kg.

He said he trains athletically - for speed and sustained high intensity for martial arts / boxing. So for training, he often runs 2 miles in under 10 minutes.... he also said he can bench 120kg 4 reps and 135kg 1 rep.

Whether or not you think he looks good or normal is besides the point. His build is easily achievable by most people & does not make him an authority on what supplements to use/not use to build muscle.

T-Ha: I never said he was an authority... though in a field where most magazines are fueled by advertising agendas, and most "sponsored" pro bodybuilders are paid for endorsements they probably wouldn't give if they weren't paid, various alledged "authorities" may not be as credible and trustworthy as they are presented.

The guy who wrote "Burn the fat, feed the muscle" ( http://www.burnthefat.com/ ) said he was offered two different journalism / editorial jobs with leading bodybuilding magazines, which he resigned from when he discovered their editorial policy was if they thought a product from their advertisers was good, they'd rave about it, and if they thought a product was crap, instead of saying it was crap, they wouldn't publish their opinion.

Not only this, but sometimes what works can be counter-intuitive. As the saying goes "The map is not the territory". Just because something makes sense scientifically, doesn't mean it will work in practice, or that the scientific models in any one persons head accurately represent what is actually going on.

I totally agree with you!, my earlier posts were questioning his opinions. I see no reason why protein production would be any more "unregulated" than any other dairy product (including organic eggs).

Organic certification is very difficult to achieve and maintain btw, so much so that many smaller producers who strive to be organic can't afford to be.

Without decent quality control or certification, how do you know what you are actually getting other than trusting the spiel on the box?

If you think that standard food regulations are enough to ensure quality, then please can you explain where Kentucky Fried chicken sources chickens that have virtually no bone structure, and are the same size as a computer mouse?

If you want a good summary of factory farming, check this out:

http://www.themeatrix.com/

With particular relevance to bodybuilding, many people who endorse products do not use the same products. I think this is immoral.

If you think "awards" guarantee quality, I have another friend who is a professional cheese buyer, and travels throughout Europe purchasing expensive cheeses. She told me that some cheese companies regularly pay high entry fees to award ceremonies where every product is given some kind of award; meaning that the worst products will be given a bronze award.

Do you think supplement companies will present an unbiased case for their products, or tell you what you need to hear such that you want to buy from them?

This might help you make up your mind:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/07/xenadrine.htm


The moral of the story is don't believe the hype, and be careful who you listen to, especially if you want to achieve results.

And if someone is achieving results you want to achieve, and they have your best interests at heart, chances are they will give you better advice than someone else who's agenda it is to sell you something.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

rubadub

turbot wrote:

Dragan - in terms of UK supplement manufacturers, the only one I'm aware of that has ISO 9001 quality control certification is Reflex.

I have worked with ISO for about 7 years now, producing the quality manuals and procedures for companies and auditing. Many people seem to think ISO somehow means that products will be of a high quality. It means no such thing, it means a company has procedures and tests in place. So if a company has a procedure saying they build to a poor quality, e.g. 50% failure rate is acceptable, then this is perfectly fine! they pass the ISO standard, since they are doing exactly what they say. It is intended to be put in place to ensure quality but you state your own opinion as to what the quality is.

turbot wrote:

Organic certification is very difficult to achieve and maintain btw, so much so that many smaller producers who strive to be organic can't afford to be.

Without decent quality control or certification, how do you know what you are actually getting other than trusting the spiel on the box?

What I was getting at is that I do not see any reason for whey powder to be any more "unregulated" than say skim milk powder or other food stuffs. As for organic stuff I would not trust that it was, especially in farmers markets, get some tesco value spuds and a bag of peat moss and charge 10 times the price for dirty veg. It is easy to have things in place when inspectors etc call around. It is very easy to mix in a bit of "non-organic" feed in with the organic stuff the chickens usually get.
If there are regulations etc in place then all companies should follow them, with ISO or not. Most external ISO auditors are not fully aware of what is really needed and can be talked around, or numbers fudged. ISO really is to help the company be organised internally, and it is a marketing tool, seems to work as many are ignorant as to what it is and fall for the "quality" bit in its title.

If a protein powder says 80% per 100g on the pack, I would presume it is lower, they have fudged the figures, just like how McDonalds fudge the figures and their food has more calories than quoted. Just like car manufacturers fudge figures to have higher milers per gallon, batteries rarely have the mAh rating that they claim.

turbot wrote:

Do you think supplement companies will present an unbiased case for their products, or tell you what you need to hear such that you want to buy from them?

The moral of the story is don't believe the hype, and be careful who you listen to, especially if you want to achieve results.

As I was saying earlier just don't believe advertising, take everything with a pinch of salt. I do not expect to be huge after 10 weeks using brand X, just as I do not expect women to be flocking around me after spraying on some lynx.

justsomebloke

rubadub wrote:

I have worked with ISO for about 7 years now, producing the quality manuals and procedures for companies and auditing. Many people seem to think ISO somehow means that products will be of a high quality. It means no such thing, it means a company has procedures and tests in place. So if a company has a procedure saying they build to a poor quality, e.g. 50% failure rate is acceptable, then this is perfectly fine! they pass the ISO standard, since they are doing exactly what they say. It is intended to be put in place to ensure quality but you state your own opinion as to what the quality is.

The problem with this is it's true, The ISO standard is what ever you want it to be. e.g. reflex maybe ISO accredited but it may have gotten the ISO standard from having a computer filing sytem in place

rubadub wrote:

just as I do not expect women to be flocking around me after spraying on some lynx.

arse, well that was a waste of money for all those cans then wasn't it

trollybus

rubadub wrote:

I have worked with ISO for about 7 years now, producing the quality manuals and procedures for companies and auditing. Many people seem to think ISO somehow means that products will be of a high quality. It means no such thing, it means a company has procedures and tests in place. So if a company has a procedure saying they build to a poor quality, e.g. 50% failure rate is acceptable, then this is perfectly fine! they pass the ISO standard, since they are doing exactly what they say. It is intended to be put in place to ensure quality but you state your own opinion as to what the quality is.

Rubadub, I completely agree with you people seem to think ISO is the be all and end all. I think they should be more concerned about HACCP and EFSIS standards if they are talking about food stuffs.



What I was getting at is that I do not see any reason for whey powder to be any more "unregulated" than say skim milk powder or other food stuffs. As for organic stuff I would not trust that it was, especially in farmers markets, get some tesco value spuds and a bag of peat moss and charge 10 times the price for dirty veg. It is easy to have things in place when inspectors etc call around. It is very easy to mix in a bit of "non-organic" feed in with the organic stuff the chickens usually get.
If there are regulations etc in place then all companies should follow them, with ISO or not. Most external ISO auditors are not fully aware of what is really needed and can be talked around, or numbers fudged. ISO really is to help the company be organised internally, and it is a marketing tool, seems to work as many are ignorant as to what it is and fall for the "quality" bit in its title.

If a protein powder says 80% per 100g on the pack, I would presume it is lower, they have fudged the figures, just like how McDonalds fudge the figures and their food has more calories than quoted. Just like car manufacturers fudge figures to have higher milers per gallon, batteries rarely have the mAh rating that they claim.

I agree and disagree with your above statement. If a company is getting teir products contract manufactured chances are the labeling may be off as the labeling onus will fall on the manufacturer not the supplement company. However there are a few supplement companies that make their own products, if you look at them you will see these companies are not the ones making the outragious claims.



As I was saying earlier just don't believe advertising, take everything with a pinch of salt. I do not expect to be huge after 10 weeks using brand X, just as I do not expect women to be flocking around me after spraying on some lynx.

I take on board what you are saying about Lynx but what about old spice, I reckon a few splashes of that and you'll never get me off the surf board

t-ha

turbot wrote:

T-Ha - it would be ridiculous for me to attempt to disprove your subjective opinion of how achieveable his physique is, even if I completely disagree with you. This same guy has been training very hard for 8 years - not with the intention of becoming huge, but instead, athletically versatile. He's got pretty strong opinions in this area, and even wrote a thesis on "Bigorexia"

I also think you're right - if his physique is not what you're aiming for, then advice from him isn't so appropriate for you.

Hey turbot, I understand that his goals may not include becoming very muscular, which is why I stayed away from saying that he was too skinny or looked bad or whatever. I have no doubt that he looks exactly the way he wants to & has the dedication to maintain it.

My point was that someone at that level of development won't neccessarily know/appreciate the important things when it comes to building muscle because he doesn't need to. If he decided one day (a bit unlikely if he takes the time to write a thesis on bigorexia) that he wanted to put on 80lbs of additional lean mass on to his frame and got started into it, he might well find that some of his views/ideas would need to change.

It's the same as someone looking to increase their competition bench press weight. Should they listen to someone who benches 80kg or someone who benches 200kg, given contradictory advice? Even if their goal is nowhere near a 200kg bench, that guy would still be the best option because no-one benches that weight without hitting plateaus and finding ways to work through them, whereas many people can get up to 80kg without any significant problems.

Well thought out post, by the way, & as I mentioned I completely agree about finding what works in real life. Theories and mechanisms are one thing, but the actual quantified effect is key.

@rubadub, sorry my other post came across a little short.

Degsy

t-ha wrote:

many people can get up to 80kg without any significant problems.

Damn,it was a big problem for me!