April Q and A thread
SideSteel
Posts: 11,068 Member
Here it is 1 day early. Got questions? Fire away!
0
Replies
-
It's still March but I'm going to post this here.
I was doing some reading re: heavy squat walkouts. Apparently they prime the CNS for when you actually do the squat.
I have been struggling with squats as some of it is mental. I got stuck in the hole last week (my mind was on some personal issues) and I managed to hit the same weight (140lbs) for 4 reps this week. I am finding that a bit of a wider stance is helping me hit proper depth.
I got 145lbs for two reps and I think I'm just scared of anything above that.
Is walking out and holding the loaded bar with something heavier (say 155) going to help or am I wasting my time?
Not sure if this is relevant, but I'm getting Adipowers for my birthday in two weeks so I am interested to see if they help me as well.0 -
I don't know if they necessarily help, but I know when I put my 1RM across my shoulders I can feel it compressing my spine and there's definitely a certain degree of fear factor to overcome. But the more time I have the weight on my shoulders the more comfortable I become. It's also taught me the importance of keeping a properly tightened core the entire time, where admittedly I can sometimes get a little lax when the reps go above 5-6.
In a similar fashion, I've read to help your bench press you can load up a weight heavier than you can bench, unrack it but do NOT lower it, just lie there and let the weight drive your arms and shoulders into the bench, so you get used to the feeling of the weight. (I haven't tried this myself.)0 -
So doing overloaded walkouts can potentially help and I would think that if the issue is being confident with the weight on your back it's possible that this could help.
However, it's also possible that it is simply a matter of programming properly meaning that you may need more volume, you may need more time at higher intensity, you may need more frequency, you may need better recovery.
There could also be technical issues that could limit your strength.
I can tell you that I don't program overloaded walk out with any of my clients and they all get stronger at the squat. However that does not mean that the technique itself is useless.0 -
Do you believe in reverse dieting?0
-
-
Do you believe in reverse dieting?
Yes but not in the way some people do.
For example I'm not a fan of slowly adding in calories over the course of several months to try and get to maintenance. However I do think there's some merit in doing it in chunks.
For example if I'm going to get someone out of a deficit I'll make a big jump, maybe around 60-80% of where I estimate maintenance to be, then another smaller bump 1 to 2 weeks from there. Then, depending on what the scale does we adjust further in even smaller pieces.
For example it might look something like this, if I have someone at 1500 calories and I suspect they will maintain around 2000 I'll bring them to 1800-1850 for a week or so, then to 1950-2k, then see what needs to be adjusted from there, likely in smaller increments.1 -
Do you believe in reverse dieting?
Yes but not in the way some people do.
For example I'm not a fan of slowly adding in calories over the course of several months to try and get to maintenance. However I do think there's some merit in doing it in chunks.
For example if I'm going to get someone out of a deficit I'll make a big jump, maybe around 60-80% of where I estimate maintenance to be, then another smaller bump 1 to 2 weeks from there. Then, depending on what the scale does we adjust further in even smaller pieces.
For example it might look something like this, if I have someone at 1500 calories and I suspect they will maintain around 2000 I'll bring them to 1800-1850 for a week or so, then to 1950-2k, then see what needs to be adjusted from there, likely in smaller increments.
Why?
Not trying to be snide, just genuinely curious since the concept seems to sort of go against the "CICO" model. I mean, I know that BMR/NEAT decreases in a deficit and it takes some amount of time to adjust back upwards, but it seems like a really small amount of calories (1400 per week), probably within the margin of logging error?0 -
Do you believe in reverse dieting?
Yes but not in the way some people do.
For example I'm not a fan of slowly adding in calories over the course of several months to try and get to maintenance. However I do think there's some merit in doing it in chunks.
For example if I'm going to get someone out of a deficit I'll make a big jump, maybe around 60-80% of where I estimate maintenance to be, then another smaller bump 1 to 2 weeks from there. Then, depending on what the scale does we adjust further in even smaller pieces.
For example it might look something like this, if I have someone at 1500 calories and I suspect they will maintain around 2000 I'll bring them to 1800-1850 for a week or so, then to 1950-2k, then see what needs to be adjusted from there, likely in smaller increments.
Why?
Not trying to be snide, just genuinely curious since the concept seems to sort of go against the "CICO" model. I mean, I know that BMR/NEAT decreases in a deficit and it takes some amount of time to adjust back upwards, but it seems like a really small amount of calories (1400 per week), probably within the margin of logging error?
Because in reality many people tend to react less than favorably to increases in body-weight, this tends to cause less abrupt changes on the scale with less chance of over-shooting maintenance.
It's also a bit challenging to accurately nail down maintenance calories due to those changes in NEAT.
I don't think it's mandatory by any means, to reverse diet. If you want to go straight to an estimated maintenance I think that's fine as long as the individual is able/willing to tolerate potentially over-shooting it.2 -
Do you believe in reverse dieting?
Yes but not in the way some people do.
For example I'm not a fan of slowly adding in calories over the course of several months to try and get to maintenance. However I do think there's some merit in doing it in chunks.
For example if I'm going to get someone out of a deficit I'll make a big jump, maybe around 60-80% of where I estimate maintenance to be, then another smaller bump 1 to 2 weeks from there. Then, depending on what the scale does we adjust further in even smaller pieces.
For example it might look something like this, if I have someone at 1500 calories and I suspect they will maintain around 2000 I'll bring them to 1800-1850 for a week or so, then to 1950-2k, then see what needs to be adjusted from there, likely in smaller increments.
Why?
Not trying to be snide, just genuinely curious since the concept seems to sort of go against the "CICO" model. I mean, I know that BMR/NEAT decreases in a deficit and it takes some amount of time to adjust back upwards, but it seems like a really small amount of calories (1400 per week), probably within the margin of logging error?
Because in reality many people tend to react less than favorably to increases in body-weight, this tends to cause less abrupt changes on the scale with less chance of over-shooting maintenance.
It's also a bit challenging to accurately nail down maintenance calories due to those changes in NEAT.
I don't think it's mandatory by any means, to reverse diet. If you want to go straight to an estimated maintenance I think that's fine as long as the individual is able/willing to tolerate potentially over-shooting it.
Cool! Yeah, I can see how it's freaky to increase your calories by a few and gain 4 lbs overnight.
Those stories about people who "reverse dieted" and weren't losing on 1300 calories and can now eat 3000 and are super lean though?0 -
Do you believe in reverse dieting?
Yes but not in the way some people do.
For example I'm not a fan of slowly adding in calories over the course of several months to try and get to maintenance. However I do think there's some merit in doing it in chunks.
For example if I'm going to get someone out of a deficit I'll make a big jump, maybe around 60-80% of where I estimate maintenance to be, then another smaller bump 1 to 2 weeks from there. Then, depending on what the scale does we adjust further in even smaller pieces.
For example it might look something like this, if I have someone at 1500 calories and I suspect they will maintain around 2000 I'll bring them to 1800-1850 for a week or so, then to 1950-2k, then see what needs to be adjusted from there, likely in smaller increments.
Why?
Not trying to be snide, just genuinely curious since the concept seems to sort of go against the "CICO" model. I mean, I know that BMR/NEAT decreases in a deficit and it takes some amount of time to adjust back upwards, but it seems like a really small amount of calories (1400 per week), probably within the margin of logging error?
Because in reality many people tend to react less than favorably to increases in body-weight, this tends to cause less abrupt changes on the scale with less chance of over-shooting maintenance.
It's also a bit challenging to accurately nail down maintenance calories due to those changes in NEAT.
I don't think it's mandatory by any means, to reverse diet. If you want to go straight to an estimated maintenance I think that's fine as long as the individual is able/willing to tolerate potentially over-shooting it.
Cool! Yeah, I can see how it's freaky to increase your calories by a few and gain 4 lbs overnight.
Those stories about people who "reverse dieted" and weren't losing on 1300 calories and can now eat 3000 and are super lean though?
I don't know that we can attribute the leanness to reverse dieting necessarily.0 -
Do you believe in reverse dieting?
Yes but not in the way some people do.
For example I'm not a fan of slowly adding in calories over the course of several months to try and get to maintenance. However I do think there's some merit in doing it in chunks.
For example if I'm going to get someone out of a deficit I'll make a big jump, maybe around 60-80% of where I estimate maintenance to be, then another smaller bump 1 to 2 weeks from there. Then, depending on what the scale does we adjust further in even smaller pieces.
For example it might look something like this, if I have someone at 1500 calories and I suspect they will maintain around 2000 I'll bring them to 1800-1850 for a week or so, then to 1950-2k, then see what needs to be adjusted from there, likely in smaller increments.
Why?
Not trying to be snide, just genuinely curious since the concept seems to sort of go against the "CICO" model. I mean, I know that BMR/NEAT decreases in a deficit and it takes some amount of time to adjust back upwards, but it seems like a really small amount of calories (1400 per week), probably within the margin of logging error?
Because in reality many people tend to react less than favorably to increases in body-weight, this tends to cause less abrupt changes on the scale with less chance of over-shooting maintenance.
It's also a bit challenging to accurately nail down maintenance calories due to those changes in NEAT.
I don't think it's mandatory by any means, to reverse diet. If you want to go straight to an estimated maintenance I think that's fine as long as the individual is able/willing to tolerate potentially over-shooting it.
Cool! Yeah, I can see how it's freaky to increase your calories by a few and gain 4 lbs overnight.
Those stories about people who "reverse dieted" and weren't losing on 1300 calories and can now eat 3000 and are super lean though?
They became more active daily.
Workouts became better, requiring more repair, higher metabolism.
Some of the studies on how the body adapts to undereating more than it wants, is by slowing you down daily.
You may mentally still get yourself out for that workout, but no desire to hussle around the house later taking care of things, couch time for TV.2 -
Do you believe in reverse dieting?
Yes but not in the way some people do.
For example I'm not a fan of slowly adding in calories over the course of several months to try and get to maintenance. However I do think there's some merit in doing it in chunks.
For example if I'm going to get someone out of a deficit I'll make a big jump, maybe around 60-80% of where I estimate maintenance to be, then another smaller bump 1 to 2 weeks from there. Then, depending on what the scale does we adjust further in even smaller pieces.
For example it might look something like this, if I have someone at 1500 calories and I suspect they will maintain around 2000 I'll bring them to 1800-1850 for a week or so, then to 1950-2k, then see what needs to be adjusted from there, likely in smaller increments.
Why?
Not trying to be snide, just genuinely curious since the concept seems to sort of go against the "CICO" model. I mean, I know that BMR/NEAT decreases in a deficit and it takes some amount of time to adjust back upwards, but it seems like a really small amount of calories (1400 per week), probably within the margin of logging error?
Because in reality many people tend to react less than favorably to increases in body-weight, this tends to cause less abrupt changes on the scale with less chance of over-shooting maintenance.
It's also a bit challenging to accurately nail down maintenance calories due to those changes in NEAT.
I don't think it's mandatory by any means, to reverse diet. If you want to go straight to an estimated maintenance I think that's fine as long as the individual is able/willing to tolerate potentially over-shooting it.
Cool! Yeah, I can see how it's freaky to increase your calories by a few and gain 4 lbs overnight.
Those stories about people who "reverse dieted" and weren't losing on 1300 calories and can now eat 3000 and are super lean though?
They became more active daily.
Workouts became better, requiring more repair, higher metabolism.
Some of the studies on how the body adapts to undereating more than it wants, is by slowing you down daily.
You may mentally still get yourself out for that workout, but no desire to hussle around the house later taking care of things, couch time for TV.
Basically the same thing that happened on my last bulk. After adjusting for pounds gained, my TDEE increased from 2940 to 3460-ish while eating in a surplus. I just couldn't stop moving.1 -
Do you believe in reverse dieting?
Yes but not in the way some people do.
For example I'm not a fan of slowly adding in calories over the course of several months to try and get to maintenance. However I do think there's some merit in doing it in chunks.
For example if I'm going to get someone out of a deficit I'll make a big jump, maybe around 60-80% of where I estimate maintenance to be, then another smaller bump 1 to 2 weeks from there. Then, depending on what the scale does we adjust further in even smaller pieces.
For example it might look something like this, if I have someone at 1500 calories and I suspect they will maintain around 2000 I'll bring them to 1800-1850 for a week or so, then to 1950-2k, then see what needs to be adjusted from there, likely in smaller increments.
Why?
Not trying to be snide, just genuinely curious since the concept seems to sort of go against the "CICO" model. I mean, I know that BMR/NEAT decreases in a deficit and it takes some amount of time to adjust back upwards, but it seems like a really small amount of calories (1400 per week), probably within the margin of logging error?
Because in reality many people tend to react less than favorably to increases in body-weight, this tends to cause less abrupt changes on the scale with less chance of over-shooting maintenance.
It's also a bit challenging to accurately nail down maintenance calories due to those changes in NEAT.
I don't think it's mandatory by any means, to reverse diet. If you want to go straight to an estimated maintenance I think that's fine as long as the individual is able/willing to tolerate potentially over-shooting it.
Cool! Yeah, I can see how it's freaky to increase your calories by a few and gain 4 lbs overnight.
Those stories about people who "reverse dieted" and weren't losing on 1300 calories and can now eat 3000 and are super lean though?
They became more active daily.
Workouts became better, requiring more repair, higher metabolism.
Some of the studies on how the body adapts to undereating more than it wants, is by slowing you down daily.
You may mentally still get yourself out for that workout, but no desire to hussle around the house later taking care of things, couch time for TV.
That has been my experience. It's a pet peeve of mine that so many people argue that raising calories to lose weight doesn't make sense and won't consider the full effect of doing so. In my own experience, cutting calories too low last year was coupled with sluggishness outside of the gym. When I raised intensity in the gym, it only got worse. Eating more calories gave me the energy to be more active in my day to day life.
5 -
I have a question, and it's not necessarily related to myself, but what I see constantly on the boards and in real life.
Let's say you have a pretty lean female, who is a at a normal weight for her height, but she still has some problem areas and wants to get leaner. She runs herself to the ground doing extra cardio, cutting her cals, lifting, etc. but she isn't losing. I know it would depend on each individual, but would you recommend she do in this case? I know cutting cals further wouldn't be the answer, but why wouldn't more activity + less calories result in weight loss like we have all learned, it is hormones, water retention, the body fighting back and becoming less productive? It is so interesting to me. I am just curious because I see this all the time and sometimes I don't even know what to tell them.. and they come back with no results since they went around in circles. What would your general advice in this case be @SideSteel ?
Thanks !2 -
I have a question, and it's not necessarily related to myself, but what I see constantly on the boards and in real life.
Let's say you have a pretty lean female, who is a at a normal weight for her height, but she still has some problem areas and wants to get leaner. She runs herself to the ground doing extra cardio, cutting her cals, lifting, etc. but she isn't losing. I know it would depend on each individual, but would you recommend she do in this case? I know cutting cals further wouldn't be the answer, but why wouldn't more activity + less calories result in weight loss like we have all learned, it is hormones, water retention, the body fighting back and becoming less productive? It is so interesting to me. I am just curious because I see this all the time and sometimes I don't even know what to tell them.. and they come back with no results since they went around in circles. What would your general advice in this case be @SideSteel ?
Thanks !
If this were a client I'd have a good amount of history/data to work with which may dictate which direction I would go.
Generally speaking though if I see a situation where someone is at a low calorie intake and not losing for an extended period of time it tends to boil down to the following things:
1) Inaccurate logging. BY FAR this is the number 1 culprit. Keep in mind, this could be the sum of several small inaccuracies and it could ALSO simply be that they are inconsistent. They may be accurate for 4-5 days, see no results, get frustrated and be less accurate or even say eff it for a day or two and it's these situations where the extra calories erase the deficit.
2) Lower energy expenditure than expected. Combination of AT and reductions in NEAT might mean that they simply aren't in a large enough deficit to create noticeable movement on the scale at a rate they can identify with.
3) Inaccurate metrics. What I mean here is that they might actually be making progress but the metrics they've chosen aren't precise enough to capture the progress. One example might be someone who uses BIA, another might be someone who weighs in 2-3 times per week instead of daily followed by running an average.
4) Lots of water retention which masks losses in weight.
I should also add -- often times it's a combination of more than 1 of the above.
My typical methods for this are to go over logging meticulously and look for potential areas of concern -- and I gauge the overall level of frustration/fatigue of the client before deciding whether to address it.
And I'll typically resort to an extended diet break. Fortunately, the diet break resolves A LOT of the above issues simultaneously which is why it's such a powerful tool, however there are some people who don't have the buy-in to intentionally eat at maintenance, and if they see the scale go up slightly they freak out and try to diet back down too early etc.
And so the real value from the coaching end of things is providing the rationale and the reassurance to take period of time at maintenance for a while before even considering going back into a dieting phase.
Let me know if you have any questions about this.5 -
So is it possible (or likely for the average person) to "reverse diet" themselves into a significantly higher TDEE than they previously had? Not through obvious things like becoming a distance runner, but purely through increases in BMR/NEAT and keeping intentional exercise relatively constant?
Do you think that intentional monitoring of steps via fitness trackers can somewhat mitigate losses in NEAT during a deficit?
@jemhh - do you mind me asking too low was too low for you?0 -
Thank you for that very detailed response @SideSteel , much appreciated.
I would imagine the next steps would very much depend on the individual.. but what you said makes so much sense.0 -
Do you believe in reverse dieting?
Yes but not in the way some people do.
For example I'm not a fan of slowly adding in calories over the course of several months to try and get to maintenance. However I do think there's some merit in doing it in chunks.
For example if I'm going to get someone out of a deficit I'll make a big jump, maybe around 60-80% of where I estimate maintenance to be, then another smaller bump 1 to 2 weeks from there. Then, depending on what the scale does we adjust further in even smaller pieces.
For example it might look something like this, if I have someone at 1500 calories and I suspect they will maintain around 2000 I'll bring them to 1800-1850 for a week or so, then to 1950-2k, then see what needs to be adjusted from there, likely in smaller increments.
Why?
Not trying to be snide, just genuinely curious since the concept seems to sort of go against the "CICO" model. I mean, I know that BMR/NEAT decreases in a deficit and it takes some amount of time to adjust back upwards, but it seems like a really small amount of calories (1400 per week), probably within the margin of logging error?
Because in reality many people tend to react less than favorably to increases in body-weight, this tends to cause less abrupt changes on the scale with less chance of over-shooting maintenance.
It's also a bit challenging to accurately nail down maintenance calories due to those changes in NEAT.
I don't think it's mandatory by any means, to reverse diet. If you want to go straight to an estimated maintenance I think that's fine as long as the individual is able/willing to tolerate potentially over-shooting it.
Cool! Yeah, I can see how it's freaky to increase your calories by a few and gain 4 lbs overnight.
Those stories about people who "reverse dieted" and weren't losing on 1300 calories and can now eat 3000 and are super lean though?
They became more active daily.
Workouts became better, requiring more repair, higher metabolism.
Some of the studies on how the body adapts to undereating more than it wants, is by slowing you down daily.
You may mentally still get yourself out for that workout, but no desire to hussle around the house later taking care of things, couch time for TV.
That has been my experience. It's a pet peeve of mine that so many people argue that raising calories to lose weight doesn't make sense and won't consider the full effect of doing so. In my own experience, cutting calories too low last year was coupled with sluggishness outside of the gym. When I raised intensity in the gym, it only got worse. Eating more calories gave me the energy to be more active in my day to day life.
It drives me nuts, too. Too many people assume that TDEE is a standard static number, so eating more calories would make it worse. But for me, and many others, the increases to calories cause corresponding increases in EE. I know that I lost more at 2300 calories than I did at 1800 calories. But I also noticed huge increases in exercise performance and daily NEAT activities.2 -
So is it possible (or likely for the average person) to "reverse diet" themselves into a significantly higher TDEE than they previously had? Not through obvious things like becoming a distance runner, but purely through increases in BMR/NEAT and keeping intentional exercise relatively constant?
Do you think that intentional monitoring of steps via fitness trackers can somewhat mitigate losses in NEAT during a deficit?
@jemhh - do you mind me asking too low was too low for you?
No, I don't think people can typically reverse diet to a significantly higher TDEE unless they gain weight along with it.
However, as intake increases so does diet induced thermogenesis and NEAT, and so I DO think energy expenditure goes up, and I DO think there are individual differences in how someone responds to calorie fluctuations (in both directions).
Yes, I do think intentional monitoring of steps could help to mitigate NEAT reductions but (pure speculation here) not in all cases/not in it's entirety since spontaneous movement like fidgeting may also be impacted.
But some people can probably make a conscious effort to move more to attempt to offset this.1 -
I appreciate your thoughts on reverse dieting since I'm doing that now, too. I also just got a Fitbit Charge 2 last week so playing around with that to help give me an idea, too. (I definitely think that's increased my NEAT over the past week.
)
Last year I got to maintenance and started to recomp. I wanted to try YAYOG for starters but I kept having issues with minor injuries so I ended up in PT for several months. I was told I have hypermobility along with some weakness issues (possibly related to my MS).
When I was discharged from PT, the therapist recommended that for strength I stick to body weight training or machines since she thought the risk of injuring myself with free weights might be an issue with my hypermobility. Thoughts on that? I have read so much about the benefits of free weights over machines, I hate to hear that, but also don't want to be stupid and keep injuring myself. (I am about to start recomping after a race on Saturday, planning to start with YAYOG again but wondering where to go from there and if there's a way to maximize benefits from body weight training and machines if I want to keep improving long-term.)1 -
macchiatto wrote: »I appreciate your thoughts on reverse dieting since I'm doing that now, too. I also just got a Fitbit Charge 2 last week so playing around with that to help give me an idea, too. (I definitely think that's increased my NEAT over the past week. )
Last year I got to maintenance and started to recomp. I wanted to try YAYOG for starters but I kept having issues with minor injuries so I ended up in PT for several months. I was told I have hypermobility along with some weakness issues (possibly related to my MS).
When I was discharged from PT, the therapist recommended that for strength I stick to body weight training or machines since she thought the risk of injuring myself with free weights might be an issue with my hypermobility. Thoughts on that? I have read so much about the benefits of free weights over machines, I hate to hear that, but also don't want to be stupid and keep injuring myself. (I am about to start recomping after a race on Saturday, planning to start with YAYOG again but wondering where to go from there and if there's a way to maximize benefits from body weight training and machines if I want to keep improving long-term.)
So first of all please do not take this as medical advice nor is this meant to be taken over the advice you were given from your PT.
If I were going to resistance train using freeweights and I had hypermobility, I would be careful to monitor joint positions typically at end-ranges of ROM on lifts.
Example -- if you had elbow hypermobility you'd want to make sure you're not hypertextending the elbows at the lockout on a bench press.
I can't say with certainty whether or not freeweight training would be more or less dangerous than machines. You can still hyperextend joints using machines.1 -
Thank you, @SideSteel! Good food for thought, and I'm glad you mentioned the possibility of hyperextending on machines as well since that's good for me to be mindful of.
I know I'm probably getting ahead of myself since it will take me a while to get through the levels of YAYOG anyway. Can any of the commonly recommended beginner lifting programs (Starting Strength, NROLFW, etc.) be modified to be done using only machines rather than freeweights?0 -
macchiatto wrote: »Thank you, @SideSteel! Good food for thought, and I'm glad you mentioned the possibility of hyperextending on machines as well since that's good for me to be mindful of.
I know I'm probably getting ahead of myself since it will take me a while to get through the levels of YAYOG anyway. Can any of the commonly recommended beginner lifting programs (Starting Strength, NROLFW, etc.) be modified to be done using only machines rather than freeweights?
I wouldn't modify something like starting strength to use machines since SS is fundamentally designed to rapidly build strength at specific barbell lifts, and one of the main features of some of these lifts (like the squat for example) is that it incorporates a very high number of total muscle groups. This makes it very conducive to rapid increases in strength (because that strength is distributed across a large percentage of your body, basically).
Having said that, I would still follow some general principles of training when using machines, like building a progression into the exercises so that you are able to get stronger and potentially build muscle --- you'd just do this progression at an appropriate pace for the exercise.
1 -
That makes sense. Thanks!0
-
Can anyone offer some help, I'm not very knowledgeable in deciphering good vs bad ingredients in whey protein. I went on Amazon to order protein and noticed there's a new formula out. Has anyone compared this new formula, other than the basics (scoop/cals), of Now Foods Whey Protein, Vanilla with Glutamine to the NOW Foods Whey Protein Isolate Vanilla?
https://smile.amazon.com/Now-Protein-Vanilla-Glutamine-2-Pound/dp/B001B4R0XE/ref=cm_cd_al_qh_dp_t
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B0013P1HVC/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?ie=UTF8&smid=ALAQHED7P69VI&th=10 -
The isolate looks pretty standard, though I could do without the Xanthan, some people like the thicker texture.
The standard whey however, has too many fillers for my taste, especially the fructose. For the love of god, why? If you're going to put sugar in a protein product and charge a stupid price for it, at least use dextrose.
Either way, they're both overpriced AF.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »The isolate looks pretty standard, though I could do without the Xanthan, some people like the thicker texture.
Is that what makes it thicker!
Finding a good supplement is so difficult, it feels like you need a degree!
0 -
If you are looking for whey protein for general purposes I would check out PEScience. They make great tasting whey/casein blends and the calorie/macro content is pretty good.
IMO if you get 23-25g/protein at ~110-130 cals that's pretty solid.
Regarding your original post I can't see a reason to add glutamine to whey protein.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »The isolate looks pretty standard, though I could do without the Xanthan, some people like the thicker texture.
Is that what makes it thicker!
Finding a good supplement is so difficult, it feels like you need a degree!
Check out www.labdoor.com for quality. I just go down the list and see which ones I can get for around $12-15 per lb.3 -
0
This discussion has been closed.