Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
09/08/2019 7:13 am
All testing was done by American Analytical Chemistry Laboratories Corporation.
Analytical Method: AOAC
Biotest 025-486
Advanced Protein
Label Claim:
Per 100g of powder label claims
Protein: 70.1g
Calories: 385
Lab Results:
Protein 100g of powder:
Protein: 75.4
Calories: 355
VPX Cross Pro
Label Claims:
Protein: 91.36g
Calories: 363
Lab test:
Protein: 88.4g
Calories: 366
AST VP2
Label Claims:
Protein: 85.71g
Calories: 357
Lab Test:
Protein: 84.5g
Calories: 371
There you guys go. I'd like to thank smokinghawk. He sent me the Biotest sample a while back.
The next products in line to test are Isomatrix and NlargeII by prolab.
09/08/2019 7:41 am
It doesn't sound any so far have really lied to much on the lable climas at all. They all look withiing say 96% of the addvertised contenct and it would very possibly be a settlying thing that leads to the contenct sperating into something slghtly off of the addvertised contenct.
Its too bad a test can't be done to determine the amounts of each type of proten that these products contain.
09/08/2019 7:59 am
It doesn't sound any so far have really lied to much on the lable climas at all. They all look withiing say 96% of the addvertised contenct and it would very possibly be a settlying thing that leads to the contenct sperating into something slghtly off of the addvertised contenct.Its too bad a test can't be done to determine the amounts of each type of proten that these products contain.
Supnut, that is exactly what I would like to see, for instance - how much soy protein isomatrix contains. I have heard of certain companies cutting their products with cheaper proteins as it still registers as protein when analyzed.
Topic starter
09/08/2019 8:24 am
I tried pricing this type of work and it was not cheap AT ALL. If they used lower quality proteins, the % wouldn't be correct.
09/08/2019 8:51 am
I tried pricing this type of work and it was not cheap AT ALL. If they used lower quality proteins, the % wouldn't be correct.
1Fast, I have even heard cutting products with glycine, which would register as pure protein, I think.
Will you have a section on your site where results are posted?
You can perhaps include a banner that says "a portion of all protein sales is used to determine if that product is actually protein".
09/08/2019 9:13 am
Its too bad a test can't be done to determine the amounts of each type of proten that these products contain.
They could use a cheaper form of whey protein and yes it is still whey its a cheaper grade. I want to know the 'grade' of protein in some of the less expensive (cheaper) ones, such as Optimum.
Topic starter
09/08/2019 9:36 am
Optimum was checked a while back. They were a tad over claims (by .2g per serving). Quality won't be a problem with optimum. They make other people's stuff and stand to lose to much if they make a crappy product.
09/08/2019 10:01 am
QUOTEYou can perhaps include a banner that says \"a portion of all protein sales is used to determine if that product is actually protein\".
😆 Okay, close your eyes for a second, then open them pretending that you are a consumer who just happened upon Mike's site now seeing that statement. Thanks for the laugh. Too funny.
Man to his doom goes driving down; a crown of thorns is still a crown!
Crowley
09/08/2019 10:24 am
Can someone give me a brief breakdown on the differences betwen AOAC and HPLC?
1Fast, what does it cost per ingredient, per assay, and what kind of ingredients are more expensive to test for?
09/08/2019 10:52 am
As far as Opti's cheap whey you might be able to determine an amount but I was under the impression that a lot of cheaper whey's were heat dried and that denatured the protein. I don't have any problems with soy as long as the over all quality is good. I try to avoid cheaper proteins because of faulty claims, ash and what not usually showing up in the protein. Cheers.