Weight Gainers

Totentanz

Totentanz

Super Moderator
Staff member
I bought some Prolab N-Large2 to help supplement my caloric intake. After reading the contents, I'm left wondering what the point of taking this stuff is. The serving size is 4 scoops, which provides 580 calories and 52 grams of protein.

However... my cheap protein supplement has 120 calories and 20 grams of protein per scoop. 4 scoops of that stuff would be 480 calories and 60 grams of protein. That's only 100 calories less, but my protein supplement is significantly cheaper. The N-Large was $40 after shipping for 10 lbs, whereas my protein supplement, I could buy twice the amount for that price.

However, the N-Large is supposed to contain a bunch of Amino Acids...

So my question is, is there a benefit of taking N-Large instead of just using four scoops of my protein at once?

Also, is there a better weight gainer out there than N-Large that would be worth my money?
 
I used the mammoth 2500 successfully for a few months - went through 8.8 kilos a month - cost me 130 canadian bux (after tax) each month.

From what I understand, you can make your own cheaper, by buying maltodextrin in bulk and finding a cheap source of protein.

Either way, I quit using it coz of the high amounts of refined sugar. For the last two weeks i've been making a home made shake with oats, almond butter, honey, banana, flax seed oil, ginger, and whey protein.

Tastes more natural, and it's low GI
 
Most weight gainers are big buckets of sugar with some whey thrown in. There's this carb loophole they take advantage of...

There's a carb called maltodextrin. It's a disaccharide, so not technically sugar, but has a higher GI than pure glucose. They make it chiefly maltodextrin and then it allows them to claim "Only X grams of sugar!!! MOstly complex Carbs!!!111" while cutting costs and being even worse for you.

The weight gainers to look for are ones that have actual complex grain sources of carb mixed with varying types of protein (whey, egg, milk). They will cost significantly more, but are healthy enough to replace a meal. I've only ever found one of them like that.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Calkid @ Feb. 07 2005,3:33)]It's a disaccharide, so not technically sugar, but has a higher GI than pure glucose. T
Click to expand...
technically its not a disaccharide, if it was it would be called maltose (2 glucose molecules)

a maltodextrin is a glucose polymer, >3 glucose long, usually in the 10-12 range depending on setup. You can make them extremely long chained as well.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The weight gainers to look for are ones that have actual complex grain sources of carb mixed with varying types of protein (whey, egg, milk).
Click to expand...
if the grain is powdered, its more than likely going to have a relatively higher GI than the starting grain. Not that GI of an individial item is much of an issue anyway
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (BoSox @ Feb. 06 2005,8:26)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ([xeno]Julios @ Feb. 06 2005,8:12)]and it's low GI
Click to expand...
so?
Click to expand...
when you're looking to get 1500-2000 calories from carbs, it seems prudent to ease up on the high GI stuff. If only to stave off the risk of diabetes.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Feb. 06 2005,9:31)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (BoSox @ Feb. 07 2005,2:26)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ([xeno]Julios @ Feb. 06 2005,8:12)]and it's low GI
Click to expand...
so?
Click to expand...
and the fact that blending the oats actually increases the GI...
Click to expand...
actually, with the hand blender I use, they don't blend very well - and even if they do, I definitely don't get that huge sugar rush I got from the maltodextrin based shake.

Besides, anything that isn't processed is probably healthier in my books, especially when consuming large amounts in the long term.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ([xeno]Julios @ Feb. 11 2005,10:57)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (BoSox @ Feb. 06 2005,8:26)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ([xeno]Julios @ Feb. 06 2005,8:12)]and it's low GI
Click to expand...
so?
Click to expand...
when you're looking to get 1500-2000 calories from carbs, it seems prudent to ease up on the high GI stuff. If only to stave off the risk of diabetes.
Click to expand...
The role of carbohydrates in the development of obesity has a number of issues.

1) total caloric intake
2) bodyfat mass
3) glycemic index

1 intertwines with 2, which is the predominant cause of diabetes (consistently high energy supply *carbs or fat* results in insulin resistance and this is hte first step into diabetes)
3 is much much more debateable, especially if the high GI diet is actually suppled as a hypocaloric diet.
 
so high GI is more controversial as an associated factor of diabetes, when in a hypocaloric context right?

since i'm in a HYPERcaloric context (bulking with over 4000 cals) even more reason to avoid high GI right?

and just for sake of caution, it seems prudent to me to lower the GI.

From what little I understand, high levels of blood glucose levels seem to be at the centre of a variety of pathological conditions. It seems to be something quite fundamental, especially with regard to cardiovascular health.

Now perhaps if you have normal homeostatic mechanisms, high GI might not be a direct cause of concern.

But intuitively, it seems that extreme amounts of such a powerful substance (high concentrations of sugar) are systemically unhealthy. This is just intuition, and it is also supported by the fact that cyclical and potent sugar rushes do not *feel* healthy to me.

Now maybe this is outweighed by anabolic benefits of high gi - i.e. insulin spike which i've heard is a good factor for creating an anabolic environment.

I don't know enough about the issue to be sure. Perhaps I could induce an insulin spike after my workout with a dose of sugar - but as a main source of carbs, my common sense tells me to avoid malto...
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ([xeno]Julios @ Feb. 11 2005,5:45)]so high GI is more controversial as an associated factor of diabetes, when in a hypocaloric context right?
since i'm in a HYPERcaloric context (bulking with over 4000 cals) even more reason to avoid high GI right?
and just for sake of caution, it seems prudent to me to lower the GI.
Click to expand...
you also physically active, which changes things again :D

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
From what little I understand, high levels of blood glucose levels seem to be at the centre of a variety of pathological conditions. It seems to be something quite fundamental, especially with regard to cardiovascular health.
Now perhaps if you have normal homeostatic mechanisms, high GI might not be a direct cause of concern.
Click to expand...
and in terms of normality (well physical normality) a lean bbr is pretty good in terms of insulin sensitivity to start with. Maybe an obese, insulin resistance sedentary syndrome X'r may have to adjust things a lot. But either way, its more than just GI that has to be taken into account. Ice cream has a very low gi, but may not be a great source of food.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But intuitively, it seems that extreme amounts of such a powerful substance (high concentrations of sugar) are systemically unhealthy.
Click to expand...
but high concentrations of sugar are a different aspect than pure GI alone. High concentrations of sugars are very uncommon in nature, so htey are generally processed. The general products with high concentrations of sugar have very little nutrative value, and usually consumed in excess, so your getting a combination of effects.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I don't know enough about the issue to be sure. Perhaps I could induce an insulin spike after my workout with a dose of sugar - but as a main source of carbs, my common sense tells me to avoid malto...
Click to expand...
just to be sure, there is NO official GI produced for Maltodextrin (and if anyone can find the oriigins of the available one on the net, please forward the reference) but g/g it should be absorbed quicker than dextrose. But this is an advantage in terms of g/g, because it means quicker glycogen repletion. Within the context of a whole varied diet, in amongst good amounts of physical activity, it will mean very little.
 
Ok lemme put it this way:

is there any reason I should favour malto over oats?

is there any disadvantage to going low GI (at least for bulk of carbs)?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ([xeno]Julios @ Feb. 11 2005,10:26)]Ok lemme put it this way:
is there any reason I should favour malto over oats?
is there any disadvantage to going low GI (at least for bulk of carbs)?
Click to expand...
Malto tastes better (IMNSHO)
Oats actually have other nutrients which malto does not
disadvantage, in general depends. If you have long enough between sessions, glycogen resynthesis is not going to be a problem. If you are the type who struggles to eat enough, eating only low GI stuff can make it difficult to get calories. Im a BIG eater, but struggle with 500+g low gi carbs

laugh.gif


I have eating ~1500 on UD2 carbups
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top