# Pro Pep



## Snorbitz1uk (Sep 21, 2005)

Does any other companies apart for cnp do this or an equivelent, looking to save a few quid?


----------



## dale_flex (Feb 17, 2008)

Nutrisport 90+ is micellar casein and whey isolate blend similiar to pro pep, with time release theory. But you will get mixed reveiws about nutrisport products on here i personally like them as they are great value for money. The 90+ does not have the pro-biotics like propep though. Why not go to bulk powders and but bulk whey isolate and bulk miscellar casein and mix your own it will work out alot cheaper and bulk powders has a great following on here, Dale.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Pro - Pep is a blended protein just like Extreme Protein plus as a member of the forum you get 25% discount...


----------



## Nine Pack (Oct 30, 2006)

If you're looking for an exact equivalent then I'm afraid you'll be searching in vain. There is only one company using genuine undenatured micellar caesin.

I had a long chat with Kerry keyes a long time ago about this as I found what I thought was an equivalent as it claimed to have undenatured M.C. I won't mention any company names. The micellar caesin used in Pep is sourced from the sole manufacturer of these undenatured proteins for use in the medical field. They will not sell to any other supplement manufacturer.

That said, you can still get a good time release effect from the other blended proteins. If the caesin has been subject to any heating or chemical processing then there may be a slight compromise on quality though. It's just a matter of finding one your G.I tract can tolerate without all the wind & associated unpleasantness that sometimes comes with protein supplementation. Everyone has thier preferred make once they've tried a few.


----------



## Snorbitz1uk (Sep 21, 2005)

thanks all for the advise


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Nine Pack said:


> If you're looking for an exact equivalent then I'm afraid you'll be searching in vain. There is only one company using genuine undenatured micellar caesin.
> 
> I had a long chat with Kerry keyes a long time ago about this as I found what I thought was an equivalent as it claimed to have undenatured M.C. I won't mention any company names. The micellar caesin used in Pep is sourced from the sole manufacturer of these undenatured proteins for use in the medical field. They will not sell to any other supplement manufacturer.
> 
> That said, you can still get a good time release effect from the other blended proteins. If the caesin has been subject to any heating or chemical processing then there may be a slight compromise on quality though. It's just a matter of finding one your G.I tract can tolerate without all the wind & associated unpleasantness that sometimes comes with protein supplementation. Everyone has thier preferred make once they've tried a few.


Paul does he give a reason to why there is 1g of Trans fat in the shake as this is probably the worst fat you can get and definatly does not have a place in my opinion in a bodybuilding supplement...


----------



## Karl(Reflex) (Jun 12, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> Paul does he give a reason to why there is 1g of Trans fat in the shake as this is probably the worst fat you can get and definatly does not have a place in my opinion in a bodybuilding supplement...


I would assume that they would be natural trans fats that are present in dairy products. Not trans fats that are formed via partial hydrogenation.


----------



## genesis (Jul 4, 2006)

The protein powder im using at the moment states under the ingredients undenatured cross flow microfiltered whey isolate and undenatured micellar casein.

If CNP are the only company using genuine undenatured micellar casein then what would be in the one im using


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Karl unless i am mistaken their is only one type of Trans Fat and that is the bad type so again why is it in a bodybuilding supp


----------



## dale_flex (Feb 17, 2008)

Paul just out of interest i know you are now an extreme nutrition athlete but before your time with them which proteins and supplements did you spend your hard earned on?


----------



## Nine Pack (Oct 30, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> Paul does he give a reason to why there is 1g of Trans fat in the shake as this is probably the worst fat you can get and definatly does not have a place in my opinion in a bodybuilding supplement...


Paul,

There is no trans fat at all in pro peptide. There is however 1g of saturated fat, and we still need a certain amount of it in the diet as I'm sure you are aware. I will double check with John H, but all the packaging & literature I have says 0g trans fat.

Other companies may claim to have undenatured micellar caesin in thier products, but surely you all know the supplement industry on the whole is not afraid of bending the truth at times. This is exactly what CNP are trying to set themselves apart from. When Pro Pep was launched, there were suddenly a lot of imitators on the market claiming to be the same. All I can tell you is what I have been told by CNP themselves, and I have never had cause to doubt them. They are the most straight talking, honest bunch of people I have ever met.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Paul the last tub of Pro-Pep definatly had the number 1 next to the word Trans Fat this may of been in the old version but it was there....

Dale - i used products from CNP, Dymatize, Cytosport, Sci-tech and others i still use bars from trioplex


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Pscarb said:


> Karl unless i am mistaken their is only one type of Trans Fat and that is the bad type so again why is it in a bodybuilding supp


I think you are correct, no such thing as a natural trans fat as far as I am aware.

NinePack, if a company is making false claims about a product, then surely you should name them, so we have the option of not to buying this stuff?

I have not always heard the most complimentry things about Kerry, so I'd be hesitant to just take his word, did you research what he claimed for yourself?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Paul B i have nothing against CNP and i have the up most respect for both John and Kerry but as Nytol has said if it is in there then we as postential customers deserve to know why...

here is a pic taken from the breakdown on the label from a supplement site on the net...i have an old tub of Pro-Pep and it matches...

Doc1.doc


----------



## genesis (Jul 4, 2006)

dont know wether any one has noticed this but CNP have just revamped their packaging with bigger CNP lettering on the front of their tubs i have an old and a new Tub the old one has 1g of trans fat in the new one dosent that seems to be the only difference between the 2


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

they must of removed the trans fat or not declared it i would be intrested to see how they removed it from the blend


----------



## Karl(Reflex) (Jun 12, 2006)

There are such things as natural trans fats. They occur naturally, in small quantities, in meat and dairy products from ruminants (cows, goats,etc).


----------



## Great White (Apr 4, 2003)

Pscarb said:


> or not declared it


Very naughty if thats the case!


----------



## Boditronics Ltd (May 10, 2006)

I think i am right in thinking that the USA is about to ban Trans Fats from food products so since Pro pep is a USA made product and its biggest market is USA I suspect they may be prempting this .. I could be wrong though

BTW Express Whey is a Blend Of whey Isolate , Whey concentrate and Micellar Casein FYI original poster .. big discount and try before you buy for UK Muscle members :beer1:


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Karl(Reflex) said:


> There are such things as natural trans fats. They occur naturally, in small quantities, in meat and dairy products from ruminants (cows, goats,etc).


So because it is natural it is good for you or is it still one of the worst fats you can consume??


----------



## Nine Pack (Oct 30, 2006)

I'll be speaking to CNP today when I collect my daily order so will let you all know. I would seriously doubt that they had an ingredient that is not declared as these things are all tested anyway. Certain companies have done this in the past & been fined heavily. Some still flout the law though and eventually get nailed.


----------



## Karl(Reflex) (Jun 12, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> So because it is natural it is good for you or is it still one of the worst fats you can consume??


The problem with trans fats formed via hydrognation is that they are essentailly not recognised by the body and this is where the problem occurs, as therefore does not know how to deal with them.

Natural trans fats, such as CLA will be present (all beit in small quantities, although higher in cows that grase on graas) in milk, cheese yoghurts,etc and have been part of our diet for a very long time, therefore they do not pose the severe health problems that the un-natural form have.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

yes but is it the un-natural form or the natural form???


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Karl(Reflex) said:


> Natural trans fats, such as CLA will be present (all beit in small quantities, although higher in cows that grase on graas) in milk, cheese yoghurts,etc and have been part of our diet for a very long time, therefore they do not pose the severe health problems that the un-natural form have.


CLA is a trans fat?????

I have not heard that before.

CLA is very good for you, but the hydrogenated oils that most people think of as trans fats (if indeed CLA is classed as one?), are the worst thing you can possibly eat.

There is talk of a ban in the US, but as everything else it will come down to money, and I'd be surprised if it came into effect.

They give food a longer shelf life, making it more profitable, so who cares if it kills people???


----------



## Boditronics Ltd (May 10, 2006)

CLA is indeed a Trans fat , but there is a difference between an horogenated (sp) fat and a naturally altered fat like CLA , they both come under the broader heading Trans Fat but only the later clogs the arteries as your body cannot break it down , Trans fat is a euphomism for altered fat and some are naturally altered whereas man made ones are chemically and heat altered making them in affect toxic

sorry bout the grammer am in a bit of a rush

Wurz


----------



## Karl(Reflex) (Jun 12, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> yes but is it the un-natural form or the natural form???


That i dont know, however looking at the ingredients list there is nothing that jumps out that would contain hydrogenated trans fats.


----------



## Nine Pack (Oct 30, 2006)

The old labels with Dorians face on the logo did indeed show there to be 1g of trans fats which was probably the CLA content, so Paul was right about the labeling, I only have the new style ones in stock & the trans fat is no longer in the product at all, or on the label.

CNP are getting a definitive answer on the subject from the US side of the operation where certain CNP products (inc Pro Pep) are made. They will post the response on here as soon as possible.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

cheers Paul....


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Boditronics Ltd said:


> CLA is indeed a Trans fat , but there is a difference between an horogenated (sp) fat and a naturally altered fat like CLA , they both come under the broader heading Trans Fat but only the later clogs the arteries as your body cannot break it down , Trans fat is a euphomism for altered fat and some are naturally altered whereas man made ones are chemically and heat altered making them in affect toxic
> 
> sorry bout the grammer am in a bit of a rush
> 
> Wurz


Well you learn something new every day, I did not know that (about the CLA).

Nice one,


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Boditronics Ltd said:


> I think i am right in thinking that the USA is about to ban Trans Fats from food products


I just got sent this:

By Dr. Rallie McAllister

Like it or not, New York City restaurant patrons soon will be eating less trans fat when they dine out. On Dec. 5, 2006, New York City's Board of Health adopted a resolution to restrict the service of food products containing artificial trans fat at New York City restaurants.

While the political and economic implications of the resolution have been hotly debated, there's little doubt that consumption of trans fat has negative health consequences.

In clinical studies, trans fats have been shown to elevate total blood cholesterol and levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Even worse, they tend to reduce levels of heart- healthy high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol.

No other known dietary component has both of these adverse effects, each of which contributes to the development of heart disease, a condition shared by more than 12 million Americans. Each year, heart disease claims the lives of more than 500,000 people in the United States.

There's also evidence to suggest that consumption of trans fat can trigger insulin resistance, boosting the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. In the body, trans fat may interfere with the normal metabolism of essential fatty acids, leading to disruptions in the production of various hormones and blood clotting factors.

Most of the trans fat in the typical American diet is artificially created in a process known as hydrogenation, in which plant oils are exposed to hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst at high temperatures. The process changes the structure of the chemical bonds in fat, transforming them from a liquid to solid state.

With their revised chemical structure, hydrogenated oils don't break down or become rancid as quickly as naturally occurring oils and fats. This property comes in handy in the preparation of fried foods, including chicken, doughnuts and french fries. It also helps retard spoilage and prolong the shelf life of commercially prepared baked goods.

Not all trans fat in the U.S. diet is artificially engineered: Small amounts occur naturally in grazing animals used in food production.

Regardless of the source, health and nutrition experts agree that Americans consume too much of the bad fat. According to data published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the average daily intake among adults is about 5.8 grams.

Guidelines issued by the American Heart Association recommend that trans fat consumption be kept below 1 percent of total energy intake. The Institutes of Medicine concluded that because trans fat confers no known health benefit and contributes to heart disease, intake should be as low as possible.

One way to reduce your consumption of trans fat is to avoid eating commercially prepared fried foods. Choosing a bagel instead of a doughnut for breakfast will eliminate about 5 grams of trans fat from your diet, and foregoing the french fries at lunch will cut out another 8 grams.

While you're reducing your consumption of fried fare, you can also choose prepackaged foods that are free of trans fat. Since January 2006, the FDA has required food manufacturers to list trans fat content on the Nutrition Facts panels of all food items and many nutritional supplements.

When you're preparing food at home, it's a good idea to use ingredients that contain monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. Unlike trans fat, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats do not elevate blood cholesterol levels, and both offer a number of health benefits when consumed in moderation.

Polyunsaturated fats are found in plant oils, including sunflower, safflower and sesame seed oil, as well as in some varieties of fish, including tuna and salmon. Canola oil and olive oil contain monounsaturated fats.

To reduce your consumption of trans fat in animal products, choose fat-free or low-fat dairy products, and lean meats, including baked poultry without the skin, and the leanest cuts of beef and pork. It's not practical to completely eliminate all trans fat from your diet, but lowering your intake will go a long way toward reducing your risk of heart disease and improving your overall health.

Dr. Rallie McAllister is a family physician in Kingsport, Tenn.


----------



## John Hodgson (Jan 17, 2007)

Paul booth brought this to my attention whilst ordering our superb products of which he buys, sells and uses. I have actually contacted our main man Phil Connolly who is behind the developement of Pro Peptide/MR and is considered one of the most prominent protein experts in the world, below is his reply.

*Sure I can help you John. We made the original label - well ahead of any government requirements because we are way ahead of bureaucrats when it comes to the health of our customers. All milkfat contains a small amount of trans fat. For that matter, all animal fat contains a small amount of trans fat. In the case of ProPeptide, Pro MR, etc, the fat in the products comes from the natural milkfat that is actually attached to the protein. There is not much fat there, but it is enough to require labeling. By calculation, the quantity of milkfat present means that there would be a few milligrams of trans fat present per serving. One time, when we were printing labels, we knew that in a few years down the road, most governments were going to require trans fat labeling. I called the US FDA and asked them how trans fat should be labeled. Their response at the time was that they hadn't reached a final decision, but if we had any in our product, we should warn the consumer on our label. By nutritional label "rounding up" rules, even a few milligrams of trans fat would have to be labeled as 1 gram - so we labeled it that way. Finally, the US government published their rules for trans fat labeling. Those rules stated that if a product contained less than 0.25 grams trans fat, the label could show 0, zero, nada. The next time we printed up labels, we removed the trans fat declaration to show zero. Our products contain the same amount of trans fat as any sports supplement out there that is manufactured from milk based proteins. We were just way ahead of our competitors, as a concern for the health of our customers, in labeling trans fats and had to guess at what the law would read when finalized.*

So there you have it. I have been using Pro peptide since its inception in 1999 and well its served me very well I think!!

The below images from my last guest appearance at the Stars of Tomorrow 30th October 2006, five weeks after my last show.

www.cnpprofessional.com/view-album.aspx?album=32#

Remember KEEP IT SIMPLE - train hard, eat well and with time and consistency you can only improve.


----------



## genesis (Jul 4, 2006)

Well thats answered the trans fat question!

Thats some quality mass by the way John


----------



## chrisj22 (Mar 22, 2006)

This is totally off subject, but damn.....you look quality.


----------



## Nine Pack (Oct 30, 2006)

The Pro Peptide seems to have done John no harm then!!

He's a constant source of inspiration to me & has been helping me ever since I began competing. I use all the same priciples John & Kerry taught me and have made more than double the progress in the last five years than i did in the ten years before that. Nuff said.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

cheers John for clearing that up but you can see where the confusion would come from...so the new pro pep has no amount of trans fat in it??


----------



## Garbs (Jan 23, 2006)

Jesus wept, you are in some seriously great shape mate, fair play to you.


----------



## Nine Pack (Oct 30, 2006)

Paul,

Phil Connolly did say thet there were just a few milligrams in each serving of trans fat:

''By calculation, the quantity of milkfat present means that there would be a few milligrams of trans fat present per serving.''

Due to the law stating that less than 0.25mg could be labelled as zero, they eventually labelled it exactly that. The same is true though for any protein product using any type of milk protein as a base. I'm certainly glad you raised the question though as it has shed some light on the matter accross the board regarding all protein supplements, and especially the info on CLA being a trans fat. Not many of us were aware of that, myself included.

I think it's good that CNP had the honesty to declare it on the label just in case even though it wasn't actually required to do so. Like I say, this is a company that clearly has a no bullsh*t policy. Not something we see often in this industry.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Paul i fully respect both John and CNP for their honesty but you can see where the confusion would come from concerning the trans fats...


----------



## EXTREME (Aug 5, 2005)

Pardon me for returning to the original question, snorbitz1uk you asked for a product similar to Pro-Pep but cheaper, our Extreme Protein is a 4 protein blend with 22 aminos and is 76.5% protein, 5.8% carbs and 4.2% fat. Sodium is 0.1% and lactose is 0.2%, thus allowing our athletes to use it right up to show day and enabling them to have a full spectrum of amino acids being supplied to their muscles in a time release manner, it's also 22% Glutamine.

Forum members get 1.75 kg of this for £31.46 including shipping. The vast majority of users like it because of taste, consistency, easy digestion and the fact its such a quality product at a good price.

Extreme Protein has been around since December 1999, we've never played with the formula because we don't think anything out there is better, in value for money or in taste considering we keep artificial sweetners to a minimum in any of our products we don't sweeten with sucralose.


----------



## Great White (Apr 4, 2003)

John, Looking in damn good shape mate.

Serious mass you got there.

Also agree with Doug - Ive used there pro whey for months now, mixes great, tastes good and got everything you need in it.

Also makes really good protein jelly


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Paul Govier said:


> Also makes really good protein jelly


How do you do that?


----------



## Great White (Apr 4, 2003)

Nytol said:


> How do you do that?


1 x Rowtree Sugar Free Jelly (Rasberry is nicest for this)

250ml boling water

300ml cold water

2 x scoops of extreme strawberry whey.

1. Make up the jelly as per packet (pour into boiling water, stir untill dissolved, then add cold water)

2. Pour into a blender and add whey protein

3. Blend carefully - use the "burst" on your blender if it has it, as it goes very frothy! - only takes a couple of bursts to mix.

4. Pour into tub and put in fridge to set.

5. Enjoy!!

Im addicted to this stuff - like 5g carbs from the whey and the rest is just pure protein - 50g protein per pint 

Mmmmmm Mmmmmmmm


----------



## Snorbitz1uk (Sep 21, 2005)

EXTREME said:


> Pardon me for returning to the original question, snorbitz1uk you asked for a product similar to Pro-Pep but cheaper, our Extreme Protein is a 4 protein blend with 22 aminos and is 76.5% protein, 5.8% carbs and 4.2% fat. Sodium is 0.1% and lactose is 0.2%, thus allowing our athletes to use it right up to show day and enabling them to have a full spectrum of amino acids being supplied to their muscles in a time release manner, it's also 22% Glutamine.
> 
> Forum members get 1.75 kg of this for £31.46 including shipping. The vast majority of users like it because of taste, consistency, easy digestion and the fact its such a quality product at a good price.
> 
> Extreme Protein has been around since December 1999, we've never played with the formula because we don't think anything out there is better, in value for money or in taste considering we keep artificial sweetners to a minimum in any of our products we don't sweeten with sucralose.


Already ordered from you earlier this week, arrived yesterday, very nice


----------



## Nine Pack (Oct 30, 2006)

Regarding pro pep ' equivalents'. I would strongly urge everyone to read the following which was sent by Phil Connolly, one of the worlds leading protein experts. It will dispel a few misconceptions about proteins & how different types are absorbed. It's a long read, but the best info you will EVER get on protein:

Having looked through the pages of a competitors product brochure, will not mention who but lets just say they don't inform the truth through their literature.

They mention about Whey protein being possibly the kings of protein. Upon reading this I was dismayed by some of what was printed. Not being a protein genius I forwarded the article over to Phil Connolly who is one of the leading protein experts today and is behind the development of CNP's Pro peptide & Pro MR for his expert analysis on what was printed. Here is what he said:

In reading over the ******* brochure, I can only conclude that it was written by a person with a third grade understanding of the science of proteins.

See below Phil's comments on the claims made by 'brand X':

"Shellfish, milk, beef, and soya are prime examples of proteins with low biological values." - False.

The proteins listed all have the high BV's. The BV of milk is in the 90's. The BV of beef is in the 90's. The BV of shellfish is in the 90's. The BV of soya protein is in the 90's (that's the reason they go with BV... it was originally instituted by the soy isolate people so that they could make soya protein look as good as animal based proteins). The BV of whey protein is in the 90's. The only person (aside from *******) who ever insisted that the BV of whey protein was above 100 was David Jenkins. He did so with bad mathematics. By definition, BV is a percentage - what percent of the protein you consume is actually used by the body within 24 hours. We all know that the mathematically maximum possible percentage is 100. It is impossible, through an actual scientific assay to come up with a BV above 100.

"Whey protein on the other hand (a refined and isolated protein derived from cow's milk) is considered by scientists to be the ultimate protein ... and has a higher BV than casein, chicken, or egg protein."

First of all, the only whey protein utilized in sports nutrition that is derived from cow's milk is in our line of products. There is no other line that can make that claim. The whey protein that ********** uses is derived from cheese whey, not cow's milk, hence the name "whey" protein. 99.99% of all of the whey protein manufactured in this world comes from cheese whey. Cheese whey protein is no longer in it's natural, native structure and it has been at least partially denatured by multiple heat pasteurizations during manufacture. Secondly, the differences in actual BV are so slight as to be ridiculous. I do not know of too many scientists that would go out on a limb to state that whey protein is the ultimate protein. The vast majority of scientists and nutritionists would firmly state that the ultimate protein is a mixture of proteins - all have good points and bad points. A mixture would take advantage of the good points while negating the bad points. In truth, egg protein has a higher BV than whey protein, higher quantities of BCAA's, and higher essential AA's.

"Whey's high BV means that consuming small amounts can have greater muscle building / toning results than eating double the amount of steak or triple the amount of soya."

True! - as long as one is talking about eating steak and not pure steak protein. Steak is only about 15% to 20% protein. The rest is water, fat, etc. If one were to eat a serving of ******* whey protein (perhaps 32 grams) and compare it to 64 grams of steak, one would be getting 24 grams of protein from ******* and only 13 grams from the steak. Steak protein in its pure form, on the other hand, would be very near to equal to whey protein for BV and perhaps superior for muscle building/toning because of its high carnosine and carnitine levels - whey protein does contain these compounds. We all know that soy protein is cr*p! Although, Peter Lemon, the man quoted at the start of the ******* article, did release a study a few years ago wherein he found that soy protein isolate resulted in better muscle growth in college aged men than did whey protein (it is the only study out there with those results). Usually studies show that soy protein does not promote muscle growth to anywhere near the same extent as animal based proteins.

Further on this subject of consuming smaller amounts of whey protein - if whey protein has a BV of 98%, then when consuming 20 grams of it, one could rely on the fact that 19.6 grams of that whey protein would be remain in the body for 24 hours when consumed. If casein's BV were lowered all the way down to 90%, then when eating 20 grams of casein, the body would retain 18 grams. By my calculations, that means that in their stupid isolation of scientific facts, one could consume 18.4 grams of whey protein to equal the retention of 20 grams of casein. All of this nonsense, however, is negated because BV only measures how much of the total protein nitrogen stays in the body for a small period of time and it does not measure what the body does with various proteins once consumed. You see, the body may spit out slightly more of the casein nitrogen within the first 24 hours after consumption because casein contains slightly more non-essential amino acids than does whey protein. The body first spits out what it cannot use at all, so casein shows a slightly higher loss of protein nitrogen in the first 24 hours compared to whey protein. However, casein has been shown to remain in the body longer than whey protein over the long term. BV does not measure the quantities of each of the essential amino acids of each protein that are retained long term by the body - it can't &#8230; there is no mechanism for it in the testing method. Does whey protein hold up better long term compared to casein? No. Better studies have shown that slow digesting proteins result in better long term retention of the valuable amino acids. Further, the BV testing methods were developed by soy protein people with an eye towards making casein look as nutritionally bad as possible. The very BV testing method is skewed towards giving a low result for casein (Oh yes, such tricks are constantly being put forth as scientific fact - the older PER studies used casein as the standard by which all other proteins were rated. The soy people screwed around with the feed mix that was fed to the subject rats until they found a mix that favoured soya and gave a significantly lower result for casein in rats. The same can be done with humans.).

There are better studies to quote from than BV studies - studies that actually demonstrate what the human body does with proteins once consumed. Such studies as those performed by the European Center for Human Nutrition Research in France - Boire, Tome et al. Basically, these studies go beyond an eat-then-examine-the-***-after-24-hours approach, and tracked radio-labelled amino acids through the body to see where they are sent and how they are utilized. Also, how much is retained in the body after 3 days. These studies show that slow digesting proteins are superior to fast digesting proteins - it is a mechanical concern of the human body. The liver is the body's filter - the body's blood is circulated through the liver and the liver removes anything that is in excess in the blood. A fast digesting protein (whey protein is a fast digesting protein) releases a glut of amino acids into the bloodstream. That amino acid saturated blood flows through the liver and the liver begins oxidizing the amino acids for energy to remove their excess from the blood, thereby eliminating those amino acids from use for making lean tissue. A far higher percentage of fast digesting protein amino acids are oxidized by the liver than are those from slow digesting proteins. Boire's paper contains graphs that show that bloodstream amino acid levels actually drop below baseline levels within hours after consuming whey protein. When the bloodstream amino acid levels drop below baseline like that, the body believes that it is starving for amino acids and starts cannibalizing lean tissue for amino acids (catabolism). Sure, whey protein triggers more intense protein synthesis in the body, but it also, without the assistance/presence of a good slow digesting protein like casein, will trigger muscle catabolism after the liver oxidizes a large percentage of what was consumed. After three days, significantly higher levels of casein derived amino acids are still being utilized in the body than are those from whey protein.

Now, guys like David Jenkins tried to attack these studies by telling the consumer to counteract the catabolism of whey protein consumption by eating whey protein more often, every few hours - just as ******* does in this article. The Boire group, however, performed a follow-up study in which they concluded that to match the anti-catabolic properties of casein, one would have to consume a few grams of whey protein every 10 minutes - not practical and certainly expensive over 16 hours. Consuming 20 grams of whey protein every 2 to 3 hours throughout the day (and night - don't forget that to avoid catabolism at night, they would have to get up and consume the whey protein all night) will not help to avoid the catabolic effect of whey protein consumption and would be more expensive to the consumer than drinking 2 to 3 Pro Peptide or Pro MR shakes per day (the cost of 2 or 3 servings of our shakes versus 6 servings of ******* Whey Protein).

On to more bad information in the article:

"Whey or Casein - which is superior?"

"You may have seen some sports nutrition products containing a new slow digesting protein called micellular casein." - OK first of all, it is MICELLAR casein, not the very retarded "micellular casein" used in the article. Using the word "micellular" is equivalent to saying "Nucular bomb" instead of nuclear bomb. Only a complete scientific goof would use a word like that. If he can't get the very simple scientific term correct, how can anyone trust his scientific advice? Secondly, it is true that casein has been around for years - but not casein in its natural micellar form. Micellar casein is so new that there are only two locations on this planet that are capable of manufacturing it. Whey protein, on the other hand is manufactured by every farmer who makes cheese. Also, cottage cheese is virtually pure casein, but it is not the micellar form casein - it has been curded out of milk with acid and has, therefore, lost much of its valuable biological activity.

"Canadian scientists found that whey protein was six times more effective at improving exercise performance than casein." - the study they quote is the Lands, Grey, Smountas study. It has been thrown out in the USA as not being a valid, impartial scientific study and cannot be used in claims. It was paid for by the Immunotec people and was purposely set up to show the superiority of Immunocal whey protein. They used a hospital staff from Children's Hospital in Montreal (Canada) to execute the study - the same staff that they have used for all of their studies that have been biased and deemed not valid by the scientific community. To show you how invalid the study was, Immunotec supplied the casein that was used as a control in the study. They have refused to state the source of the casein or its quality - although reports have it that it was straight acid casein, a product that looks and behaves like sand, would be like eating sand when consumed, and would digest and get utilized very poorly when consumed (like sand). For that reason, a poor experimental control, the study has been scientifically invalidated. For these guys to actually quote it is equivalent to making a false claim.

"However, many people experience wind and discomfort with casein products." - True.

Just like any protein may cause wind and discomfort. Whey protein is no better at this than casein. That is why we have viable probiotic organisms in our products. Wind and discomfort result from nutrients that are hard-to-digest. Probiotic organisms help digestion thereby significantly reducing wind and discomfort. For the record, casein in its micellar form is easily digested by the human body and rarely imparts wind or discomfort.

There is a large violator (technical graphic arts jargon) on the second page of the article that says, "Whey is particularly high in the amino acid glutamine, which is the most abundant amino acid in muscle tissue and may boost muscle growth and prevent muscle wasting." - False!!!!! - This is a gross false claim. They provide no reference for their "quote" and they don't even make that statement anywhere in their article. They just inserted that violator into the pages to make it look official without any basis for it being there. In actual fact, what they say about glutamine is correct -it is that valuable an amino acid. Glutamine is an "essential" non-essential amino acid. We need to consume a supplemental 20 grams every day. That is why we fortify our products with glutamine. Whey protein, however, is not "particularly high in the amino acid glutamine" as they state. Whey protein, in actual fact, is relatively low in glutamine content compared to other readily available proteins in our food supply. Whey protein contains about 7% to 8% glutamine. Casein contains about 9% to 10% glutamine. Soy protein contains about 14% glutamine. Wheat protein contains about 35% glutamine. For obvious reasons, animal meat proteins (being muscle tissue) contain in excess of 20% glutamine. My guess is that the bozo who wrote this article was confusing the two amino acids glutamine and glutamic acid. Whey protein contains about 20% glutamic acid. Glutamic acid cannot be converted by the body into glutamine and it does not have the same beneficial effects as glutamine. Given the rest of his misunderstanding of proteins and amino acids, it is no surprise that he would make this very ignorant mistake.

The rest of his article makes claims about taking whey protein more often and we have already covered why consuming whey protein more often is not practical for the consumer. We do, however, have to cover (one more time) the differences between what the article claims and real life. The beneficial claims being made for whey protein in the article are based on studies performed with natural, native structured whey proteins that were isolated directly from skim milk without use of any chemicals or pH changes. Numerous studies have tried to show that whey proteins derived from cheese whey will provide the same metabolic benefits as native whey proteins that are derived directly from skim milk. None have yet been able to do so. In fact, the definitive, original study on the benefits of whey protein (Bounous and Gold) concluded that while a natural, native whey protein that they named Protein X provided the widely quoted health benefits of whey protein, those whey proteins that were manufactured from cheese whey (they actually used 8 commercial brands) were no better than the casein control at providing the benefits. In simple terms, the closest whey protein to Protein X is in our products. The cheese whey proteins being utilized by everyone else are really no better than casein for the reputed health benefits - that includes ******* whey protein - and that is based on scientific evidence.

As for their last claim that whey protein has been shown to be effective when dieting as it can reduce appetite and increase CCK production - casein outperforms whey protein every time in weight loss studies. Casein dulls the appetite far longer than whey protein and consuming micellar casein results in significantly higher levels of CCK production. You see, CCK production is triggered when the stomach detects the presence of a small peptide sequence of kappa casein, otherwise known as glycomacropeptide (GMP). During the cheese making process kappa casein is cleaved by rennet or rennin enzyme. That releases the GMP from the kappa casein and causes a destabilization of the casein micelle, resulting in cheese curds precipitating out of the milk. The GMP stays with the cheese whey protein. When the cheese whey protein is consumed, GMP triggers release of CCK. The problem, however, is that GMP is a small peptide and is not always preserved during the manufacture of the whey protein (it goes out with the effluent). I have analyzed whey proteins with no GMP and most with very little. On the other hand, the whey protein we use has one little twist (to match the way Bounous and Gold made Protein X) - we start with skim milk at cold temperature, add rennin enzyme and cleave off the GMP. Because of the cold temperature, there is no casein curd production. The skim is then filtered in such a way to preserve GMP with the whey protein. The whey protein that we use has been analyzed at 14% GMP (compared to the average cheese whey protein content of about 4% GMP). Our customers get a double whammy of GMP and CCK production - a high GMP whey protein and micellar casein (the stomach contains a natural rennin type enzyme that will cleave GMP off of casein that is consumed in the micellar structure). Yes, GMP will help to reduce hunger and generate a leaner body - we provide way more of a dose than any cheese whey protein out there.

Lastly, please remember that we are not anti-whey protein. In fact, we love whey protein! We think that real whey protein is terrific. We just love high quality, natural structure whey protein - the healthy whey protein. We don't use that cheap, low quality cheese whey protein. Pro Peptide contains almost 15 grams of high quality whey protein per serving. We simply go along with the preponderance of scientific thought that is of the opinion that the ultimate protein is a mixture of proteins. Whey protein and micellar casein make one heck of an ultimate mix.

Sorry about the length. It is a complicated subject.

Philip Connolly


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

i think this is a decent article but isn't Phil Connelly connected to CNP in some way shape or form ??


----------



## Ralphy (Mar 13, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> i think this is a decent article but isn't Phil Connelly connected to CNP in some way shape or form ??


As Mr Hodgson stated in his earlier post, he's "our main man" 

Also, I dont want to cause a riot here BUT... it appears to me that article was strategically edited by the poster to read " ******* " almost hinting it was EXTREME, when in fact the company the article relates to is not, it is M*********. Just to clarify


----------



## BSF James (Sep 29, 2003)

A good value protein blend, I think, is USN Pure Protein. For us, thats by far the best selling protein blend we do. I would say Pro Peptide is certainly better quality, but USN's 5lb tub for £31.99 is the better value option - or £30.39 with free shipping if you use discount code UKM5 on our site (hey, everyone else always pimps their services on here so why cant we - we are the longest serving UKM sponsor after all ).

Seriously though, thats my pick for protein blends for those on a budget. We sell 5-6 times as much Pure Protein as any other protein blend we do and I can assure you we have no reason to promote USN over other brands, we dont even buy direct from them. Pro Peptide does quite well for us, but many people dont want to pay £23.99 for 14 servings. We sold Extreme's Protein Blend for a while and its a good product, but we just didnt get any demand for it if I'm completely honest.


----------



## Nine Pack (Oct 30, 2006)

Yes, the article was edited as Phil did not wish to publicly discredit the company. In the states, they are a lot more letigious than we are so it's understandable. Phil Connolly is behind the formulation of Pro Peptide as John stated earlier. The facts in the article are the facts though, regardless of who he is connected to. The company that he was referring to is not Extreme. It's another company who have been pulled up for mislabelling in the past. They clearly see Pro Pep as a threat as they make false & misleading claims about whey proteins as well as making false claims about micellar casien.

The original thread started by asking if there was a good equivalent. If you read the facts in the article & understand them, irrespective of the brands, then it's clear the answer is an emphatic no. There are some good quality products out there, there's also a lot of wallpaper paste. I choose to use the best I can get my mitts on as I don't want a 'budget' physique.


----------



## XL BODIES LTD (Nov 25, 2005)

I have watched this thread with much interest and the original question was, does anybody know of an alternative to Pro-Pep but a little bit cheaper!

Now Extreme Nutrition do offer an alternative at a more favourable price and that is a genuine answer.

There are a few and i do mean very 'few' other companys that have an alternative, but there are a hundred more that dont and only sell cheap inferior products.

CNP and Extreme Nutrition where started/setup, by genuine bodybuilders to offer good products for bodybuilders, but without the hype and poor quality.

Extreme have never miss labelled or been pulled for selling anything but the product in the tub as advertised or labelled. What you do get is value for money, something CNP seem to be outpriceing themselves.

It is without question their products are good quality and work but at what price ?

Most B.B.ers are on a budget and as such try to get the best they can for the money they have.

Now Kerry or Douglas would be the first to say both companys are offering quality products and are owned by genuine people, as they are mutual freinds of each other and have been for some years.

So the answer is do your homework/research and ask questions, you will hopefully get an unbiased answer that helps !


----------



## Nine Pack (Oct 30, 2006)

I agree that Pro Peptide is not something that everyone would consider using regularly due to the cost issue, but as Kerry quite rightly states, these products are, meal per meal, cheaper than food. For example how much would you have to spend to get 42 grams of quality protein & 19g complex carbs (I refer to Pro MR having low DE value maltodextrin)? A serving of Pro MR will average at £1.90 even at retail prices. The equivalent meal using chicken & rice? Far more expensive.

Also, so many bodybuilders will say they are on a 'budget' but think nothing of spending a fortune on AAS etc and leave themselves short for the things that should really be providing the cornerstone of thier progress, good nutrition. If I had to give up either AAS use, or good supplementation I'd be buying my protein powders every time.


----------



## XL BODIES LTD (Nov 25, 2005)

Nine Pack most Pro bodybuilders state food/ nutrition first and training, then Supplements.

Definition of supplement= thing added to complete something or make up for a lack . Provide or be a supplement to something.

Now there is no substitute to whole food in a balanced diet, however we all know in todays society we have a lack of time and also amenities to be able to make and sit down to eat meals when needed.

This is where supplements come into their own.

As for your comment on what people see as the way forward and spend their money on you are correct. AAS seems to be the first thing a newbie or some seasoned trainers go for, over and above good diet and solid training. But this will always be the same no matter how we try to educate them.

Look at the general populations take on seeing a big cut B.B er they say 'He must take loads of Steriods' not god he must train / eat well !

So yes supplements have there place, but not over a good solid diet and training regimen. They are there to help you reach your goals !


----------



## Nine Pack (Oct 30, 2006)

I agree entirely, nutrition, recuperation & training smart are the cornerstones of bodybuilding. I also agree that most pro's would get the priorities right too, I was not suggesting that they did otherwise. It's the grass roots level that are being mis-led by the magazines & as you quite rightly say, will asssume that the drugs were solely responsible for the gains they see in magazines. In an ideal world, we would be able to get through to these people the fact that gear is not the answer to all thier prayers, but I know this is never really going to happen. I was just trying to emphasise that supplements & food should be high on the priority list, & then if there's sufficient disposable income left, maybe other things, where appropriate.

It is true that most of us have trouble sitting down to six solid meals a day and that supplements come into thier own for this purpose, again, I was not suggesting otherwise. I am a CNP distributor, I use supplements every day as they are an invaluable tool to me & my clients. I regularly formulate diets for clients and I can't think of one that had someone eating six solid food meals per day, they all need the convenience of MRP's etc.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

i think we can all agree that most of us could not meet our daily nutritional needs without protein drinks or MRP's of some type...now we all have a our favourites this is obvious but to be honest to say one brand is far ahead of the other in my opinion is wrong i have used most brands in my time and i have settled with a brand that i trust to give me what i need at a price that is affordable with a taste i can stomach this is all we can ask from a supplement....


----------



## Nine Pack (Oct 30, 2006)

Wise words, everyone has thier own personal preference. Competition between companies (setting aside iffy claims some make) will only serve to improve the quality of the products accross the board, which will benefit the end user.


----------



## XL BODIES LTD (Nov 25, 2005)

Now you have it an end, that all can agree on !

Supplements have there place and yes its high up or should be on everyones plan. As for company of choice I would be the first to say CNP are there in the top few that are honest and sell very good quality products, Extreme Nutrition are there too, along side a very small minority of others.

So the moral of the story is, do you research, ask the right questions, train hard, eat right, rest and hopefully see the results you want.


----------



## EXTREME (Aug 5, 2005)

Nine Pack I think you "emphatic no, there is no equilvilent to Pro Pepteide" means very little. According to you you've used CNP for years, you train in Kerry Kayes gym and you actually sell CNP products, hmmmmm, it doesn't seem likely you've much chance of being impartial does it? When's the last time you tried another companies products with an open mind?

The thread was started by Snorbitz who now has a tub of Extreme Protein in his possesion so I think as a neutral party he should have the final say if he feels there is an alternative to Pro Peptide.

We have a university testing/development program which ends later this year and we will then be able to publish actual figures of how Extreme Nutrition products exhibit an effect on actual performance and body composition. I'm unaware of any other British company who can lay claim to have undertaken such a commitment to actually proving the products do what they are intended to.


----------



## Snorbitz1uk (Sep 21, 2005)

I have to say that taste wise the extreme protein is nice and does not sit heavy on the stomach, i had previously used the met-rx and this is nicer, very similar in taste to multipower protein.

At the cost i would use this over the cnp.

Glad i started this thread good reading.

Thanks guys


----------



## Nine Pack (Oct 30, 2006)

Extreme,

You have wrongly assumed that I use products simply because I sell them, and because I know Kerry Keyes and also assumed that I have not tried any other makes. I used the CNP range long before I started selling the stuff. It's directly because of the quality of the products & results that I got that I decided that when I set up my business, I would go with a product line that in effect, sells itself.

You have also said I'm not exactly impartial, the same would apply to you would it not? I am not employed by CNP, nor sponsored by them, so I feel I can accurately say I am more impartial than you on the subject. On the subject of the study you will be embarking on, might I suggest a test using several makes & including a placebo group, so that the results can be compared accross the board? The reason CNP don't do this is that most people would assume that any study funded by a supplement manufacturer will be heavily biased, and that results will be 'interpreted' to suit the company.

Unless you had been handcuffed to me for the last ten years (and I'm fairly sure I'd have noticed) how can you possibly question the last time I tried a competitiors product? It was yesterday if you really need to know. I had some samples of BSN that were dished out at a show I did in september so thought I'd give it a go. I liked the taste, but had serious trouble digesting it.

I regularly try other makes as I need to know what the competition is up to, it's in my own interest. If another manufacturer can genuinely better the quality of what I sell & use now, then I will look into using & selling that make. I am responsible in part, for my clients results, and will supply the best quality products I possibly can. Presently I genuinely believe CNP is, on the whole, the best, but agree everyone is entitled to an opinion.

I have been on the BB scene now for over 15 years & started out working for Weider Health & Fitness so I had the opportunity to try pretty much every make under the sun. Even now, I get some products from a wholesale supplier who stocks all makes so I speak from experience, not bias. If you read my previous post, I maintain that the final decision is down to personal preference and that any healthy competition will ultimately serve to benefit the end user as products continue to improve. That was a statement made with no bias whatsoever.

Anyway, this thread seems to have served it's usefulness to the members as a lot of useful information had come to light, some of which a lot of people were not aware of, myself included (I refer to CLA turning out to be a natural trans fat).


----------

