Posts by slydriver52

Steven Lopez35 said:I'm looking for anyone interested in teaming up with me and a buddy at a local supplement shop here in Washington, D.C. to grab some ON whey while it's on sale:



Here’s the math: our goal is to hit a bulk discount. $333 (A friend and I are already in for one tub each, so we just need one more person to trigger the 10% discount. If I tack on my own 10% coupon, we effectively hit a 20% discount. That makes the 2.3kg GW container—at 20% off—cost $125, which beats the advertised price)

If we can round up a few more people, we might even be able to squeeze out a 25% or 30% discount.

This is an interesting promotion, and it's a clear indicator of how high their margins actually are.
They're likely clearing out inventory, possibly due to approaching expiration dates (trying to move active stock). It will be interesting to see how much they hike prices in our local stores once they restock with new shipments at higher wholesale costs.🙂

Joshua Adams said:Look, I have to disagree. Telling guys there’s nothing to be achieved without steroids is just plain false. There is a massive community of natural lifters out there looking incredible without ever touching a needle. Sure, steroids offer a shortcut, but let's not pretend they're the only way. And calling creatine or whey protein "chemicals"? That's a stretch. These are just dietary supplements—stuff our own bodies produce or need to function. They aren't some magic potion; they're just tools to help hit nutritional targets.

Of course he’s on them. He wouldn't be in that position if he wasn't. Everyone else at that level is using.😉

Steven Lopez35 said:Has anyone actually used the Ultimate Prostar Platinum Series? I have a chance to pick some up and I'm looking to switch things up for a bit.

I'm drinking it right now.🙂
Grab it if you don't mind it being sweeter than Gold Standard Whey—it’s basically like a double dose of chocolate fudge.
The flavor profile is spot on. The powder texture is a bit grainier than Optimum, but honestly, that’s a fair trade-off. Unlike Optimum’s Double Chocolate, which just tastes like cocoa, Ultimate Nutrition's Prostar Whey actually has that distinct protein scent to it. Either way, they blow Twinlab out of the water—especially their terrible chocolate flavor. Personally, I think the Chocolate Creme is excellent. I haven't ventured into the other flavors yet, so I can't speak to those. If you're looking to move away from the overhyped Optimum brand, Gaspari Hydro and Ultimate Nutrition's Prostar Whey are easily the best value buys on the market right now.

Walter White said:Why the panic? So what if they see it? When you cross the border, you just show them the receipt and they let you through because it’s under $333. Look, telesales isn't illegal anywhere, and that's all this is: you buy it, they ship it, you receive it. Maybe send an email to the shop asking them to pull it from the site so US Customs doesn't catch them exporting.

D

That’s exactly the point. I’ve already reached out to them regarding various nonsense posted here on the forum where people are linking themselves directly to them.
This needs to be taken down immediately, and I have no idea why the admin isn't stepping in.

Admin, please delete this post.

Essentially, you're paying them the full amount via PayPal—say, $130 for three tubs—but they declare the package value as only $65. Then, you get hit with customs duties and taxes based on that lower $65 figure. In plain English, you’re effectively throwing away about $30 on unnecessary fees. That's basically the cost of an entire extra tub just wasted on the government.
It would be wise to delete this post, as describing illegal activity like this isn't exactly smart.

Steven Lopez35 said:Can you be a bit more specific about who they are and what the process looks like? Also, how much would it cost in Canada? I’ve got one bucket being gifted to me, so I need to figure this out by Friday.

And which specific products are you looking at?

wearynomad6 said:The instructions for ordering are all laid out right there in their online FAQ—they even provide screenshots for clarity:

http://www.prosport.net/hr/Faq.aspx

It usually takes about one to two business days. If the item is actually in stock, you can typically expect it to be dropped off at the local FedEx office by the next day if you order in the morning. Most of those shipping centers stay open until 5:30 or 6:00 PM, give or take.

They’re open until 6:00 PM. Just make sure you check their holiday schedule so you don't end up knocking on a closed door.

Steven Lopez35 said:Nobody really answered me, so I’m going to try asking again.

Which online shop offers the best deal on whey protein if I want it shipped to a small Midwestern town so we can just pick it up by car?

Edit -

I signed up on Amazon and tossed three tubs of whey into my cart. Now looking at shipping options, it says "US Mail to my area" is only $5. Is that actually possible? That’s cheaper than the gas it would take to drive out to that small Midwestern town...

Sure, but you forgot to factor in customs and sales tax. Shipping rules aren't the same as when you're just driving goods across the border yourself.

goldencyclist60 said:Well, slydriver52 is preaching about "no pain, no gain" because he’s clearly feeling the aches of getting older.😁

My recommendation was aimed at weekend warriors and casual athletes—people for whom it doesn't matter whether they use sucralose or glucose. At that level, sucralose is cheaper and just as effective as glucose.
Besides, I already mentioned using a blend of glucose, fructose, and galactose in a 2(3):1:1 ratio. I'm not just blindly clinging to sucralose like some fanatic.🙂
I hate to burst your bubble, but Ignacy Jan Paderewski isn't exactly a global authority. In America, where we lack serious nutritionists, he might be considered one.

Man, you just ended up insulting yourself.🤦
I'm heading out for a snack, and honestly, I recommend you do the same.🙂

There. Problem solved. Took me all of sixty seconds to figure this out.
The reality is that Clif Bar, the US Navy, and all those other companies churning out sports recovery supplements don't offer a blend of glucose and fructose in the specific ratio needed when paired with proteins—or any other supplemental sources, ugh.
Nutritionists advocate for that specific blend for recovery rather than just plain old sugar, and even Ignac Kulier backs that approach. Yet, you’re still clinging to your little theories like a drunk at a bar, refusing to budge.🙂
I'm done.

goldencyclist60 said:Look, you’re clearly obsessed with digging this hole deeper. Your entire argument is exactly why these studies actually make you weaker 🙂
but I’m done here. I've finished this debate with you, and frankly, you should learn when to walk away—especially at your age.
Stop stripping things out of context, stop putting words in my mouth, and find someone else to peddle this nonsense to. Good luck at the championships. 🙂

One more thing.
There is no recovery supplement on the market with a 1:1 glucose-to-fructose ratio. Not a single nutritionist outside of your own head would ever recommend pure sucrose to an athlete for recovery. You’ve clearly forgotten how this whole conversation started. And please, stop trying to force your opinions on people and recommending pure sugar post-workout; someone might actually listen to you.
And finally, here is the copy-paste reality of your "studies":

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE OVERALL BODY OF
EVIDENCE
The purpose of this review was to use a systematic, evidence-based
approach to determine if a causal relationship exists between
ingestion of fructose in a normal, dietary manner and
the development of alterations in lipid and/or carbohydrate
metabolism and increases in body weight in overweight or obese
humans. Studies investigating the effect of sugar on blood
lipids, glucose, insulin, obesity, or body weight of overweight
or obese humans were identified by literature searches, obtained
and reviewed. All studies that used levels of sugar consumption
greater than the estimated 95th percentile (± SE) intake
levels were excluded from the analysis. The remaining studies
were graded according to a scale developed by the authors, based
on guidance provided by FDA for evaluation of health claims.
Although the majority of the studies were considered to be of
moderate quality, the database is considered to be sufficient for
the assessment.
The results of the majority of the short-term studies involving
overweight or obese subjects show that in the short-term (i.e.
up to approximately three hours after consumption), ingestion
of 30–100 g/day fructose is associated with either no change or
a slight increase in serum TG and decreases in plasma insulin
and glucose compared similar amounts of glucose or sucrose.
In overweight or obese subjects that also have non-insulin dependent
diabetes, the effects of fructose on blood glucose are
considered to be beneficial. There is no evidence which suggests
that fasting plasma TG are increased in overweight or obese
subjects after long term ingestion of up to 60 g/day fructose.
Long-term studies that utilized subjects who were either normal
weight or overweight indicate that there is no effect of up to
100 g/day fructose on fasting plasma TG. An additional, long-term
(four week) study performed in nine overweight subjects
with impaired glucose tolerance and high TG levels (compared
to normal weight subjects) shows that fasting TG are similar
after consumption of either 122 g/day fructose or glucose. Because
only two long-term studies with relatively few subjects
have investigated the effect of ingestion of normal amounts of
fructose on TG levels of overweight or obese subjects, it is clear
It remains unclear how consuming standard
amounts of sugar affects triglycerides in this group,
which means we need more research. While the ten
studies focusing on extreme sugar
consumption (>95th percentile) suggest that sugar spikes
triglycerides in overweight or obese subjects, there is zero evidence that
consuming sugar at or below the 95th percentile level
triggers this response.
Furthermore, there is no proof that eating normal amounts
of sugar leads to increased hunger or higher body
weight in overweight or obese people (when compared to other
carbs), provided it isn't eaten in massive excess. Generally speaking,
overweight or obese subjects given 40–75 g of
sugar or glucose two to four hours before a
meal eat roughly the same amount of food. Giving 50
or 60 g/day of sugar for 13 weeks to healthy overweight subjects
or obese patients with Type II diabetes showed
no change in body weight compared to their starting point. Research involving
populations of normal weight, overweight,
and obese subjects indicates that a diet containing up to
85 g of sugar for five weeks doesn't impact body weight
relative to diets with similar amounts of other carbs.
One specific study noted that 122 g/day of
sugar for four weeks didn't affect the body weight of overweight
subjects with impaired glucose tolerance; however, the actual data
backing this claim wasn't even shown. Consequently, no reliable
studies have actually looked at how consuming sugar at levels near the 95th percentile
impacts the body weight of overweight or
obese subjects. Even though the sugar levels in studies examining
satiety, appetite, or weight are lower than the
95th percentile seen in the heaviest consumer groups
(136 g/day for women aged 19–30 and 146 g/day for
men aged 19–22), the data supports the idea that sugar
doesn't trigger significant shifts in appetite or
body weight in obese or overweight individuals when consumed
at typical levels (around 50 g/day).
To wrap this up: the current review demonstrates that consuming normal
amounts of sugar has the exact same effect on triglycerides or body weight
in overweight or obese people as eating similar amounts of other
carbohydrates like glucose or sucrose. There is no evidence
suggesting that sugar intake approaching the 95th
percentile causes negative impacts on body weight
or serum triglycerides in overweight or obese subjects. The studies that *did*
show bad effects from sugar on these metrics
were all conducted using extreme intake levels (>95th percentile).
REFERENCES
Aeberli, I., Zimmermann, M. B., Molinari, L., Lehmann, R., L’Allemand, D.,
Spinas, G. A., and Berneis, K. (2007). Fructose intake is a predictor of LDL
particle size in overweight schoolchildren. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition 86: 1174–1178.
Bantle, J. P., Raatz, S. K., Thomas, W., and Georgopoulos, A. (2000). Effects
of dietary fructose on plasma lipids in healthy subjects. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition 72: 1128–1134.
Bingham, S., Luben, R., Welch, A., Tasevska, N., Wareham, N., and Khaw, K. T.
(2007). Epidemiologic assessment of sugars consumption using biomarkers:
Comparisons of obese and nonobese individuals in the American Prospective
Investigation of Cancer Norfolk. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and
Prevention 16: 1651–1654.
Bohannon, N. V., Karam, J. H., and Forsham, P. H. (1980). Endocrine responses
to sugar ingestion in man: Advantages of fructose over sucrose and glucose.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association 76: 555–560.

Bowen, J., Noakes, M., and Clifton, P. M. (2007). Appetite hormones and energy
intake in obese men after consumption of sugar, glucose and whey protein
beverages. International Journal of Obesity 31: 1696–1703.
Chong, M. F. F., Fielding, B. A., and Frayn, K. N. (2007). Mechanisms for the
acute effect of sugar on postprandial lipemia. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition 85: 1511–1520.
Crapo, P. A. and Kolterman, O. G. (1984). The metabolic effects of 2-week
sugar feeding in normal subjects. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
39: 525–534.
Crujeiras, A. B., Parra, M. D., Rodr
´
ıguez, M. C., Mart
´
ınez de Morentin, B. E.,
and Mart
´
ınez, J. A. (2006). A role for fruit content in energy-restricted diets
in improving antioxidant status in obese women during weight loss. Nutrition
22: 593–599.
D
´
ıaz, E. O., Galgani, J. E., and Aguirre, C. A. (2006). Glycaemic index
effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obesity Reviews 7: 219–
226.
Dolan, L. C., Potter, S. M., and Burdock, G. A. (2010). Evidence-based review
on the effect of normal dietary consumption of sugar on development of
hyperlipidemia and obesity in healthy, normal weight individuals. Critical
Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 50: 53–84.
Downes Gastrich, M., Lasser, N. L., Wien, M., and Bachmann, G. (2008).
Dietary complex carbohydrates and low glycemic index/load decrease levels
of specific metabolic syndrome/cardiovascular disease risk factors. Topics on
Clinical Nutrition 23: 76–96.
Endres, J., Poon, S. W., and Welch, P. (1989). Diabetics in long-term care. Effect
of sweetness on dietary intake. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
561: 157–161.
FDA-CFSAN (1993). Redbook II: Toxicological Principles for the Safety Assessment
of Food Ingredients. Chapter VI: Human Studies, pp. 1–9. US Food
and Drug Administration (FDA). Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(CFSAN), College Park, MD.
FDA-CFSAN (2009). Guidance for industry. Evidence based review system for
the scientific evaluation of health claims. US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), pp. 1–26. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN),

Alright, then tell me: which elite athletes with high-end nutritionists are actually dumping pure sucrose into their systems after a workout? Find me one recovery supplement on the market that uses a 1:1 glucose-to-fructose ratio recommended by actual pros, other than yourself.
And let’s be clear—finding the studies you're citing isn't the hard part. You don't need a paid subscription to access them.
I've read the conclusions myself. 😉
The problem is these studies were primarily conducted on overweight and obese subjects, with far fewer participants of a healthy weight. They gave these people liquid fructose doses ranging from 50g to 110g depending on the study—usually sitting around 60-80g—right before a main meal that could contain anything. We have no idea what else these people ate throughout the day or what their daily activity levels looked like. For all we know, they weren't even exercising. It is highly questionable how those results would translate to recreational lifters or elite athletes if that fructose intake was consumed immediately following intense physical activity as a 1:1 ratio (pure sucrose) specifically for rapid glycogen replenishment. These studies weren't performed on athletes, so you can't use them as proof that consuming pure sugar after a workout is the way to go.

goldencyclist60 said:You clearly don't grasp how study methodology works. Let's just end this debate; it's getting late, alright? Everything has already been said.

Like I said before: nothing in this field is black and white, and you can't just take every single study at face value. When these findings are actually peer-reviewed, widely accepted, and integrated into standard American sports nutrition protocols, then—and only then—might I consider following them.
Even Ignaz Kulier had some thoughts on this matter.😉

goldencyclist60 said:Man, do you really want to keep this going? 🙂
Look, these studies were conducted under realistic conditions. The results of the analysis indicate that there is no evidence which shows that the consumption of fructose at normal levels of intake causes biologically relevant changes in triglycerides (TG) or body weight in overweight or obese individuals.

The difference between the studies supporting this and those claiming the opposite is simple: the latter used absurdly high doses—we're talking about fructose making up 50% of their total caloric intake.
I’m asking you nicely to stop clogging up the forum. Everything that needs to be said has been said, and the conclusion is obvious to anyone paying attention. If you need more clarification, shoot me a DM or hit me up at online.nutricionist@gmail.com and we can set up a consultation. 🙂

Aha.🤣

So, by your definition, "realistic conditions" just means consuming a relatively moderate amount of fructose? What about the rest of their diet? What about their daily activity levels?

goldencyclist60 said:The conclusion is staring you right in the face if you actually read the abstract. These findings didn't come from some amateur; they were pulled from studies conducted by top-tier experts and leading authorities in nutrition. I don't know what your issue is, but I trust them. Think of review articles like textbooks—they represent a massive synthesis of established knowledge on the subject. If that doesn't satisfy you, I'm at a loss...
I'm done arguing. I've laid out my position (or rather, what the science has laid out), and anyone with a shred of common sense will understand exactly where I'm coming from.

Was the study—or those studies—conducted under real-world conditions, or was it just lab work?

goldencyclist60 said:I hear you, but you'll have to hang in there for a while longer before you can access the full article without paying (unless you pay up). That said, do you honestly believe a prestigious scientific journal like Critical reviews in food science and Nutrition would allow a review article to be published without backing its conclusions with references? 😁
And we are talking about dozens of studies here—studies I seriously doubt you’ll ever read in their entirety (no offense intended).
Not everything is incorrect, but consider who wrote this ("average" people). Sure, they cited references, but as I stated before, individual studies that claim the exact opposite of the vast majority of scientific literature DON'T HOLD MUCH WATER...
I haven't personally delved into his specific work, even though I own quite a bit of it. I prefer gathering knowledge firsthand rather than through secondhand accounts, specifically because of what's happening right now—one can cherry-pick isolated studies to draw completely wrong conclusions.

So, you're leaning on a general article that discusses scientific evidence, yet you haven't actually read the scientific study that provides that evidence, so how can you possibly judge if its claims are realistic or not?
There are all kinds of studies out there. Why should a study be treated as gospel if the experimental conditions weren't realistic? Plenty of cited studies exist that were ultimately rejected because they lacked real-world applicability. I'm speaking generally here.

goldencyclist60 said:Fine, if you want to play this game, let's go step by step:
1. A reference is the actual article that backs up your claim. Therefore, an article without references is nothing but nonsense.
2. I’m not downplaying references; what science teaches us is that a review article is far more valuable than a single study. Why? Because a review aggregates a massive pool of those specific studies to draw a conclusion. Isolated studies with small sample sizes that contradict the vast majority of scientific literature—exactly like the one in "your" study—are almost always ignored. And naturally, I don't agree with that reference, given it's precisely that kind of outlier.
3. Do you even know what a review article actually is? A Wikipedia entry doesn't exactly qualify.
4. In the scientific community, a two-year-old paper is considered brand new, by the way.

It's clear you aren't getting this.
Go ahead, find me one legitimate scientific study that confirms your claim, and then I'll believe you.
Real scientific papers have citations under every single finding. Around here, nobody cares about the reviews you keep trying to shove down our throats in every post.
I want to see the specific study that confirmed this, the evidence it used, the conditions under which it was conducted, and so on.
So, are you telling me what's on Wikipedia is wrong?
Besides, what's your take on Ignac Kulier and his book, where he discusses Sucrose and fructose?

goldencyclist60 said:I'm not sure you actually grasp what a reference means.
I'm talking about peer-reviewed scientific papers (I'll even concede one review 😁) that support the claim that The fructose is either bonded to cellulose and transported out the GI tract or processed by the liver into citrates, aldehydes, and, for the most part, lipid droplets (fat).

Erm... that specific paper is my reference for the fact that there is no evidence which shows that the consumption of fructose at normal levels of intake causes biologically relevant changes in triglycerides (TG) or body weight in overweight or obese individuals, even within the overweight demographic (which is a sensitive group).

A single study doesn't prove anything on its own—that’s exactly why I provided a review article (a synthesis of previous studies).
Everything you've brought up is just a collection of unproven assumptions pulled from isolated studies and, frankly, they don't carry much weight as they stand.

Look, stop posting links to articles that lack citations, and quit undermining legitimate references just because you disagree with them.
What you posted is nothing more than a basic review, essentially the same level as a Wikipedia entry, except mine actually includes references to back up the claims, whereas yours does not. Besides, you're acting like this is groundbreaking news, yet the article you linked is from 2010.🤷

Let’s touch on fructose, which makes up a massive portion of what we call Sucrose.

Liver function

While certain specific tissues—like sperm cells[59] and select intestinal cells—can process fructose directly, the heavy lifting happens almost entirely in the liver.[60]

If you compare it to slamming down high-glucose drinks, choosing high-fructose beverages alongside your meals actually leads to lower circulating insulin and leptin levels, while spiking ghrelin post-meal.[61] Given that leptin and insulin act as appetite suppressants and ghrelin is the hunger driver, many researchers argue that flooding your system with fructose significantly ramps up the risk of weight gain.[62]

Excessive fructose intake might be a direct contributor to the onset of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.[63]

[edit] Gout

Research from 2008 highlighted a major link between consuming fructose—or anything loaded with it—and an increased risk of developing gout.[64] Even though people used to dismiss gout as some relic of the Victorian era, cases have been climbing lately. The prime suspect? The fructose packed into sodas and other sweetened beverages.[65][66]

Source with references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose