hemp doesn’t have much THC. male plants don’t bud, you see…
actually, my bad, hemp isn’t male plants, it is a different strain.
better than cotton but ssssh!!!
The gemma pea is great. You have to flavor it right otherwise it tastes very earthy. I use 100% pea and there is no bloat and no gas from it at all. Amino profile is better than whey also.
EDIT: and it is much cheaper than milk based proteins.
I also use Gemma (pea) protein and I like it a lot. I saw a study where it showed that Gemma protein is just as good (if not a little better) as whey in regards to bio-availability and how your body uses it.
Where did you see this “study”?
Hey 2011 called and wants its thread back.
[quote]allstarblock wrote:
Where did you see this “study”?[/quote]
Cute that you put study in quotes to imply I’m pulling it out of my ass.
“In addition to an appropriate training, the supplementation with pea protein promoted a greater increase of muscle thickness as compared to Placebo and especially for people starting or returning to a muscular strengthening. Since no difference was obtained between the two protein groups, vegetable pea proteins could be used as an alternative to Whey-based dietary products.”
So basically, no difference was observed between the two and pea came out on top in one of the measurements.
Obviously this is just one study and there could be myriad factors at play, but I think the takeaway is that there isn’t that huge of a difference between the two, and if one can’t consume dairy for whatever reason, they can still do fine using a pea protein.
To be clear, I’m not advocating pea over whey or whey over pea. Quite honestly, since I last wrote that comment about the pea protein I’ve switched to mostly milk protein isolate, which so far seems superior to any of the others based on the research and personal experience.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
Hey 2011 called and wants its thread back.[/quote]
Haha. Yeah, but we got to see anonym’s avi and that makes it all worth while.
When the manufacturer of a product funds a study and three of the authors work for that manufacturer, and the study fails to find their product to be inferior to a standard product, that is a little different than the produce being actively shown to be equally good.
It is not so hard to design a study where differences won’t be observed.
I’m not saying the pea protein must suck, just that the study doesn’t really show much other than being better than taking non-protein placebo.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
Hey 2011 called and wants its thread back.[/quote]
And the three layoff between responses has caused an argument. Time heals all my ass.
I got some rice protein from a company called Nutribiotic. It’s raw, vegan approved. Doesn’t mix well, kind of like drinking chalk but I don’t care. I just want another source of quick protein. I think it was $25 for a 40 serving tub, 12g of protein a serving. I mix it in with my whey or just ground oats and water. Drink it down, screw taste and texture.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
When the manufacturer of a product funds a study and three of the authors work for that manufacturer, and the study fails to find their product to be inferior to a standard product, that is a little different than the produce being actively shown to be equally good.
It is not so hard to design a study where differences won’t be observed.
I’m not saying the pea protein must suck, just that the study doesn’t really show much other than being better than taking non-protein placebo.[/quote]
Good call. I hadn’t noticed the affiliation at first.
There could be some foul play with the study design of course, but generally you would think that if they were trying to push their own agenda, they would make their product look superior to whey, not just say it’s “about the same.”
Also, that study aside, someone on another forum did a really in-depth analysis into the amino acid profiles and bioavailability of whey vs pea and found them to be similar as well. This wasn’t someone who had an interest in either one, just someone who had too much time on his hands I guess.
Either way, I don’t want to come off as pro-pea or anti-whey and I hope nobody gathered that. If I had to pick between the 2, I’d go with whey just because it tastes better (used to do pea for reasons unrelated to this discussion). I just merely wanted to point out that whey isn’t sitting at the top of the mountain and nothing can come close, like some meatheads seem to believe.
Oh, on the study, I didn’t mean to suggest foul play.
I promise here to not threadjack as badly as I did on the 4000 calorie / p-value thing. But briefly, as it’s important:
A huge, huge issue with interpreting scientific studies, and where the authors clearly themselves go wrong again and agaIn, is treating “not finding” to statistical significance as being substantial evidence towards finding to be no difference.
Here, failing to find a difference between pea and whey protein is written up as suggesting that there is no difference, but in reality it does essentially nothing towards showing that. (If they had chosen to run the statistics, they could have shown that given the variability seen, chance alone would be an unusual cause of accounting for a difference of greater than so-and-so. For example, they could have used their data as suggestive evidence that pea protein likely gives at least half as good a result as the whey, or 30%, or whatever it happened to come out as. Their data wouldn’t support anything like 100%, which is why they didn’t claim directly to find being equal, but rather to suggest being equal on account of not finding difference to statistical significance.
That’s beating a dead horse with regard to the pea protein, I know you already got that, but is mentioned because this general problem happens just all the time! It’s vital to keep the distinction between [i]failing to find[/i] (which suggests little, except where the power of the experiment was suffficent to detect even unimportantly small amounts) and [i]finding to be untrue.[/i]
[quote]J023 wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
When the manufacturer of a product funds a study and three of the authors work for that manufacturer, and the study fails to find their product to be inferior to a standard product, that is a little different than the produce being actively shown to be equally good.
[/quote]
So it is legitimate because they couldn’t design a study that shows pea protein to be better than whey?
I’m not sure what you mean by legitimate?
The study is presumably accurate in its data and presents conclusions in the typical way.
In reading the conclusions, it’s important as with all papers to keep in mind that not finding to statistical significance is fundamentally different than finding for a fact that there is no important difference, unless the sensitivity of the study is so high as to be able to find any important difference. That wasn’t the case here.
Authors routinely present their not finding a given thing as evidence that the thing is not there, despite their statistics not showing that at all.
Because of typically high variability in biological studies and even more so human strength, anthropometric, or body composition type studies, it’s actually very hard for a reasonably-small study to be able to detect or rule out small but important differences. Or often, even to detect or rule out large ones, or to establish with any real confidence that an apparent large effect is a real one rather than being from chance.
For practical purposes and this sort of thing, better to have some guys who have been training consistently for a long time and know what their bodies are doing. They know that keeping things the same, over the next 3 months they’re not going to gain 3 lb of LBM because for the last several years their gains just aren’t at that rate (12 lb per year: advanced lifters generally are not doing this year after year.)
If these guys see sudden improvement that they’re confident would not have happened without the new protein or whatever, that’s good reason to think something’s happening.
If they can’t tell, things seem the same, well then the product is probably not much if any worse. Or if it’s any better, it’s not by enough to get excited about.
If several of them report back that it sucks, they were doing better before, then you have a loser.
It’s also absolutely doable and recommended to try this approach personally, but it means more if able to have many try it.
None of this is publishable, but is more useful in practice than for example the pea study not finding a difference between it and whey.
[quote]J023 wrote:
There could be some foul play with the study design of course, but generally you would think that if they were trying to push their own agenda, they would make their product look superior to whey, not just say it’s “about the same.”
[/quote]
I meant to quote this one. What I meant was that just because a study done by people with skin in the game only finds the product to be “as good as” and not “better than” does not make it less likely to be a biased study.
[quote] Does anyone know of a cheaper substitute for VEGA protein powder that has a good all around supply of vegetable protein in it?
[/quote] Just google something like “bulk pea protein” or “gemma pea protein isolate”
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
My buddy turned me onto to Vega, it’s pretty good, expensive as fuuuuuuuuck.[/quote]
Yeah, but it is delicious though. I swing by wholefoods to get a glass for free. Bring your own cup as the dixie cup only holds about 5 grams of protein.
[quote]JLone wrote:
Hemp, Pea, Soy, Vegetable (combination or several vegetables)
… carbs are high in these when compared to whey. [/quote]
really? I think “all” is the wrong word as many DO NOT have a lot of carbs. Look for “rice/hemp/pea protein concentrate”