Ultra Peptide 2.0: All it is Cracked Up to Be?

[TinyMan]

Preface: I rarely do reviews anymore, largely through disinterest and a distinct dislike for opening myself for lawsuits. However, Xtreme Formulations is unlikely to sue me, or at least I'll keep my fingers crossed about that. Besides, one of their reps knew this was coming. I received two tubs of Ultra Peptide v2.0 Vanilla flavor a while back - and said I'd give my thoughts on them. The formatting is nothing fancy, because I don't care about making my reviews look pretty. Deal with it.

Profile:

• Carbohydrates: XF opted for the ever popular choice of fructose (simple), rice oligodextrin (complex), maltodextrin (barely complex), modified food starch (complex). You can also note that the fructose is the main sugar in this formula, and there are 3g of sugars. I would take this to mean that at least 2g of that sugar is fructose. I had thought that Ultra Peptide used palatinose, but I appear to have been wrong about that. Total carbohydrates: 5g
• Fats: In this case, nothing much to say. You see about a 55% protein ratio, then high fat and lower in carbohydrates (see below). The fats are good, monounsaturated mostly I believe, other than that nothing of dazzling note. Total fats: 9g

Breakdown:

At 18g protein, 5g carbohydrates, 9g fat, that results in a total of 32g of what we're concerned with for now. That leaves us with a P/C/F of 56/15/28 approximately. Not what you'd call the standard ratio, but closer to a 55/15/30 split, which is very reasonable for a MRP. Like a good MRP, Ultra Peptide leaves some room for customization.

Other factors:

Looking at the rest of the label, we see about a gram of creatine per scoop. An odd choice, but whatever we'll fly with it. The fiber content is pretty low (1g) so I would suggest adding some of your own, personally speaking. The potassium is a welcome addition. Xanthan is your standard thickening agent, soy lecithin I'm guessing they use for emulsification for the water/lipid mixing.

Mixability: The powder flows well in the tub, and it is quite obvious when you mix it that there is definitely a good amount of casein. That is, it's not about to completely mix for me in my little turbo shaker. The clumps are nothing big (although numerous), however that's a telltale sign of casein. It clumps, get over yourself and deal with it. Mixability remains on par, or slightly better, for a product in this class.

Taste: Anyone who has not had the BSL flavorings should do so. Ultra Peptide 2.0 Vanilla is not one of the best flavors, it is the best I've had. I won't deny it, and as much as I hate to admit it, Dave beat us out on taste. This is, of course, the big selling point of Ultra Peptide currently - and the banner that all the fanboys (and yes, even you reps) have been carrying. Does it live up to all the hype of the taste? Of course not - but Jesus would have time running for mayor against a tub of this, according to the brotology book of what is best.

Overall impressions:

So far, I think Ultra Peptide 2.0's strongest selling point is really another product - that is, 1.0. For those unfamiliar with 1.0, it is the casein/whey mix that I alluded to earlier, without anything else. I am a particular fan of buying things in the basic components and building up my own shakes/programs because of the sheer flexibility. Other than that, the carbohydrate component and fat component aren't anything to write home about - and I think the gram of creatine could have been done without. The fiber is welcome, as is the potassium - both points in UP 2.0's favor, but nothing to redeem itself from the shine of 1.0.

Really in the end, don't break what hasn't been hit with a hammer yet. Ultra Peptide 1.0 is the classic high-end casein/whey mix, and for people considering 2.0, I point to 1.0 as the better choice. It is infinitely more versatile, because you aren't getting tied down by having yourself a premixed formula. You get the protein component and flavoring - the two selling points of 2.0, but miss on the things that I thought weren't so hot. Ultra Peptide 2.0 is in my opinion, best relegated for the people who either don't want to have to customize their own shakes (valid), or are just new enough that they aren't comfortable doing so. With a respectable 55/15/30 ratio, UP 2.0's design is nothing to sneer at.

If I could change 2.0 I would...

Well I'd probably change it into a tub of 1.0. But beyond that, I think I would have liked to see the fructose/maltodextrin go (even at the cost of being a bit less sweet... not necessarily a bad thing?). Anyone who knows me knows I don't like maltodextrin to start with. The creatine I could go either way with - if you want creatine, the market is so saturated with creatine products that you can get a full serving anyways.

End of the day, is Ultra Peptide 2.0 Vanilla a good buy? I honestly have no idea, I'm on the edge of an abyss and the XF reps are probably sneaking up to push me in. Ultra Peptide 2.0 strikes me as generally a very well thought out product, but there is a better choice. And that better choice is from the same company. If you are seriously going for the prebuilt MRP, I think Ultra Peptide 2.0 starts to pale a bit in competition with some of the other choices out there. If you want a tasty treat, then stuff your pockets full of vanilla'y goodness, steal anything that's not nailed down, and head for the hills.


Buy Infusion. There SAN, I filled my pimp quota for the day. If you agree with my thoughts, great. If anyone can confirm the 51/49 ratio casein/whey for 1.0/2.0 that would be good. I vaguely remember something about it, but I don't remember if it is XF or not. I've heard a lot of numbers in my time here.

[Yates Row T]

Preface: I rarely do reviews anymore, largely through disinterest and a distinct dislike for opening myself for lawsuits. However, Xtreme Formulations is unlikely to sue me, or at least I'll keep my fingers crossed about that. Besides, one of their reps knew this was coming. I received two tubs of Ultra Peptide v2.0 Vanilla flavor a while back - and said I'd give my thoughts on them. The formatting is nothing fancy, because I don't care about making my reviews look pretty. Deal with it.

Profile:

• Carbohydrates: XF opted for the ever popular choice of fructose (simple), rice oligodextrin (complex), maltodextrin (barely complex), modified food starch (complex). You can also note that the fructose is the main sugar in this formula, and there are 3g of sugars. I would take this to mean that at least 2g of that sugar is fructose. I had thought that Ultra Peptide used palatinose, but I appear to have been wrong about that. Total carbohydrates: 5g
• Fats: In this case, nothing much to say. You see about a 55% protein ratio, then high fat and lower in carbohydrates (see below). The fats are good, monounsaturated mostly I believe, other than that nothing of dazzling note. Total fats: 9g

Breakdown:

At 18g protein, 5g carbohydrates, 9g fat, that results in a total of 32g of what we're concerned with for now. That leaves us with a P/C/F of 56/15/28 approximately. Not what you'd call the standard ratio, but closer to a 55/15/30 split, which is very reasonable for a MRP. Like a good MRP, Ultra Peptide leaves some room for customization.

Other factors:

Looking at the rest of the label, we see about a gram of creatine per scoop. An odd choice, but whatever we'll fly with it. The fiber content is pretty low (1g) so I would suggest adding some of your own, personally speaking. The potassium is a welcome addition. Xanthan is your standard thickening agent, soy lecithin I'm guessing they use for emulsification for the water/lipid mixing.

Mixability: The powder flows well in the tub, and it is quite obvious when you mix it that there is definitely a good amount of casein. That is, it's not about to completely mix for me in my little turbo shaker. The clumps are nothing big (although numerous), however that's a telltale sign of casein. It clumps, get over yourself and deal with it. Mixability remains on par, or slightly better, for a product in this class.

Taste: Anyone who has not had the BSL flavorings should do so. Ultra Peptide 2.0 Vanilla is not one of the best flavors, it is the best I've had. I won't deny it, and as much as I hate to admit it, Dave beat us out on taste. This is, of course, the big selling point of Ultra Peptide currently - and the banner that all the fanboys (and yes, even you reps) have been carrying. Does it live up to all the hype of the taste? Of course not - but Jesus would have time running for mayor against a tub of this, according to the brotology book of what is best.

Overall impressions:

So far, I think Ultra Peptide 2.0's strongest selling point is really another product - that is, 1.0. For those unfamiliar with 1.0, it is the casein/whey mix that I alluded to earlier, without anything else. I am a particular fan of buying things in the basic components and building up my own shakes/programs because of the sheer flexibility. Other than that, the carbohydrate component and fat component aren't anything to write home about - and I think the gram of creatine could have been done without. The fiber is welcome, as is the potassium - both points in UP 2.0's favor, but nothing to redeem itself from the shine of 1.0.

Really in the end, don't break what hasn't been hit with a hammer yet. Ultra Peptide 1.0 is the classic high-end casein/whey mix, and for people considering 2.0, I point to 1.0 as the better choice. It is infinitely more versatile, because you aren't getting tied down by having yourself a premixed formula. You get the protein component and flavoring - the two selling points of 2.0, but miss on the things that I thought weren't so hot. Ultra Peptide 2.0 is in my opinion, best relegated for the people who either don't want to have to customize their own shakes (valid), or are just new enough that they aren't comfortable doing so. With a respectable 55/15/30 ratio, UP 2.0's design is nothing to sneer at.

If I could change 2.0 I would...

Well I'd probably change it into a tub of 1.0. But beyond that, I think I would have liked to see the fructose/maltodextrin go (even at the cost of being a bit less sweet... not necessarily a bad thing?). Anyone who knows me knows I don't like maltodextrin to start with. The creatine I could go either way with - if you want creatine, the market is so saturated with creatine products that you can get a full serving anyways.

End of the day, is Ultra Peptide 2.0 Vanilla a good buy? I honestly have no idea, I'm on the edge of an abyss and the XF reps are probably sneaking up to push me in. Ultra Peptide 2.0 strikes me as generally a very well thought out product, but there is a better choice. And that better choice is from the same company. If you are seriously going for the prebuilt MRP, I think Ultra Peptide 2.0 starts to pale a bit in competition with some of the other choices out there. If you want a tasty treat, then stuff your pockets full of vanilla'y goodness, steal anything that's not nailed down, and head for the hills.


Buy Infusion. There SAN, I filled my pimp quota for the day. If you agree with my thoughts, great. If anyone can confirm the 51/49 ratio casein/whey for 1.0/2.0 that would be good. I vaguely remember something about it, but I don't remember if it is XF or not. I've heard a lot of numbers in my time here.

I like Infusion better then 2.0 as well.


UP 1.0 is my **** though.


2 scoops san infusion van carm
1/2-1 scoop UP 1.0 Vanilla
milk
oats


best shake ever just thought i would hi jack with that

[teraflx]

Wow, awesome detailed review. Thanks!

[TinyMan]

Wow, awesome detailed review. Thanks!

I don't review much anymore. This is my first in a year or so I think... but I can still write

[Elliptical Envy]

Too much complaining for my liking.

Envy leaves again

[cxm]

I don't review much anymore. This is my first in a year or so I think... but I can still write

Damn Tiny, you can't get more detailed than that!!!! Excellent review.

Anyways, I love cookies and cream UP 2.0 + 1% milk, this mix is heavenly serious. If you mix with some ice, it's almost like having a cookies and cream, ice cream milkshake.

[extremenergy3]

I would also like to see the fructose/malto go as well because all the flavors are pretty sweet to my tastebuds already as well. And I would also like to see the creatine go too because I get that elsewhere.

On my cut currently, I'm taking ~3 scoops a day so that's 3g of creatine already. I'm a small guy. I don't need anymore. But I guess it's ok when I'm not cutting cuz I'd drink less shakes.

Great review overall. I would also like the protein content to rise a little too. Vanilla and chocolate peanut butter are my favorite flavors with the rest not to my liking at all. I think vanilla and chocPB are the less sweet flavors already too and need to be less sweetened.

/adding my own opinion.

[TinyMan]

With a 55/15/30 I guess you could drop to something like 60/10/30, but either way I don't think it is going to matter. With 5g carbohydrates, the difference between 10 and 15 is not significant to most users. I haven't tried any of the other flavors of 2.0, but I did try the BSL chocolate with a 33/34/33 casein/whey/egg... I assume that it is the same flavoring system, or at least very close to it?

[TinyMan]

I think that the reason fructose has been added into this formula is to use a lower carbohydrate content (slightly) while retaining the sweet aspect of Ultra Peptide. Still not a fan, but fructose is incredibly sweet for a regular sugar (1.7x that of sucrose about). To get a similar sweetness of fructose using even sucrose (still sweet for a sugar) you need about 1.5x as much - so 1g becomes 1.5g, 2g becomes 3g, and so forth. Worth throwing it out there, it's the only reason for fructose inclusion that I know of?

[digitalgoodtime]

Too much complaining for my liking.

Envy leaves again

x2 lulz

[TinyMan]

x2 lulz

That's still me being kind

[TheUnlikelyToad]

I agree that from a profile perspective, 2.0 could be slightly improved. Customizer's original vision was to have a healthy "liquid steak" alternative... Tha biggest selling point being taste. He succeeded IMO.

Thanks for your honest assessment.

[TinyMan]

I agree that from a profile perspective, 2.0 could be slightly improved. Customizer's original vision was to have a healthy "liquid steak" alternative... Tha biggest selling point being taste. He succeeded IMO.

Thanks for your honest assessment.

Kools. Do you know the answer to the 51/49 question?

[TheUnlikelyToad]

Kools. Do you know the answer to the 51/49 question?

Yes, it's tha same ratio as UP 1.0 (51/49).

[Zachattack43]

Damn it Tiny, cant you ever keep it simple?

[pumpingjoe]

Yes, it's tha same ratio as UP 1.0 (51/49).

no its not. look at the label again. you're telling me that sodium casienate is just on the label for looks then?

[TinyMan]

Yes, it's tha same ratio as UP 1.0 (51/49).

Alright cool, thanks.

pumping we're only really concerned about the MC/whey ratio. sodium caseinate is minor enough to disregard.


And no zach, I don't believe in simple . If I'm going to do one review a year, it might as well be completely unreadable.

[Zachattack43]

And no zach, I don't believe in simple . If I'm going to do one review a year, it might as well be completely unreadable.

Nice, unreadable FTW

[pumpingjoe]

Alright cool, thanks.

pumping we're only really concerned about the MC/whey ratio. sodium caseinate is minor enough to disregard.


And no zach, I don't believe in simple . If I'm going to do one review a year, it might as well be completely unreadable.

ive asked before and they wont say. theoretically, there could be more sodium caseinate than micellar protein.

[TinyMan]

ive asked before and they wont say. theoretically, there could be more sodium caseinate than micellar protein.

There is 9g of fat total, between sunflower oil, di/mono glyceride, and MCT. Lets just take a wild guess of 5g sunflower oil, 3g mono/di, 1g MCT. I have no idea what it actually is, but lets just play suppose. That logically means there is less sodium caseinate than that, but more than the fructose. Knowing that between the oligo, fructose, malto there is 5g, you could probably reasonably set your lower bound at 2g (2g/2g/1g). I think you're playing somewhere in that range - although I suspect heavily that it is to the lower end due to the sodium content.

Alternatively, I think you can figure out how much sodium caseinate there is in this product. Unless Dave has been salting his tubs, you've got 120mg of sodium in that profile. Do a mass ratio, and you can make a reasonable determination if I'm right. I don't know what else would be contributing sodium levels here, maybe the flavoring or cocoa. I think the sodium caseinate does contribute to sodium level though, which makes it logically stand that you can better derive an upper limit than I just did.

EDIT: actually that may not work. You'll have to calculate it and see if the answer is logical at all. I suspect it might not be.

[teraflx]

There is 9g of fat total, between sunflower oil, di/mono glyceride, and MCT. Lets just take a wild guess of 5g sunflower oil, 3g mono/di, 1g MCT. I have no idea what it actually is, but lets just play suppose. That logically means there is less sodium caseinate than that, but more than the fructose. Knowing that between the oligo, fructose, malto there is 5g, you could probably reasonably set your lower bound at 2g (2g/2g/1g). I think you're playing somewhere in that range - although I suspect heavily that it is to the lower end due to the sodium content.

Alternatively, I think you can figure out how much sodium caseinate there is in this product. Unless Dave has been salting his tubs, you've got 120mg of sodium in that profile. Do a mass ratio, and you can make a reasonable determination if I'm right. I don't know what else would be contributing sodium levels here, maybe the flavoring or cocoa. I think the sodium caseinate does contribute to sodium level though, which makes it logically stand that you can better derive an upper limit than I just did.

EDIT: actually that may not work. You'll have to calculate it and see if the answer is logical at all. I suspect it might not be.

Is the answer... B?

[TinyMan]

Is the answer... B?

The answer is probably only in Dave's head . If the sodium caseinate was the only contributing factor to the sodium levels in the protein, you can calculate exactly how much there is. Sodium caseinate is often used as an emulsifier, and it is my guess that they did the same thing here.

[An Inconvenient Bro]

hey Tiny thanks for your honest and detailed feedback, I truly always welcome this even if you don't like our products.

WRT to the sodium casein the only reason it's there is to encapsulate the sunflower oil, that greatly extends the shelf life to a good year or two, if this is not done the oil could very well be completely rancid within a few days of opening the tub. this is a proprietary process which is ridiculously expensive but I only mention that so people don't think we use the SC to cut costs in any way, in fact it greatly adds to the overall per unit cost

the malto and fructose, yeah I hear you but the amount is basically trivial and I highly doubt anyone is getting any insulin spike from those ingredients in their respective doses

[TinyMan]

I'm mostly curious why the fructose was used. Is it just to augment the flavoring systems?

Most of reviewing is nitpicking at formulas - if I'm being generalistic I end up saying everything was fine. And when it comes to reviews, I tend to pick nits like a chimpanzee on speed. Most of what you got hit for was very small (a couple grams of fructose, etc). But if I don't hit on those points, the review may as well never exist .

[An Inconvenient Bro]

I'm mostly curious why the fructose was used. Is it just to augment the flavoring systems?

yep, but like mentioned it's a really tiny amount

[TinyMan]

yep, but like mentioned it's a really tiny amount

I'm looking at your label again. I made a mistake in my initial review - I didn't see the silicon dioxide you used (a flow agent). Now the question becomes what is a typical amount of SiO2 used, since that sets the upper limit on fructose amounts .

PS congrats on the njmuscle pickup

[An Inconvenient Bro]

Now the question becomes what is a typical amount of SiO2 used,

no clue, I can tell you nothing in this industry is typical though

[TinyMan]

no clue, I can tell you nothing in this industry is typical though

Fine. Reasonable range for someone whose brain is inside his skull rather than his ass (that just cut out 70%+ of the industry). I can't think how I would prove something like that though, without access to information that I'll never see.