PDA

View Full Version : Homemade Weightgain Shakes v.s. Weightgainer products - Which are cheaper?



wdjuqi
05-17-2007, 03:55 PM
Has anyone ever figured this out and which is actually cheaper? I've been using homemade ones from that shake recipe thread and they definitely do become expensive. Milk, Natty PB, Olive Oil, Whey, etc. I'm starting think maybe brand name weightgainer products might be cheaper...or am I wrong? I'd think buying a big ass tub of weightgainer product(like the new Maximus by AtLarge) and put enough of it for 1000 calories in milk would be cheaper and easier. I'm a fixed income, so whatever is cheaper is essential for me. On the other hand, with a homemade one you know exactly what's in them.

What's the final say on this?

RedSpikeyThing
05-17-2007, 05:04 PM
It's cheaper to make your own. Cytogainer, for example, costs almost $2 per serving for 570 calories and 54 grams protein. That price will, obviously, go up if you use milk and/or double the serving to hit 1000 calories.

Making your own involves purchasing a lot of things at once, but the actual cost per serving is cheaper.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
05-17-2007, 05:12 PM
And homemade shakes are healthier and you know exactly what's going in them.

wdjuqi
05-19-2007, 07:50 PM
Wow, I guess I was wrong. I was thinking it HAD to be cheaper, but I guess not. I know from making them, when you add up what you spend on milk, olive oil, oats, whey protein, natty PB, etc. for the shakes....it's pretty damn expensive.

I wish there was a good, healthy AND cheap weightgainer....I don't think they'll ever be one though. I think AtLarge's prices are pretty expensive, so Maximus certainly won't be the solution either.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
05-19-2007, 10:16 PM
Get a better job? ;)

JustLost
05-20-2007, 07:47 AM
Wow, I guess I was wrong. I was thinking it HAD to be cheaper, but I guess not. I know from making them, when you add up what you spend on milk, olive oil, oats, whey protein, natty PB, etc. for the shakes....it's pretty damn expensive.


Yeah, but you're talking about ingredients that aren't in most weight gainers. Generally, they're just a bunch of whey and maltodextrin.

And really, there's no specific need for a "weight gainer"; it's just a convenient way to get more food down. Keeping Cytogainer as the example : 54 g protein, 80 grams carb. Two scoops of whey and 120 grams of oats and you're there. That's what, a buck?

wdjuqi
05-20-2007, 09:19 AM
Your example of Cytogainer holds true that 2 scoops of whey and oats can equal the protein/carb levels...but it's calories that are important. Two scoops of whey and oats are like 350 calories in one shake. I get well over 2,000 calories a day from my shakes, 350 just wouldn't cut it.

wdjuqi
05-20-2007, 09:22 AM
Get a better job? ;)

My job isn't great, but it's well above minimum wage. I don't how people will lower paying jobs on here are doing it with all the food they eat.

JustLost
05-20-2007, 09:43 AM
Your example of Cytogainer holds true that 2 scoops of whey and oats can equal the protein/carb levels...but it's calories that are important. Two scoops of whey and oats are like 350 calories in one shake. I get well over 2,000 calories a day from my shakes, 350 just wouldn't cut it.

120 grams oats + 2 scoops whey (in the case, TP plain) adds up to 701 calories.


It's cheaper to make your own. Cytogainer, for example, costs almost $2 per serving for 570 calories and 54 grams protein. That price will, obviously, go up if you use milk and/or double the serving to hit 1000 calories.

Making your own involves purchasing a lot of things at once, but the actual cost per serving is cheaper.


Wow, I guess I was wrong. I was thinking it HAD to be cheaper, but I guess not. I know from making them, when you add up what you spend on milk, olive oil, oats, whey protein, natty PB, etc. for the shakes....it's pretty damn expensive.


The point is this: it's $2 a serving BEFORE adding the olive oil, PB, etc, that jacks the calories up. Comparing the cost of a commercial 570 calories weight gainer with the cost of a homemade 1000+ calorie shake is pointless.

In terms of cost, the question would be: does your 2000 calories in homemade shakes cost more or less than four servings of something like Cytogainer.

In other words, you'd be wise to listen to RedSpikeyThing.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be getting 320 calories a day from maltodextrin, but that's just me.

edit: Doh. Make that "320grams of maltodextrin. 1280 calories."

wdjuqi
05-20-2007, 10:32 AM
You're right about the the scoops of whey and oats being 700 calories...I was thinking of something else. But that's a ****load of oats for one shake...120 grams is a cup and a half. Yuck.

Anyway, I guess it's settled then. Homemade shakes are cheaper and healthier than a "bought" weightgainer. I just wish the ingredients were cheaper, lol.

I think shakes are, by far, the easiest way to gain weight. No contest.

BTW, why is everyone excited about AtLarge's new weightgainer if homeade ones are cheaper and healthier for you? :scratch:

JustLost
05-20-2007, 10:53 AM
You're right about the the scoops of whey and oats being 700 calories...I was thinking of something else. But that's a ****load of oats for one shake...120 grams is a cup and a half. Yuck.

Yeah, actually I agree. I never put more than about a half cup of oats (if any) in a shake.

Given the ingredient you list for a shake, I'd probably make oatmeal, throw some peanut butter in it and eat that, mix the whey in the milk and drink that, then use the olive oil in something else.

Oh, wait, that's what I do. ;)

caca
05-20-2007, 04:20 PM
I would go for home made but the products are easy to make, just add and shake, faster that adding all the home made stuff and blending it.