Video summary

ТОП 33 на основе результатов испытаний в лаборатории. Какой выбрать протеин?

Main summary

Key takeaways

Product Review

Summary of the Video (Protein Review / Ranking Based on Lab Tests)

The video presents a ranking of 33 protein powders (part 3 in a series). The presenter says they personally bought the products and had them tested by an accredited laboratory using BJU tests (protein/fat/carbohydrates). They also mention that earlier releases caused legal/presuit pressure, so some checks were repeated and results were described as “generally similar.”

What Was Tested / How Results Were Interpreted

Products were evaluated using:

  • Measured vs. labeled BJU values
  • An overall rating compiled from three lab check rounds (the transcript discusses details mostly qualitatively)

The presenter also states that protocols/results are published in their Telegram channel.

Key Product Findings (Examples Explicitly Named)

Best / Highest Protein Content (Top of the List)

  • Aleic / “Hydrozd beef” (beef protein hydrolysate)
    • ~96.8–97 g protein per 100 g (claimed on pack: 95 g)
    • Presented as an especially high result.
  • Pure Protein
    • ~84.5 g protein (claimed: 80 g)
    • Fat/carbs reportedly close to or slightly better than label.
  • “TBWAY” / “TB 900 g”
    • ~78.4 g protein (claimed: 73.6 g)

Other high-measured-protein products (as summarized in the video):

  • Maxler ~74
  • “One Win” ~73
  • Vitamin ~73
  • Genetic Lab ~68
  • Brands like Bomb / Power / “Yaton” mostly in the 60–70 range.

Notable “Bad” Performers (Large Protein Deviation)

The presenter highlights products with major shortfalls versus label, including:

  • Dr. Hoffman
    • Claimed 69 g protein, tested ~5.8 g protein
    • Presented as a major failure (with also very high carbs in the result).
  • Power
    • Transcript implies one of the worst outcomes and says it was rechecked in another lab.
  • CyberProtein / Cyberbermas (one of these names—transcript is inconsistent)
    • Claimed ~73 g, tested ~57.3 g
    • Discrepancy: almost 20 g
  • Organic
    • Protein deviation around ~20 g
  • Elementika (vegan protein)
    • Claimed 72.7 g, tested ~47.9 g

  • Additional low-protein examples listed (descending by tested results), including: Life Protein, Vegan Protein, Viking, Rab, Masldizaignn, G, Soulway, Goku, SubT, Do Healths, Topй Hoffman, Power

    • The transcript specifically calls out Topй Hoffman ~5.8 g and Power ~3 g protein as the lowest.

Specific Per-Product BJU Comparisons Mentioned

Clear “claim vs test” pairs from the transcript:

  • Wonderway

    • Protein: 76.6 g (claimed) vs 65.3 g (tested)
    • Fat: 2 g claimed and matched
    • Carbs: 13.86 g claimed vs ~21.8 g tested

  • TBWAY / “Tobi Proway”

    • Claimed: 73.6 g protein / 4.8 g fat / 9.8 g carbs
    • Tested: ~78.4 g protein / 5.3 g fat / 6.9 g carbs

  • Airline Nutrition

    • Claimed: 60 g protein / 4.7 g fat / 24.8 g carbs
    • Tested: ~60 g protein / 4.8 g fat / 25 g carbs (very close)

  • Ultimate Power

    • Claimed: ~60 g protein
    • Tested: ~55 g protein, fat ~5.3 g, carbs ~31 g

  • Pure Protein (unflavored)

    • Claimed: carbs 6 g, fat 2.5 g
    • Tested: ~84.5 g protein, fat ~3 g, carbs ~6.9 g

  • Maxler Ultra

    • Claimed: 80 g protein
    • Tested: ~80.7 g protein
    • Fat/carbs close to label (~5% fat, ~10% carbs)

  • Cyberbermas Way Protein

    • Claimed: 73 g protein
    • Tested: ~57.3 g protein, fat ~5 g, carbs ~31 g

  • Elementika (vegan)

    • Claimed: 72.7 g protein / 0.8 g fat / 10 g carbs
    • Tested: ~47.9 g protein / ~2.5 g fat / ~41 g carbs

  • Jobaton (spelled like “yobaton” in transcript)

    • Claimed: 78 g protein / 3 g fat / 3 g carbs
    • Tested: transcript wording is messy, but it notes discrepancies, including ~16 g carbohydrates; described as not “supercritical.”

  • Dr. Hoffman

    • Claimed: 69 g protein / 8 g fat / 13.2 g carbs
    • Tested: ~5.8 g protein / ~2.5 g fat / ~83.8 g carbs

  • Dochala

    • Claimed: 76.6 g protein
    • Tested: ~55 g protein, fat ~2.2 g, carbs ~31.3 g

  • GLS Pharmaceutical

    • Claimed: 60 g protein / 6 g fat / 19 g carbs
    • Tested: ~58.9 g protein, fat ~5 g, carbs ~26 g
    • Presenter calls it “optimal” given price.

  • Vitamil

    • Claimed: 70 g protein
    • Tested: ~73.3 g protein, fat ~3.8 g, carbs ~15.5 g

  • Biavin Tony

    • Claimed: 60 g protein / 8.1 g fat / 13.7 g carbs
    • Tested: ~63 g protein
    • Fat slightly below label (~3.3 g), carbs slightly above/noted discrepancy

Pros (Stated / Implied From Results & Method)

  • Transparent approach: tests performed in accredited labs, and the presenter claims to publish protocols.
  • Some brands match labels closely, praised examples include:
    • Airline Nutrition
    • Maxler Ultra
    • Biavin Tony
    • Also Pure Protein, praised for very high measured protein.
  • Practical selection criteria:
    • Not just protein quantity, but also taste and value for money (cost per gram of protein).
  • The presenter emphasizes that testing helps correct the assumption “label = truth.”

Cons / Criticisms (Product-Related and Process-Related)

  • Label-to-lab discrepancies are common The presenter states that in ~30 samples, about half were “decent,” while around half were “not very worthy” (the exact numbers conflict slightly, but the message is that discrepancies are frequent).

  • Some products are described as extreme failures, notably:

    • Dr. Hoffman and Power
  • Taste affects adherence, but it is not treated as a lab metric.
  • Legal/suspicion context is discussed: comments claim the blogger could falsify tests; the presenter responds by stressing accredited labs and transparency.

Cost / Value Analysis (Comparison)

The presenter ranks/compares by cost per gram of protein:

  • Cheapest options (up to about ~2.5 rubles per 1 g protein), including:
    • Beef hydrolysate (~2.39 rub/g)
    • First Russian protein (~2.23 rub/g)
    • Bavin (~2.38 rub/g)
    • GLS Pharmaceutical (~2.48 rub/g)
  • When lab results were poor, some brands were described as several times more expensive per gram of protein
  • Conclusion presented: some sellers may reflect unfair competition—higher price despite weak protein performance.

Taste / User Experience

  • The presenter argues that protein choice should include taste, otherwise people won’t keep using it.

  • Example meal method: post-workout shake using frozen berries + protein + chia + milk (sometimes dairy-free).

  • Example of taste vs BJU mismatch: Elementika vegan protein is described as tasty despite poor BJU results, implying taste doesn’t necessarily correlate with protein quality.

Overall Verdict / Recommendation

  • Main takeaway: verify BJU labels because many proteins under-deliver protein and/or have mismatched carbs/fats.
  • Recommended options (based on higher measured protein and/or better alignment with labels):
    • Beef hydrolysate (“Hydrozd beef”) ~97 g protein
    • Pure Protein ~84.5 g
    • TBWAY ~78.4 g
    • Maxler Ultra ~80.7 g
    • Airline Nutrition ~60 g matching label
  • Use caution / avoid the major failure examples:
    • Dr. Hoffman (massively low measured protein vs label)
    • Power (worst result; rechecked)
    • Plus other brands highlighted for large deviations such as Elementika vegan and CyberProtein

Unique Points Mentioned About the Product Selection System

  1. Ranking covers 33 proteins tested across three lab-check rounds (compiled later).
  2. Testing uses accredited lab BJU tests, with claimed transparency via Telegram protocols.
  3. Selection considers taste and cost per gram of protein, not only protein content.
  4. Skepticism is addressed by defending the accredited lab credibility and describing lab transparency.
  5. The presenter suggests follow-up testing ideas for other foods (e.g., bars/cheese/sausages).

Speakers / Views

  • Single main speaker (the presenter): covers methodology, brand-by-brand lab comparisons, value analysis, and taste/adherence advice.
  • Mentions other viewpoints mainly via comments/claims:
    • Commenters allege test falsification by a “corrupt blogger”; the presenter disputes this.
    • Manufacturers allegedly dismiss private-lab blogger tests; the presenter says their videos/protocols aren’t proof for every batch, but are intended to help consumers choose.

Original video