Jimmy Joy forum

Disappointment in the recent lowering of protein content


#41

Nino, you quote the WHO, because you follow the research. Why did you decide to produce a product which contains only the bare minimum protein content of the WHO guidelines?


#42

@nino

This formula has been in development for quite some time so we did a lot of tests with our Jimmy Joy Test club

Sorry, I am on the test club and I do not recall any sort of discussion of the protein lowering. We get a small bottle to try, and we comment largely on taste issues. I think it’s a bit disingeneous to say that the issue under consideration has been ‘tested’ with the Test club, no?

@Bones221

Nino, you quote the WHO, because you follow the research. Why did you decide to produce a product which contains only the bare minimum protein content of the WHO guidelines?

Sorry, I have been working on a writeup about JimmyJoy’s WHO response but left my notes at work.

I just wanted to jump in to confirm @Bones221 thought that it’s important to understand the basis of the WHO recommendation, just as it’s important to understand something like RDA (Recommended Dietary Allowance used in the US). As @Bones221 notes, these recommendations are typically baseline levels that are essential to avoid body degradation and muscle atrophy—and not recommended levels in the conventional sense that we would associate with a complete meal replacement. This is a very important distinction.

I won’t include my longer writeup, but leave a few quotations from a recent review article on this issue: Optimizing Protein Intake in Adults: Interpretation and Application of the Recommended Dietary Allowance Compared with the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range by Wolfe et al. and published in Adv. in Nutrition in 2017.

Note that in their article, they note that the FAO/WHO recommendations (that JJ quotes) is essentially equivalent to RDA:

Dietary recommendations of agencies such as a joint the FAO/WHO committee, as well as recommendations of other countries, do not differ markedly from the US recommendations for macronutrient intake,

I just wanted to make that clear that this was a relevant study.

Confusion regarding the relation between the RDA and the optimal amount of dietary protein intake in all adults may in part stem from semantic issues. The term “RDA” suggests to the average consumer not familiar with the technical definition of the RDA that it is recommended that the RDA be eaten, and that any level of protein intake above the RDA will exceed that which is allowed. Thus, there is an inherent possibility of misinterpretation of the meaning of the RDA when planning the desired amount of dietary protein intake. In this regard, the pertinent issue is whether there is an amount of dietary protein in excess of the RDA but within the AMDR that provides beneficial outcomes.

It is our assertion that current dietary guidance is presented in a way that may lead to confusion between nutritional scientists, nutrition practitioners, and the general public as to how much protein we should eat. Translation of protein intake recommendations for the general population to dietary food-based guidance for individuals requires an understanding of the derivation and intended use of both the RDA for protein and the AMDR for protein. We will discuss the limitations of use of only the RDA for protein to develop dietary guidance, highlight the evidence that there are benefits to an intake of dietary protein in excess of the RDA in many circumstances, and provide examples of how dietary food-based guidance can be developed with the use of the AMDR.

The punchline:

We believe that the overall conclusion from these various studies is that there is an optimal level of protein intake that is greater than that of the RDA. Importantly, to our knowledge, there has never been a study in which the RDA for protein intake was compared with a higher level of protein intake, and the RDA was found to be superior in terms of any endpoint. We emphasize that this discussion has focused entirely on the amount of dietary protein, and neither the quality of protein nor the protein food source has been considered.

If you examine the article I quoted, you will see that the recommended ranges have fairly large variance. There is nothing really stopping any company from saying: “We’re going to take the absolute baseline level because it’s written into the FAO/WHO recommendations”.

As I said, the important thing is for us to:

  1. Be aware of this drastic reduction of protein, which as many people understand is one of the most expensive additions of any formula.

  2. Be pro-active in voting with our wallets. There are a number of competitors who offer higher/better protein quantities.

The thing that strikes me—and should strike all of us—is that JJ has lowered their protein dosage by 50% citing that this is the correct thing to do. Although many of us dispute that, it does raise the question of: are you saying that for several years you were overdosing by 100%?

I don’t think JJ will really address this to any satisfactory level. They have made their decision and have already sold nearly all their old stock. They will not go back to old ways. This is not really a ‘discussion’ but a ‘vent’.


#43

So why did Jimmy Joy lower the protein content?

We wanted to provide the perfect meal for the active, average lifestyle. We don’t aim our main products at consumers that want to gain or lose weight. For example, when the purpose is to excel in whatever recreational sport you do, we provide the Plenny Shake Regular. With the focus on regular diets, the macronutrient balance should be 45-65% from carbohydrates, 20-35% from fat, and 10-35% from protein. [1][2][3][4][5]

The amount of protein needed is still a hotly debated topic, with food companies around the world heavily marketing high protein products, contributing to a protein hype. An interesting and relevant article by The Guardian from 2017, elaborates further on this. [6] Most advice recommends 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight. Of course, your individual protein needs will vary based on factors such as medical condition and activity level. [2][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] But for a normal lifestyle, this amount of protein per kilogram of bodyweight is more than sufficient. In our old Jimmy Joy formula, the content of protein, based on these guidelines, was much higher than recommended. With the advised 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight; men should get around 56 grams of protein per day, and women 46 grams of protein. Therefore we adjusted the protein amount to 75 grams per day.

We at Jimmy Joy make food a science, so we use scientific reporting and research, which are meta-analyses or systematic reviews. In this instance, the whole protein hype seems to be based on a few reports, on which we do not want to build any conclusions. Don’t let a focus on protein diminish the other important macronutrients - healthy carbohydrates and fat. Balance is key to a healthy diet.

  1. US Department of Health and Human Services. (2017). Dietary guidelines for Americans 2015-2020. Skyhorse Publishing Inc.
  2. Santarpia L, Contaldo F, Pasanisi F. Dietary protein content for an optimal diet: a clinical view. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle. 2017;8(3):345-348. doi:10.1002/jcsm.12176.
  3. British Nutrition Foundation .2017. Nutrition Requirements (Revised).
  4. Institute of Medicine. 2005. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10490.
  5. National Health and Medical Research Council (2013) Australian Dietary Guidelines. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council.
  6. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/26/protein-hype-shoppers-flushing-money-down-the-toilet-say-experts
  7. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
  8. The American Heart Association (2015). Protein and Heart Health.
  9. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (2017). The Nutrition Source: Protein.
  10. British Nutrition Foundation (2017). Protein
  11. The Netherlands Nutrition Centre. Voedingscentrum
  12. Health Canada (2016). Canada’s Food Guides.
  13. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 8th Edition. December 2015.

#44

ok, so now i’m even more confused. I just realized that there is now a separate US site now…when I click the link to review the nutritional info, the US site says there are 25g protein per 100g powder…the euro site nutritional info states 15g protein per 100g powder.

Ummmm…what up with that? Have you decided that Americans need more protein, or are you not supplying accurate info to US residents?

And…

you are selling plenny shake as a meal replacement, right? but then you say, " these recommendations are typically baseline levels that are essential to avoid body degradation and muscle atrophy—and not recommended levels in the conventional sense that we would associate with a complete meal replacement

So I guess I just don’t understand why you would make a meal replacement with protein content that is less than the recommended levels one would associate with meal replacement, (for the euro market, apparenlty the US market, according to your documentation, is getting the bigger protein dose)

edited one more time now that I realize I was responding to Phario’s remarks…but my question for Nino remains the same…why would you make a meal replacement shake that has only the bare minimum needed not to atrophy?


#45

Nino, there are a couple of questions above and I really think it’s fair that you answer them. The protein content, as advertised on the US site, says 25 g of protein per 100 g of powder. Is that accurate? Are you giving me American market the higher dose protein product… Or are you advertising/representing your product falsely?

why would you choose to make a complete meal replacement product with only the amount of protein required by an average sized sedentary man, as recommended by the WHO?


#46

Just wondering … 25g per 100 is the exact of amount of protein used in the old formula. Would you mind sharing the full ingredient list as stated on the US site?


#47

I guess because most will fit into these needs. For as much as most of us want to believe in an active population, there are many who are not.
And those who are active or require more protein can choose to go for the sport variant. It would be cool if the default was the sport variant and the less protein plenny shake was the special one.


#48

The USA site nutritional label is different because USA is still under the old formula. I’m sure it will switch to the new nutritional label once they start selling the new formula in USA.

I too am unhappy with the protein drop. I will switch brands if I can find a similarly priced competitor with better protein and no other issues. Unfortunately I don’t think there are any.

In the USA, is sport going to be the same price per kcal as the new formula once it launches? If so, that really may be a satisfactory alternative. Just needs to be the same price per kcal and more flavors.


#49

I have been a strong supporter of the product since the early days (long before the name change) and several of my friends have started using it also after a small introduction. So it’s really sad to say that my happy days with Jimmy Joy are over. This new and ‘improved’ formula is a huge dissapointment. Not only because of the drop of protein content but also the taste is far worse than before. This is probably related to the sucralose and/or sunflower oil. Some years ago I tested several competing products and they had also this awful taste.

Considering the disastrous direction of your product development my newest order that I just received will probably be also last one ever. I’m truly sad and now searching for new replacement for my meals.


#50

Hey Bones!

The american site hasn’t yet been switch to the new formula, so for now the buy the old formula which contains the 25g protein per 100 gr.

So I guess I just don’t understand why you would make a meal replacement with protein content that is less than the recommended levels one would associate with meal replacement

Please consider to read the sources we use for setting up the protein content. We use the recommended protein content for a normal lifestyle with recreational sporting activities, it’s not eantfor just sedentary lifestyles. I love to see your sources of which states to take more protein intake for a normal day to day lifestyle.


#51

Harold, here is the link:


#52

Minute 1 fan and customer here.
I am so very disappointed about the formula change.
The product is now to no use for me.

  1. Why cut the protein? Just why?

  2. Why the smaller bags? That’s even more litter … now I would have bring 2 bags to work, not one …

  3. The change was not really announced, I got an mail which said the flavor improved … not “we cut out the protein for no reason” … so I feel a little bit scammed by your shady communication.

I canceled all my subscriptions today and switched to another manufacturers product, which is 75% more expensive, but now the best “bang-for-the-buck” in all full-nutrition-shakes.

My bet is you hired some dumb consulting, which promised you +10% more profits with the changes … this may work shortime, but on the long run you f**** up your perfect product so you will lose profits.


#53

Let me clear a few things up:

  1. Because the protein content was too high. We base all our products on scientific research and according to the world health organiation you dont need that much protein if you are not a world class athlete that has to perform at world class. and if you do than we now have a clear distinction between the regular line and Active line.

Here is some more information on protein from our food technician:

The regular line is €1.04 per 400 kcal and the active is €1.06 per 400kcal meal. Still the most bang for the buck :slight_smile: We will add more flavors ASAP.

  1. We improved the scoop-a-bility of the bags because we had a lot of feedback. New bags are easier to scoop because they are wider. We changed the pouches so that they match the 5 meals per bag strategy. It’s easier to mix and match different JJ products because we try to get everything down to 400kcal.

  2. Sorry you feel this way. We try to be as transparant as possible and this change had been coming for over 1 year. Our communication could have been better and we will definitely take your feedback into consideration on further product updates.

If you have any further questions feel free to ask.


#54

Hi to all!

Reading all different positions on this topic, and being in doubt if I will stay with Jimmy Joy or not, I found this calculator that hope will help someone in reaching or consolidating any conclusion:

https://fnic.nal.usda.gov/fnic/dri-calculator/

And also a nice article on the difference ( to kidneys at least ) of different protein types:

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/which-type-of-protein-is-better-for-our-kidneys/

All the best!


Did you recently change the recipe?
#55

Nina, does this mean you will add more flavors asap for the active line? Or are you referring to the regular line? If you can get active to have some more flavors then that would probably be fine for me if it’s the same or very similar price as regular. Which leads me to my next question…

When the new formula launches in USA, will the price per kcal be as similar as they are now in Europe (within a couple pennies per 400 kcal meal)?

Last, it’s confusing for me to try to buy both regular and active in one order, since they have a different amount of kcal per bag (525g vs 665g) and since the prices are listed for a different amount per kcal (regular says $1.22 per 400kcal meal whereas active says $1.53 per 520kcal meal). Do you have any plans to standardize all this? Like make them both have the same amount of grams per bag and make them both say x amount per 400kcal meal. It would be so much easier to compare.

Thank you.


Review of the New (and improved?) Plenny Shake Formula
#56

I’m disappointed too about the new protein amount. :slightly_frowning_face:
When you have more flavours for the active version I’ll probably be coming back (been JJ customer many years). Now I will test other products.

That 15g protein just isn’t enough if you do even little strenght training. You need more for optimal protein synthesis to happen.

Thanks anyway, really liked your brand and all. :slight_smile:


#57

I’m terribly disappointed in the lower protein levels in the new formula

I’ve been happily replacing most my meals with Plenny shakes, but they don’t kill the hunger anymore - it’s barely a snack now even… It used to fill me as good as a full meal! But no more :c

I will be switching to (unnamed competitor) until Jimmy Joy gets his act together and fixes this.

MAJORLY disappointed! Loved the new taste but pointless drinking if you’re still gonna go hungry…


#60

Have you tried the Active version? It has even more protein than the former version.


#61

Have you tried the Active version? It has even more protein than the former version.


#62

Yes and unfortunately the banana tastes like crap :confused: banana and vanilla flavoured are undrinkable in my opinion, don’t understand how one can even put that kind of taste on a thick drink - so this has rendered all your products useless for me unfortunately - i was a big fan but am now turning to your competitors…

Hoping you will add more protein again, so that we’ll get at least 25grams a portion. Something to survive on…