Vega One: A Nutritionists Perspective

Comment

Comment by Dave Rebus on May 12, 2012 at 2:16pm

 2) "If we didn't change a single thing in the formulation of the Whole Food Health Optimizer, and simply halved the recommended serving size (to one, 30g scoop), we felt the nutritional profile was not up to our standards. There wasn't enough of the food based goodness! Not enough EFA's, protein, antioxidants and greens. Food is the foundation. We are extremely passionate about the quality of our product, and the effectiveness for our consumers, so we wanted to formulate an all in one drink that reflected a superior nutritional profile, for a convenient, palatable, one scoop serving size."

This statement begs the question: on the basis of what observation, were changes to the original formula considered? Of course one scoop of WFHO has 50 percent of the RDI of vitamins/minerals, and, therefore, does not have "enough of the food based goodness". However, one _serving_ of WFHO, contains 4g of 5/3 omega3-to-omega6 of EFA , 26g of protein, and 200mg of ORAC800+, not to mention at_least_100_ percent of the aforementioned RDI of vitamins/minerals. Those facts are not in dispute. However, the definitions of "convenient", "palatable", "food-based-goodness",and, of course "nice" are, pardon me for saying so, quite subjective.

I can understand the popularity of increased ORAC content, and the additional digestive enzymes smell like a predictable move to win over the masses (ie those for whom a full attack dose of WFHO would be a euphemistically-put gastrointestinal challenge),  but the idea that  the focus groups also demanded an effectively 50 percent price increase as well as diminished Maca and cleansing capacity is ludicrous.

Whoever said food _wasn't_ the 'foundation', for whatever that may be? That principle, I suppose is why so many valid (if not empirically tested or critically formulated) questions are being raised. The proper thing to admit would be a switch in focus from daily multivitamin/cleansing tool  to a mass-marketed 'health-shake', while allowing for a respectful nod to the customers who provided the revenue for such a venture.

In fairness, however, this should disabuse most of us the notion that a(n even lightly) processed food product can completely substitute for original-state, raw, organic, alkaline, plant-based sustenance. Nobody can discontinue spinach or apples with 'upgrades'. Except for, I suppose, you-know-who.

Comment by Dave Rebus on May 12, 2012 at 6:14am

I am in the process of recommending Vega to my friends and coworkers (and, hopefully leading-by-example), so I feel a point by point analysis of this original post is in order: 

1) The main thesis: "My comparison of the changes in formulation are based on objective criteria, and actual quantitative differences.":

Unless I am quite possibly mistaken: "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, orprejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion." appears to be the intended definition of 'objective' in this context. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective) 

without intending to sound, in any way negative or confrontational (and with full awareness, that, should my aforementioned testing yield overall qualitative results congruent with the promises made  for the 'new-and-improved' Vega, I may feel like an absolute 'luddiot'), I must say, however, that this "hesitant"-ness, once the obvious financial connection between the original poster and the product vendor is taken into account, does come across to me as a bit disingenuous. :( 

I use such an adjective in light of the poster's subsequent use of the pronoun 'our', as opposed to 'their'. Emma, let me begin by saying that it is also _my_ "priority to understand the nutritional benefits, but also the points of difference between one product and another". I, too am a "compulsive label reader". However, I do not work for Brendan, as much service for nutrition as I may like to perform in my current incarnation.

I do not know personally anyone on this forum, and have no choice but to take everyone at their word (just like outside), so, moving right along...

Comment by Dave Rebus on May 11, 2012 at 3:29am

Emma, I think in light of everything I have read, Sequel would be providing true service to others in providing both products.

As for the notion that the alleged controversy over the content of a single scoop was the sole motive for fixing that which clearly was not broken, I remain skeptical to the point of absolute incredulity, the overwhelming love and light by the Megs and Emmas of the forum notwithstanding. 

In all fairness, I am only going by what I have read, having not been impressed, nor completely convinced by the vendor to date. The field tests for me will ultimately determine where my money goes, but the product supplanting and subsequent number-tweaking (as well as Brendan's continued silence) do bother me somewhat. I find no justification for the decrease in Maca and Chlorella per complete serving, forgive me for saying so.

Comment by P-Lee on April 19, 2012 at 9:53am

Hey knh chris,

So I have pretty much given up on the company as a whole and have found Harmonized Vegan Protein by Progressive and the berry is pretty good and they have a vegeGreen oh and they give some of there profits to ...I think an environmental group ....or something.... anyway, it's one worth checking out.

Comment by knh chris on April 19, 2012 at 9:06am

PLEASE GO BACK TO ORIGINAL FORMULATION OR ATLEAST NUTRITIONAL CONTENT!

I am sooo disappointed with the new supplemental facts.

Biotin has essentially disappeared.  Macca way down.  The information on proportion of omega 3 to omega 6 is no longer available.

Not to mention the simple fact that there is no difference between having 100% RDA of all vitamins in the old 2 scoops vs 50% in the new 1 scoop (and the new size of the scooper is larger than the old scooper).  The math is essentially the same on nutrients with a significant downgrade in important supplements that were in the original formula.

Please keep the original formula in production as that is the only one I will buy.

Otherwise, my search begins again for another brand.

Comment by Brian Howard on April 8, 2012 at 5:22am

I was a 2 scoop guy with the original formula so I kept the old scoop and will use it with Vega One...along with Cloressence tablets.

Comment by Danielle M on April 7, 2012 at 7:55am

Won't make this long, but have to say I too am disappointed with the change. This was my favorite product, and I'm going to stock up on WFHO while I go back to testing others again (ugh). I often used to take just one scoop of WFHO, but one scoop of Vega One will cost me more while providing less maca and chlorella. Plus, when I need the extra protein, my two scoops will be way more expensive. Keep Vega One if you think people will want it, but put WFHO back on the market! (Especially if you say you had a better profit margin on it and many people are obviously complaining about the change.)

Comment by P-Lee on March 27, 2012 at 11:06am

Yeah, which makes it all even more sad!

Comment by sluze on March 27, 2012 at 10:56am

P-Lee - if you look back Emma admits she works for Vega in this thread; no one that is independent would say stuff like they are. 

Comment by P-Lee on March 27, 2012 at 10:55am

Hey Sluze! You read my mind! If you look at the "reviews" they ALL read like ads, like people that have been paid to say the right things.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page