Continue reading Stack3d

Review of the SAA and BCAA Amino, EPIQ’s clean cocktail a bit like Amino Build

Review of EPIQ's silk and branched chain amino formula

We take no shame in liking Muscletech’s complex cocktail Amino Build. We actually rank it as high as 4th on our list of top recovery supplements, right behind Cytosport’s Monster Amino. So when the maker’s of Muscletech released word on another amino formula for EPIQ, simply titled Amino, our interest was definitely peaked. When the facts panel was finally revealed, we noticed a few things in common with our recovery favorite, and figured Amino would be well worth putting in the effort to test. While BCAAs and amino products are on most occasions quite plain, we feel that this one has a big enough point of difference to justify a full review.

To start off BCAA formulas are quite difficult to review, as in our experience everybody reacts differently to certain ratios, amounts, and some even specific time frames. For those who would like to know the doses in EPIQ’s Amino for that very reason, the supplement packs a 2g 2:1:1 BCAA ratio, with 4.3g of SAAs per scoop. It is worth pointing out that together the branched chain and silk amino’s total is only 5.8g. As l-valine is of course a part of both amino acid groups, but listed under the SAA complex.

Where Amino sets itself apart from the rest is with it’s ingredients outside of the BCAAs and SAAs. EPIQ have produced the product with two additional features, both of which can be found in Amino Build, citrulline and taurine. At 500mg each per scoop, there isn’t much to count on. But just like with Muscletech’s Performance Series amino, our BCAA reviewers are not single scoop users. And when you get up in the area of two or even three scoops of EPIQ’s Amino. You can almost immediately tell that the supplement was put together by the same minds behind Amino Build.

At it’s normal amount of a single 9g scoop, the bonus effects in Amino are minimal, in fact almost unnoticeable. For some even the BCAA dose might be a bit too small at 2g. However when we targeted our favorite amount of BCAAs at around 5g. Which for EPIQ’s Amino, requires almost three servings. The recovery and revitalizing feelings that you see in a lot of the category’s top quality entries, is definitely present. Taken post-workout at anywhere between two to three scoops, provides you with enough to keep away any sort of drag or after training blues. It isn’t a pick up as powerful as the one in Amino Build. But definitely a lot more of a lift than you would find in your average amino. As for use outside of the post-workout window, we feel Amino does offer a mild kick pre-workout. It isn’t an effect that will carry on after throwing back a few servings. Although when used as an intra-workout (taken throughout a session), it will spread out a diluted dose of the mild hit across a 45 to 60 minute period. Taken balanced out over any longer amount of time, and you may find yourself like we did, a bit disappointed. Even when we upped the amount and spaced out it’s intake a little better for a two hour period. We didn’t really get any sense of the formula, aside from the internal delight of taking 6g+ of BCAAs.

All in all we can say EPIQ’s Amino is effective and successful in offering an experience a bit more than most aminos. We will point out that upping the amount of scoops to get the desired effect, will of course see you through the supplement a little faster than you may like. However, Amino does have a total of 40 servings, as opposed to the usual 30 or less. It still doesn’t make the product’s value overly impressive, but at least not as bad as it initially appears. While we are saying EPIQ’s Amino is effective, we can’t say it is something we would go back to or intend on using again. As mentioned earlier it does have similarities to Amino Build. Although they are similarities at levels that don’t really match Muscletech’s supplement. Amino does have it’s fair share of effects, we just wish we could say ‘revitalizing sensation’ rather than a ‘small lift’, and ‘muscle replenishment’ instead of ‘slight recovery’.

In this post: