PBR Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 mike i know you said you would look into this but just thought i would post this so gives something to go by --- fighter tested with was http://www.mmatycoon.com/fighterprofilemanager.php?FID=176236 160 supp used was http://www.mmatycoon.com/nutritionpublic.php?ncid=3879 (if 160 or not i dont know but know you can verify) the results were an energy loss of 1.83 doing a ct with the 170 super supp -- an energy loss of 1.01 doing a ct with the 160 supp -- an energy loss of .83 doing punch tech with 170 super supp -- an energy loss of .42 doing punch tech with 160 supp -- all the test were done with 100% energy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Damn, all I have won from spin and win is super supps and now you say they don't work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Damn, all I have won from spin and win is super supps and now you say they don't work? ive just been holding onto them until theyre working Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBR Posted December 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 mike they still need a little tweaking -- lost .45 energy today doing punch tech with the 170 supp -- still high compared to the .42 energy loss using the 160 listed at top -- while much better still little high Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floppzzy Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 this is rather unsettling... Im using 170 sups with most of my biggest talents :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 im still in fear of using it, il wait a while now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClarkKent Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 Just a little thing I'd like to add to the supps debate. I'd really like to see a bigger difference between 150-160 supps. Not just the little 0.06% or whatever difference it makes at the moment. People who run nutrition companies and put in loads of research money into 160's should have a vastly superior product 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caleb613 Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 Id like to bump this and ask if this has been fixed yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bwang Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 Do people think 170 sups work? For definite? Whenever I used them in the past they seemed to be worse than 160s. Anyone got any concrete evidence that they do what they're supposed to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprooch Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 Any changes made? I won 6 from the spin and win.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamHolland Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 I dont think they do to be honest, keep them in the bank for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts