View Full Version : Universal vs Animal: Question for Universal Rep or naturalguy
I know that this is a topic that's been beaten to death but please bear with me. One of the athletes I train is a GNC employee and we're always talking about what various supplements do because her supplement knowledge is all self taught(GNC doesn't teach employees about supplements). We were discussing Animal and Universal and we both ended up with some unanswered questions. I've always thought of the relationship between Universal, Animal, Tone ‘N Tighten and Universal Naturals as sort of like the relationship between Muscle & Fitness, Flex, M&F Hers and Men's Fitness. I based that upon what I've seen on the Forvm and reading articles like this one: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/supp-of-the-month-universal.html
But I also thought it was cool that the company didn't try to reinvent the wheel. Basically, if Universal sold a product that Animal didn't we just used the Universal product and vice versa. Now I'm seeing a little more duplication i.e. UniVite - Animal Pak, Animal Whey - Universal Whey, Shock Therapy- Animal Pump/Rage XL Stack, Juiced Aminos-Atomic 7, Animal Nitro-Amino 2700/Amino 2250/Amino 1000 etc.
I'm not asking for a long explanation of the company's marketing strategy (I'd be surprised if you guys told me anyway) but is it that Animal stuff is intended to be the "stronger more intense" version of what Universal sells? I know I use Pak exclusively when I'm in meet prep and if I'm training on less sleep while I'm more inclined to use UniVite if I'm well rested and going through my normal training. So again, is it that Animal stuff is intended to be the "stronger more intense" version of what Universal sells and where do Universal Naturals and Tone ‘N Tighten fit in the mix?
Cellardweller
12-18-14, 5:24 pm
Historically Animal was training packs (combinations of different supps in individual packs) and Universal was powders and individual capsule supps. Animal was and is marketed as "hard core" training packs, while Universal keeps a bodybuilding image. Like you said though there is now a cross over of products.
Historically Animal was training packs (combinations of different supps in individual packs) and Universal was powders and individual capsule supps. Animal was and is marketed as "hard core" training packs, while Universal keeps a bodybuilding image. Like you said though there is now a cross over of products.
Yeah that's kind of what I mean. I'm looking more at the underlying philosophy behind the blurring of the lines. The two always met slightly different needs in my opinion. I like packs because I don't travel with a blender everywhere but I know that some people prefer not to swallow a lot of pills.
Now the answer could be as simple as "this is what our market research indicated our customers wanted" and if that's the case, I'm cool with it. It probably wouldn't change my buying habits a great deal but Animal has always seemed to be the sort of company that you invested in personally. I remember writing an article about companies using social media to invite people into the world of the brand. Jones Soda had a campaign where over the summer people took pictures of themselves and sent them in and the winning photos got put onto the bottles.
Animal is well beyond that. No other company in this industry comes close in my opinion to inspiring the level of loyalty and sense of ownership that this one does. Like I have to make a conscious effort to not take it personally when someone tells me that another vitamin supplement is better than Pak. I realize that may not be a healthy mental approach. But anyway, one of the things I love is that Animal DOESN'T try to compete by having all of the stuff that every other company carries so I was just curious about why they are making the choice to expand the brand offerings into stuff Universal already has, especially if Animal decided to put it's previous protein (or was Animal Mass a MRP?)product in the Universal wheelhouse.
Maybe I'm just stirring up trouble but honestly, I'm curious especially since my three oldest boys are now at the age where I'm willing to let them take supplements on a limited basis and so we're looking at what's out there with an eye to their needs. (Except War Machine, he can take what he likes but he still has to hear my two cents on the subject).
G Diesel
12-19-14, 10:48 am
I would think, in my opinion, that Animal, while being more directed to the "hardcore" demographic, is also the more premium of the two lines.
Universal, I always thought of as being made for bodybuilding basics. Rock solid, simple formulas that delivered value. Consistent, honest and a very broad line of products. Universal has everything for everybody.
Animal is more niche and specialized. Mostly packs, but then the powders have some extra bells and whistles (like patented or expensive ingredients). Every Animal product, as I see it, aspires to a certain standard that sets it apart, even from Universal. That tends to come with a little extra cost. And it has also won the brand some diehard loyalists.
Even in the instances where there is categorical overlap in terms of products, the formulas are different enough to make a distinction. If there is one thing I know about Animal and Universal, it is that there is no desire or intent to come out with redundant products just for the sake of coming out with something "new".
Peace, G
[QUOTE=G Diesel;1396539]I would think, in my opinion, that Animal, while being more directed to the "hardcore" demographic, is also the more premium of the two lines.
Universal, I always thought of as being made for bodybuilding basics. Rock solid, simple formulas that delivered value. Consistent, honest and a very broad line of products. Universal has everything for everybody.
Animal is more niche and specialized. Mostly packs, but then the powders have some extra bells and whistles (like patented or expensive ingredients). Every Animal product, as I see it, aspires to a certain standard that sets it apart, even from Universal. That tends to come with a little extra cost. And it has also won the brand some diehard loyalists.
Even in the instances where there is categorical overlap in terms of products, the formulas are different enough to make a distinction.
If there is one thing I know about Animal and Universal, it is that there is no desire or intent to come out with redundant products just for the sake of coming out with something "new".
I agree with your assessment of Animal hence my desire to get some clarification. This answer is the most concise and clear I've ever seen in a long time. Animal being for the hardcore demographic doesn't exactly explain anything if I'm trying to help a parent decide if a product is appropriate for their 16 year old to take. And we know that asking a doctor is useless. (I still remember when I was advised not to take Animal Pak because it was dangerous!) This answer is a tool in my toolbox. I appreciate it!Thanks for chiming in G!
I would think, in my opinion, that Animal, while being more directed to the "hardcore" demographic, is also the more premium of the two lines.
Universal, I always thought of as being made for bodybuilding basics. Rock solid, simple formulas that delivered value. Consistent, honest and a very broad line of products. Universal has everything for everybody.
Animal is more niche and specialized. Mostly packs, but then the powders have some extra bells and whistles (like patented or expensive ingredients). Every Animal product, as I see it, aspires to a certain standard that sets it apart, even from Universal. That tends to come with a little extra cost. And it has also won the brand some diehard loyalists.
Even in the instances where there is categorical overlap in terms of products, the formulas are different enough to make a distinction. If there is one thing I know about Animal and Universal, it is that there is no desire or intent to come out with redundant products just for the sake of coming out with something "new".
Peace, G
Very good explanation, makes sense!
HIGA MONSTER
12-20-14, 3:58 pm
Very good explanation, makes sense!
Boom...headshot.
G Diesel's response is on point. As I have taken Universal/Animal branded products exclusively for well over 20 years now, my own use has evolved over time according to diverse factors such as training goals, health considerations, and expense. I started out taking Animal Pak and Natural Sterol Complex as my only stack . . . with a good diet it covered all bases and gave me a little bit of everything. Now that I am in my 60's, my primary concern is general health and keeping my training going without injury so I am primarily using more specialized Universal products as the Animal line is simply more than I need; for example, my current stack is Uni-vite, Jointment Sport, Omega EFA, and Amino 1000 (periodically throw Animal PM in the mix if I'm having trouble with sleep). As my 26 year old son has recently caught the bodybuilding bug, I've strongly recommended he use the Pak as it is a good all around nutrient (which saves money in the long run) and supplement with a Universal protein powder, i.e. Gain Fast or the like to gain quality weight which is a goal of his at this time. As a college student working minimum wage jobs, he can't afford a lot and I always encourage him to spend his money on good food first, supplements second. The beauty of Universal/Animal, is the diversity of its lineup . . . something for every training need. Anyways, just my personal experiences as a user and parent.
G Diesel
12-22-14, 11:00 am
I agree with your assessment of Animal hence my desire to get some clarification. This answer is the most concise and clear I've ever seen in a long time. Animal being for the hardcore demographic doesn't exactly explain anything if I'm trying to help a parent decide if a product is appropriate for their 16 year old to take. And we know that asking a doctor is useless. (I still remember when I was advised not to take Animal Pak because it was dangerous!) This answer is a tool in my toolbox. I appreciate it!Thanks for chiming in G!
No doubt bro. Always happy to provide my two cents.
I will say this, if we think of Animal as being generally more "advanced" in many cases and Universal as being more simple and basic, it might follow that an aspiring athlete would "graduate" to Animal. I've always said the more advanced a lifter becomes, their supplementation should follow suit. At the earliest points in the game, keep it as basic as possible.
At the end of the day, the simplest route is often the best. I'd argue that anything beyond protein powder, a multi and creatine is icing on the cake for most of us in the iron game.
Peace, G
G Diesel
12-22-14, 1:26 pm
As my 26 year old son has recently caught the bodybuilding bug, I've strongly recommended he use the Pak as it is a good all around nutrient (which saves money in the long run) and supplement with a Universal protein powder, i.e. Gain Fast or the like to gain quality weight which is a goal of his at this time. As a college student working minimum wage jobs, he can't afford a lot and I always encourage him to spend his money on good food first, supplements second. The beauty of Universal/Animal, is the diversity of its lineup . . . something for every training need. Anyways, just my personal experiences as a user and parent.
Perfect.
And as I see it, Pak and a gainer (as a source of supplemental mega calories and protein) should be all a guy like your son, at that point in his development, should need.
The idea that he'd be breaking the bank on supps and missing out on food and other important life priorities and experiences would be unnecessary.
Before I had any affiliation with Animal, my supplement shelf looked like this--Pak, protein powder, creatine, aminos (like BCAAs, liver or glutamine) and Vitamin C. Probably about $100 a month. That's all I needed. Trained like a freak, ate everything in sight. And grew like a weed.
Peace, G
Animal Rep
12-23-14, 9:10 am
As always G is right on the money. Guy is a veteran warrior of this game and has a Long history with the brand.
I would think, in my opinion, that Animal, while being more directed to the "hardcore" demographic, is also the more premium of the two lines.
Universal, I always thought of as being made for bodybuilding basics. Rock solid, simple formulas that delivered value. Consistent, honest and a very broad line of products. Universal has everything for everybody.
Animal is more niche and specialized. Mostly packs, but then the powders have some extra bells and whistles (like patented or expensive ingredients). Every Animal product, as I see it, aspires to a certain standard that sets it apart, even from Universal. That tends to come with a little extra cost. And it has also won the brand some diehard loyalists.
Even in the instances where there is categorical overlap in terms of products, the formulas are different enough to make a distinction. If there is one thing I know about Animal and Universal, it is that there is no desire or intent to come out with redundant products just for the sake of coming out with something "new".
Peace, G
I´ve been asked the same question numerous times before. THIS is the perfect answer.
HIGA MONSTER
12-23-14, 11:10 am
As always G is right on the money. Guy is a veteran warrior of this game and has a Long history with the brand.
No doubt.
His words always ring you back into reality. Simple yet to the point. Love it.
HIGA MONSTER
naturalguy
12-26-14, 3:56 pm
G Diesel nailed it
Swolepez
12-26-14, 6:49 pm
Great explanation by G. I knew Animal was specialized but never thought about it to the degree G explains.... As in "graduating" to Animal products as you advance in your trainings..
The kids I train all compete in something or the other. If they come to me not already in a sport, we explore sports that might be a possible fit for them. I've got kids involved in wrestling, lacrosse and powerlifting. Some of them also do 5ks (or adventure races if they're old enough). So their nutritional needs are a bit higher than your average couch potato donut eater. Especially when they hit puberty but still think that FunYuns and Now and Laters are a food group.
The issue is not that they take too much stuff but which products to take. I'm a big fan of the Universal and Animal lines but I wondered about the difference between say Uni Vite and Animal Pak. So while I try to keep them taking the basics, what I like about G Diesel's answer is that it clearly shows the difference. Not whether kids should take Rage XL for example (for the record I say no) but whether Uni Vite or Animal Pak would be better for a given situation. I'd even extend it out to Ultra Whey Pro vs Animal Whey. For myself, it often comes down to taste and where I am in my competition year but I wanted an apples to apples product comparison so I could better advise parents. As I said, parents take their kids to the doctor for physicals and come back with the most outlandish advice. (yes they're telling me that they still hear from doctors that squats are bad for your knees, milk is bad for you and it's normal for a kid to not have a bowel movement for more than three days in a row. Seriously.)
As a side note, I like the idea of graduating to Animal. That's perfect advice and what I just passed on to one of my lifters this afternoon. He's trying to put on weight but his calories are too low. (He's 14 years old, 6'1 130) I told him that he needs to get his caloric intake, water intake and meal frequency up, using a combo of solid food and shakes, while taking a multivitamin. That multivitamin has been Animal Pak but I'll probably advise him to switch to UniVite simply because the number of pills in Animal Pak are a barrier to compliance for him.