An Australian content creator has called out Nestle after crunching the numbers on its new protein product, revealing shoppers are paying a massive premium for what amounts to just over two extra grams of protein per serve.
The revelation comes amid a growing ‘proteinmaxxing’ trend across Australian supermarkets, where everyday items are repackaged with bold front-of-pack protein claims and inflated price tags.
The viral call-out
In a breakdown shared to social media, the creator, Aaron Cooper, compared the nutritional panels of Original Milo and Milo Pro (Milo Protein Chocolate Malt Powder Hot or Cold Drink 440g) to see whether the new release lived up to its high-protein marketing.
When prepared according to package directions using skim milk, Milo Pro delivers 15.9 grams of protein when combined with 250ml of skim milk. Without milk, you’ll get 6.6g of protein from the 33g powder serve alone.
By comparison, Original Milo says it delivers 10 grams of protein when mixed with 200ml of skim milk, or 2.5g from its smaller 20g powder serve.
At first glance, Milo Pro appears to offer almost six grams more protein per prepared drink.
However, the creator pointed out a crucial detail: the serving size for Milo Pro is 65 per cent larger (33g vs. 20g) and calls for 50ml more milk.
To level the playing field, the creator calculated what happens if you use 33 grams of Original Milo with 250ml of skim milk.
That combination delivers 13.4 grams of total protein.
When compared on an equal serving size, Milo Pro yields just 2.5 grams more protein than the original recipe.
It is also up to 67 per cent more expensive than Original Milo. Milo Pro costs $12 per 440g tin, while a 460g Original Milo tin retails for $7.50 when on special.
When the Original Milo is not on special, selling for $10.70, the Milo Pro is 12.15 per cent more expensive.
“If you just had the normal Milo with a little bit of extra skim milk, you’d probably have the same amount of protein as the high-protein product.” Mr Cooper noted on Instagram.
Nestle defends the new Milo product
Despite Mr Cooper’s claims, a spokesperson for Nestle defended the product, claiming that Milo Pro offers a higher concentration of protein per gram compared to the standard tin.
“Milo Pro powder has approximately 50 per cent more protein when compared to Milo Original powder on a per 100g basis,” the spokesperson told news.com.au.
“When prepared as directed, a glass of Milo Pro and milk provides 15g of protein. The protein in Milo Pro is coming from a combination of ingredients including milk powders and cocoa powder.”
While Milo Pro does have a higher percentage of protein per 100 grams, Mr Cooper’s point is that consumers are only benefiting from a small number of grams difference in protein per serving size. The recommended serving size for the product is significantly less than 100 grams.
What nutritionists say about the ‘proteinmaxxing’ craze
Leading Australian weight loss nutritionist Lucinda Porcelli, who is the founder of CindaFit, warned consumers not to fall for front-of-pack buzzwords.
“Protein has become a major selling point, and brands are well aware that consumers increasingly associate the word ‘protein’ with being healthier, more filling, and supportive of their health and fitness goals,” Ms Porcelli told news.com.au.
“The important thing for consumers to understand is that a product being labelled or marketed around protein doesn’t automatically mean it is nutritionally superior or better value.”
Ms Porcelli highlighted that much of the heavy lifting in Milo Pro’s front-of-pack protein total actually comes from the milk mixed into it rather than the powder itself.
“Protein Milo recommends a 33-gram serve compared with a 20-gram serve of Original Milo, meaning you’re actually consuming 65 per cent more product per serve,” she explained.
“The protein version is genuinely higher in protein per gram, but part of that higher per-serve protein number comes simply from consuming more of the product.”
Veronika Larisova, nutritionist and co-founder at CHIEF Nutrition, agrees that the minimal protein bump isn’t worth the extra cash, in her opinion.
“If it is only providing around two grams more protein per serve, I personally wouldn’t pay a significant premium for it purely for the protein,” Ms Larisova shared with news.com.au.
“Two grams of protein is nutritionally quite small.
“You would get considerably more protein from adding a little extra milk, Greek yoghurt, eggs, meat, or a quality protein powder.”
Looking beyond the label
While brands rush to capitalise on fitness crazes, health experts urge shoppers to look past front-of-pack claims and read the full ingredient list.
“Sometimes a premium is justified because the product contains a meaningful amount of additional high-quality protein, but sometimes the difference is quite small, or the protein used is low-quality, such as soy protein isolate,” Ms Larisova explained.
She also pointed out that simply slapping ‘protein’ on the tin does not strip away ultra-processed ingredients.
“It is important to look beyond the protein number and actually read the ingredient list,” she warned.
“Milo Pro contains ingredients such as added sugar, vegetable oil, maltodextrin and a soy-containing choc malt blend, so you are still buying a relatively highly processed chocolate drink with some extra protein added to it.”
For consumers seeking a high-protein chocolate fix without the added sugars and refined oils, Ms Larisova suggested whole foods or cleaner alternatives.
Addressing the broader trend of brands “proteinmaxxing” everything from cereal and yoghurt to snacks and rice, Ms Porcelli advised shoppers to look past the hype.
“We’ve almost reached a point where consumers can feel as though every single food they eat needs to be a high-protein version, and that’s simply not necessary,” Ms Porcelli advised.
“Protein is just one component of a balanced diet … If you’re eating three balanced main meals and including quality sources of protein throughout your day … you generally don’t need to seek out extra protein in every single product you consume.”
Social media reactions
Just as Mr Cooper was shocked, so were his followers, who chimed in with their thoughts on the matter.
“Now this one is pure marketing BS,” one person wrote.
“Are you just realising most companies are now doing this with the protein fad,” one person questioned.
Another accused Nestle of using this marketing technique to sttract “new people in the fitness industry who don’t know about protein branding yet”.