This issue went out to Sunday Scoop subscribers on September 20, 2026. Want the next one before it hits the archive? Sign up here and you're in.
Flavor of the week
192 cal 20g C, 1g F, 24g P
We're going full fall this week: Pumpkin Spice Latte.
I made sure to dial this one in until it tasted just like a Starbucks PSL.
You don't need anything fancy for the coffee flavor.
I used IQ Joe Pumpkin Spice instant coffee for an extra kick, but any shot of espresso or tablespoon of regular instant coffee works just as well.
Let's talk macros, because this one's wild.
Starbucks Grande PSL: 390 cal, 52g C, 14g F, 14g P, 50g sugar
My ice cream version: 192 cal, 20g C, 1g F, 24g P, 14g sugar
Half the calories. A third of the sugar. Way more protein.
Yeah, I'll take that trade.
Rapid Reviews
Last week we did David's Protein Milkshake, and this week we're looking at their candy brand: Hall Pass.
Anytime we look at anything from David, I always want to make this clear: just because I'm talking about a company doesn't mean I support them.
And I definitely don't support David, but I still think it's important to give reviews of their products.
So let's get into it.
Hall Pass makes wafers, M&Ms, and peanut butter cups.
These are all exclusively sold in Walmart, and they all have 70 calories per serving.
And the most surprising part of this is actually the price…
Every pack is $1.82.
I don't know how they're keeping the prices that low, but that's cheaper than the original name brands.
Now, the verdict:
Wafers: 8.8/10
Tastes like the real thing. Maybe 85% of the way there.
M&Ms: 7.7/10
Don't go in expecting M&Ms. Think more like a Cadbury mini egg. Better than a lot of the other lower calorie candy alternatives out there.
Peanut Butter Cups: 7/10
The flavor was right, but texture was a little off.
Would these be good mixed into a Creami pint? Probably.
Will I be trying them again? No. Not looking to support this company further.
Find it if you're comfortable with where it comes from. Up to you.
In the Lab
I wore the Apple Watch and Whoop together for a full week straight.
7 days and 7 nights.
And I didn't just want my own opinion on this one. So I asked 10 people for theirs too.
The results: 7 for Apple Watch, 2 for Whoop, and my buddy Tom said he'd take Garmin over both lol.
Sleep scores were interesting at first. But once you understand your own baseline, they get pretty repetitive.
Let's talk about price first, because it's not close.
Apple Watch: $399. One time. No subscription.
Whoop: $359. Every year. Stop paying and it turns into a bracelet.
One of the things I didn't realize before this experiment:
Whoop doesn't track GPS. Apple Watch does.
Not a dealbreaker for me since I already use Strava, but worth knowing.
And the biggest shock was calorie tracking.
Across five lifting sessions, Whoop logged noticeably fewer calories burned than Apple Watch, sometimes close to 3x lower.
On runs, it flipped. Whoop trended higher than Apple Watch, likely because it leans so heavily on heart rate to calculate the number.
One big plus for Whoop is it automatically detects and tracks workouts.
Apple Watch requires you to manually start and stop workouts.
So, after my experiment, which one would I choose?
Right now, I'm leaning Apple Watch.
Not because I ran some perfect side by side study. I'm not qualified for that.
But because the people who track this stuff for a living tend to say the same thing.
Also, Apple is pulling their classic move. They're copying Whoop's homework.
Apple's newest watch comes with an all new health sensing system. More accurate heart rate. Higher frequency HRV sensing. And yes, a readiness score, just like Whoop's.
After this whole experiment, I'm heavily debating getting one.
I made a much more in depth video breaking down all the data, sleep scores, and even what my 10 friends had to say.
Want more low calorie, high protein Ninja Creami recipes like these? Get my books. 243 recipes across 4 books, $49.99 for the complete bundle.
