Protein shakes-poisonous?

baaaa

You may want to put down that post-workout Muscle Milk.
Consumer Reports, a monthly review of consumer products and services, recently found that three popular protein drinks were packing more than just chocolate.
EAS Myoplex Original Dark Chocolate Shake and two versions of Muscle Milk chocolate drinks had high levels of arsenic, cadmium and lead.

Here's the link for the rest of the report
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?294191-Protein-Drinks-Packing-a-Poisonous-Wallop

Sea Sharp

oh noes!!!!!

Come to think of it, I once had to throw away a 2.5kg tub of whey because it was giving me a rash.

TheZ

Arsenic is a naturally occurring compound that you find in most foods. I think lead is too.

Bit of scaremongering going on here I think.

Poison - a substance that causes injury, illness or death when applied, inhaled or ingested.

You may as well call sugar a poison given all the research which shows how damaging it is to health - diabetes, obesity, tooth decay

pigman2000

come back when your source isn't a Russian message board

The Guvnor

How recent?

Chances are all come from the same factory.

discus

TheZ wrote: »

Arsenic is a naturally occurring compound that you find in most foods. I think lead is too.

Bit of scaremongering going on here I think.

Poison - a substance that causes injury, illness or death when applied, inhaled or ingested.

You may as well call sugar a poison given all the research which shows how damaging it is to health - diabetes, obesity, tooth decay

Considering that you can't tell the difference between an element and a compound - let alone know the effects of ingesting either of those elements - I don't think you should bother publicising your opinion on wether this is scaremongering or not.

You've got 1 thing right though. They are naturally occuring. Pity you had to choose 2 elements which are noted for their toxic effects!

TheZ

discus wrote: »

Considering that you can't tell the difference between an element and a compound - let alone know the effects of ingesting either of those elements - I don't think you should bother publicising your opinion on wether this is scaremongering or not.

You've got 1 thing right though. They are naturally occuring. Pity you had to choose 2 elements which are noted for their toxic effects!

Read the report. I didn't choose them. They were listed as being in protein shakes. Are you saying that arsenic compounds are not naturally in food?

mloc

Bad science.

There is no comparison to other foods, such as vegetables, meats etc.

Additionally, from the same article

Not so, says Kathleen Laquale, a licensed nutritionist and certified athletic trainer. "The body can only break down 5 to 9 grams of protein per hour, and any excess that is not burned for energy is converted to fat or excreted, so it's a ridiculous waste to be recommending so much more than you really need," she says.

Seriously, the term licensed nutritionist is meaningless. It has no academic merit. I'd love to know where she got her numbers from, if anywhere.

The whole thing reeks of bad journalism.

discus

TheZ wrote: »

Read the report. I didn't choose them. They were listed as being in protein shakes. Are you saying that arsenic compounds are not naturally in food?

Didn't read the report. I was picking at your post. You didn't mention arsenic compounds, you mentioned that arsenic was a compound (which I'm now thinking was a mistake in your post, but not your knowledge, sorry!)

Well, naturally occuring in food - they can be. But more often than not you don't want it there.. Depending on the valency of the lead (II/IV) you end up with issues relating to it's similarity to Ca(II) - calcium - leading to high lead levels in bones. On top of this, metals are accumulative. So yes, the levels can be quite low - but the rate that the body clears them is so low that some metals never leave. There are toxic effect levels, and if someone is bothering to point out ones with elevated levels, you could do yourself a favour by steering clear of it.

Mellor

An typical example for somebody falling for scaremongering.

Firstly, I was shocked to see that they had high levels of arsenic.
Until i looked at it.
Most of the proteins had very low levels of say arsenic. ON gold standard was 2.5 ug or micrograms (millionths), platinum was 1.5 ug. Some were undetectable.
The US daily limit is 15ug, ONE supp was above this at 16.5ug, not 3 brands as the OP suggests. Plus it was also below the limit for lead and cadmium. Two other supps were above for lead and cadmium only. By the way, this was for 3 shakes, not per shake.

And, even still, 15ug is the amount that the US food authority deems fine, you aren't going to suddenly die if you go above it. In fact, I'd be confidant that they are over cautious on all these limits, plus body mass comes into it.

By all means, avoid the one that is above the limit just to be safe.
but at least read the data before you post something like "protein shakes are poisonous"

If you took the time to read what is actually in them and look it up it might turn you sour. I only use the unflavored stuff from myprotein or bulkpowders, the artifical/natural flavouring/and sweeteners are the dodgy part. The case above is a bit worse obviously!

Care to share some examples.

SugarHigh

Anyone dumb enough to buy that muscle milk deserves what they get. It was over $5 for a 500ml drink and is packed with sugar.

mloc

Siena Obnoxious Caboose wrote: »

Aspartame, sucralose, saccarin.

http://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Deception-Splenda-NutraSweet-Hazardous/dp/0785221794

A book by an "alternative therapist" is not a reliable source.

SugarHigh

pigman2000 wrote: »

come back when your source isn't a Russian message board

the source is
http://news.discovery.com/human/protein-drinks-packing-a-poisonous-wallop.html

It just happened to be copy and pasted on a Russian forum the same way it happened to be posted here.

Andrew Shao, senior vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs at the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a supplement industry group, told Consumer Reports that protein powders and drinks are a safe option, even for teens and pregnant women -- groups frequently targeted for nutrition boosting, NPR reported.

brianthebard

mloc wrote: »

A book by an "alternative therapist" is not a reliable source.

are you against advice/treatment by all osteopaths or just some?

Mellor

SugarHigh wrote: »

the source is
http://news.discovery.com/human/protein-drinks-packing-a-poisonous-wallop.html

It just happened to be copy and pasted on a Russian forum the same way it happened to be posted here.

Regardless of source, its still scaremongering.

Again, taking the Arsenic level and the myloplex shake.

3 serves is 500mlx3, which is about 1,500-1,750g
Which comes in around 10 parts per billion. Which is the same as the WHO safe limit for drinking water.
So even in the worst sample, its still in the same level that is acceptable in drinking water. Parts of the US are in this range.

Given that water is drank in much higher volumes, i'm gonna stick with my ON shake twice a day.
Scaremongering, pfft

Siena Obnoxious Caboose wrote: »

If you read the book and looked at the studies done you might feel different. How can you knock it without even reading it. Plus I don't see how the "alternative therapist" bit changes the facts in the book. They are pretty black and white. It isn't witch doctor stuff.

Sweeteners is something i'm concerned about. however, i'm still not convinced. I haven't read the book or studies, but there are countless available online and its far from black and white. some say they are fine, some say they are better than sugar, some say they are worse.

even the book itself isn't sure, the title is may be bad for you health.

another one is often found in bars, malitol or something similar, its basically there to replace carbs, so they get a low carb label. But this stuff also carrys calories, so is it even any different.

mloc

brianthebard wrote: »

are you against advice/treatment by all osteopaths or just some?

I'm against any form of alternative therapy that seeks to replace or reduce the importance of evidence based medicine.

brianthebard

mloc wrote: »

I'm against any form of alternative therapy that seeks to replace or reduce the importance of evidence based medicine.

Do you know what an osteopath is and what training they go through? Serious question. I don't wish to defend everything Mercola has to say, but I find your position a bit ott considering his medical background.

mloc

The guy seems to be questionable in his background at best; his website advocates things like "light therapy" and nutritional plans that consist mostly of his own supplements. Most of the links to his supposed publications are only to comments on publications by others; there are no papers actually published by him in the reputable journals he links to. Most of them are just letters and not actual scientific publications or studies.

brianthebard

Rubadub sometimes advocates light therapy too....I don't know what you think is questionable about his background, care to expand? I would've thought his background was the least controversial thing in question here. As for promoting his supplements, what do you expect? No one is forcing you to buy them.

mloc

It's articles like this:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/08/27/warning--fructose-feeds-cancer-cells.aspx

That are essentially scare mongering and very, very bad science that lead me to question the guys credibility. It mentions he attends several universities, but I don't see a PhD anywhere.

brianthebard

If its bad science, then your problems are bigger than Mercola, namely MSNBC and the Cancer research journal that initially ran these stories and on which Mercola is commenting upon. And his suggestions at the bottom are hardly extreme or scaremongering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine
http://www.mercola.com/forms/background.htm

You probably wouldn't see too many American MD's with a phd either, there's a reason for that, that reason is very simple but I'll let you find it out on your own.

mloc

brianthebard wrote: »

If its bad science, then your problems are bigger than Mercola, namely MSNBC and the Cancer research journal that initially ran these stories and on which Mercola is commenting upon.

This is the problem. The journal is showing a correlation in some in vitro conditions. Mercola and MSNBC, like many media outlets, then extrapolates this to make absurd suggestions regarding lifestyle that have no real basis given the research conducted.