ExRx.net

Went into my blog reader and there's already 2 different people put this up,

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/maga ... /index.htm

Quite interesting. Thought I would post and see if i could get the opinions of the people here that know way more about this stuff than I do...

KPj

I'll buy the report when it comes out, but I have two viceral reactions to the information.

The first is that it says most people get enough protein. While I agree with that in principal, I don't think most people get enough when it comes trying to make muscle gains. I also have a feeling that it is all based on government recommendations which most of us know are crap.

The second reaction has to do with the claims. I think most newbs think protein is some sort of super supplement. Most don't understand that all it is is a form of food. There is nothing protein powder can do for you that consuming regular food can't. If you understand this and understand protein powder's role in a diet and exercise program, then you realize that most claims, though not specifically false, are inflated.

The one thing to note is the concern of harmful substances (calls out mercury and arsenic) in it. I would be interested to see if the claimed elevated levels are due to the manufacturing process or are they attributed to the condensation of milk and thus condensing the chemicals into a concentrated form. Note that arsenic and mercury are elements and can be found naturally.

These are just my musings, though. Like I said, I'll look for and purchase the report and will let you know any highlights.

I agree completely, Hoosegow. "enough protein" is enough to prevent deficiency deseases. You need far more to build muscle or lose fat, and most people can stand to do both.

This may encourage protein manufacturers to tame down their claims and maintain better quality control over their product. That would be a good thing.

Yeah, it was the chemical part I was concerned at. Some of the stuff in it is a lot of rubbish but, the whole Mercury, arsenic thing is beyond my understanding. As someone commented in one of the blogs that I read about it in - it would of been good to compare the same findings to a glass of water, or something else. Veg or something.

KPj

I'm sure it is trace or it wouldn't get by the FDA. If you're that worried about trace amounts of mercury or other heavy metals you shouldn't eat seafood either, or probably any food in general ;)

Most Americans consume enough protein according to the RDA and isn't really ever a problem except with people on a specific diet like vegetarians who don't pay close attention. With bodybuilding you need more but I think it's just a limiting factor. You probably don't need 150-200g/day but I don't see why it would hurt and if I'm going to supplement my diet in order to get more calories in a day I am going to choose something that is high protein simply for this reason (it also helps boost metabolism I've read). I would be more interested in studies showing the hepatic or renal strain from excessive protein intake but I'm sure if there was any statistically significant evidence out there it would have been published already. There are enough people taking the stuff.

Actually Ricky, I try to get 300-450 grams of protein a day.

You hit the nail on the head with the calorie thing. It helps you get the amount of calories you need with good protein. I struggle like hell to get enough calories when I eat "clean" and whey helps.

There are tons of studies on renal strain from excessive protein. I'm sure there are some on this forum that have the information on their fingertips, but there is not one scientific paper that I've seen that shows excessive protein causes any problems in people with normal functioning renal systems.

There is a bunch of information that is presented amiguously. It warns that too much protein gives you the runs and can be dangerous for those who have kidney problems. That's nothing new. They talk to a nutritionist and she talks about those trying to lose weight protein shakes are bad. All this - duh. They say normal people should get .4 g per pound of body weight and athletes should get 1 gram. Once again, nothing earth shattering.

They do a cost comparison and say there are cheaper options. The compared the cost to a Nitro Tech product which is notoriously expensive anyway. When I did my protein shake comparison, I looked at what was the cheapest per gram and as long as I liked the taste, that is what I went with. Disregarding the cost, the convenience of shakes are nice.

The arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury comparison was interesting. With the wide range results, I would have to say that the metals are introduced in the refining process, though it doesn't discern that. I'd post the results but I don't want a copywrite infringement problem. I am happy to post that my protein powder of choice, the only thing it contained was arsenic and it was a minute amout compared to other protein supplements.

After reading the article, the usual recommendations found on this site are par for what Consumer Reports show. To summarize:
1 g of protein per pound of body weight for lifters
Getting protein in you food is superior
Excessive protein can cause gastrointestinal problems and also cause kidney problems with those who already have kidney issues.
There is a wide range of aboved mentioned elements found in various protein supplements

When asked I will continue recommending my preferred brand of protein with no qualms for healthy individuals.

Kpj,

I skimmed through it at the news stand. One of the things Consumer Reports that is misleading is the cost of protein power, as hoosegow noted.

As hoosegow stated, Consumper Reports selected a very expensive protein powder, Nitro Tech to compare it with cost of protein in eggs, milk, etc.

The cost of eggs was 44 cents per serving. Milk and some other itmes were in about the same price range aa eggs. All comparisons were based on about 24 grams of protein per serving.

Consumer Reports noted the cost of the Nitro Tech protein powder is $1.61 for 25 grams...over three time the cost of eggs, milk, etc.

As most on this board know, the cost of whey concentrate is between $7-8 per pound. You'll get 15 servings of 24 grams of protein, which makes the cost per serving 46-54 cents.

That would mean that the cost or whey protein is in the same ball park as eggs, milk, etc.

So, Consumper Reports article is very misleading in regard to cost.

Using expensive Nitro Tech protein powder is similar to telling you that you you can't afford to own a car and using a Bentley as an example.

The article perpetuates the myth tha protein is harmul to the kidneys (again as hoosegow point out).

Kenny Croxdale

From what I read it seemed misleading with reguards to heavy metals also. It recommends against protein supplements on the premiss that a few of the many products tested contained questionable levels of heavy metals (rather than listing and comparing the products). Then it notes that whole foods may contain the same heavy metals.

It does list the amount in the products it tested.

I can't give any solid responses based on research, I more or less get my info from here/articles linked here/books like goodcal/bad cal

but this just seems like a typical "believe it or not, protein powder wont automatically give you a body builders phisique" mixed in with the usual $h1t about weight loss.

It's protein, like fat is fat, like carbs are carbs.

Want protein? eat a whole protein source, struggling to do so due to time/convieniece/taste(egg whites for e.g)? a shake will do as a snack.

Women in the office have the whole "does it work?" look on it - asking how my milkshake diet is going "you seem to have lost some weight on it, how long did it take?" - like really.. are you really asking me how many shakes for how many days it will take to loose fat like I have? really??...

It's that audience it feeds off IMO...

as I say I'm not totally familiar with the sources reliability or if they are sensationalist media - but comments like
"But we found that some products" are typically found in BS articles. "We found that some" ..... Ok I'm researching the safety of medicine "is medicine good for you? we found that some medicines warn of side effects!!!" ...?

The research/analysis parts in the article were good and helpful. I'm glad that my chosen brand ranked low in contaminants.

The only bad parts were where they quoted self-proclaimed nutrition experts that made misleading statements about protein in general. It's a consumer protection magazine - the goal is to avoid letting you get ripped off. To that end the intent of the quotes is to dispel the notion some may have that merely drinking more protein will do magical things.