Shawn Phillips | Start Strong Monday

Inspector Clouseau Investigates Proteins

In the event you’ve been in a media black out and missed it, there’s buzz about the article “Health Alert: Protein Drinks” featured in the July 2010, issue of Consumer Reports Magazine. The article (links at bottom of post) presents the results of tests done for arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury on 15 different “protein powders.”

I use quotations around “protein powders” to call attention to the fact that Consumer Reports used more than just proteins and powders in their tests. They included meal-replacements, including Myoplex, and some were ready-to-drinks, which are clearly not powders. The first of several oversights in the article.

As you may expect, this report has caused much alarm. The thought that there could be toxic, heavy metals in the proteins that are intended to support health is certainly unnerving. Never mind that of the 15 products tested, 12 sailed through with flying colors because two of them didn’t—two exceeded the referenced limits.*

(FYI: Here’s a link to the Full Strength Lab Results)

When I first saw the results of this test I too was shocked and concerned. However, my concern turned to annoyed and then quickly to agitated as I read the article. I’m disappointed in the Inspector Clousaeu quality investigative work, the lack of standards in the testing and the clear slant to the writing. It’s anything but the unbiased Consumer Reports standard.

This disregard for the typical Consumer Reports standards in reporting could have a lasting negative impact on millions whose health, wellness, strength and fitness benefit from high-quality nutrition shakes and protein supplements—and it may come back to bite them too.

Read on as I shed light on the issues presented by Consumer Reports and guide you through the confusion to what’s true and what matters. Saving the best for last, I say what others are thinking but seem unwilling to talk about. This you’ve got to hear.

The Results

Consumer Reports tested 15 protein containing products (protein and meal-replacements) collected from N.Y. area stores. They tested for arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury; using suggested safe daily intake levels as set by US Pharmacopeia (USP).

There’s no rationale offered for the products selected, although they are generally recognized brands with a few obscure exceptions.

Of the 15 products, all but two (three samples) were within the proposed limits. The “red light” offenders in this test were Myoplex ready-to-drink, chocolate; and Muscle Milk powder, chocolate and vanilla.

The Myoplex tested came in at 16.9 mcg, above the 15 mcg referenced daily limit for arsenic and 0.1 above the 5.0 limit for cadmium. Muscle Milk chocolate was at 5.6 on cadmium and 13.5 on the lead levels, above the 10 mcg referenced limit. The Muscle Milk vanilla was high on lead at 12.2 mcg.

Now, that’s some mixed news. First, they were looking for metals in proteins for some reason and 80% of their random samples passed with flying colors. Great! Good news. Ah, but… But two well known brands didn’t fair so well—and that’s not good.

This failure by two once strong brands is bad for everyone. Personally it’s disappointing. Yet, I must note that we’re talking 1.9 mcg on one measure and from 0.1 to 3.5 micrograms.

I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t be concerned about what’s in your supplements, water or foods, but I think it serves to have some perspective on the unit of measure we’re talking about here. A microgram, the smallest unit of measure, is equal to 1/1,000,000 (millionth) of a gram. Thus, missing the target by 1.9 micrograms could be like losing the 100 meter dash by the thickness of a human hair.

Apples, Oranges and a Circus Elephant

The way the tests were conducted; the discrepancy in sample sizes, units, liquids, powders and MRPs is very easily confusing. It makes it difficult to not only compare the products to each other, but to take this analysis seriously. Let’s just say, had this sample set been turned in for a middle school science project it’d have likely received an “F.”

For example, the Myoplex was not tested on a single ready-to-drink but rather three—which is 126 grams of protein total. And the Muscle Milk on a whopping 96 grams of protein. Both a hell of a lot more protein soley from nutrition shakes/protein supplements than most human beings I’ve ever known consume daily, on a regular basis.

Of course, people will recall the negative story of proteins exceeding safety limits and perhaps even the violating brands—for a while—but over time this negative news and the image it generates will likely be applied to all protein related nutritionals—which is unnecessarily damaging and unfortunate for both businesses and consumers.

Compared to What?

While I’m sure you’ll agree that there’s no upside to finding cadmium, arsenic, lead, mercury or any heavy metals in your food, supplements or beverages, the reality most would prefer not to know is that they’re in nearly everything. These are common toxins that have seeped into our lives. The U.S. Government’s own website estimates “about 96 million Americans are drinking water that exceeds these limits on a daily basis.”

In an “offline” conversation a nutrition expert and PhD commented to me:
“To some degree heavy metals are going to be present in proteins—not because they are “in proteins” but due to the fact that they’re present in practically everything in our environment to some degree. Let’s face it, we don’t have all the answers yet. We’re even using arsenic to treat some disease now because we’re beginning to understand that, like almost all elements found in nature, it serves some purpose within our bodies, even if at extremely low levels. At the end of the day, plants grow because of sunlight, water, minerals and nitrogen from the soil. Whether plant-eater or carnivore, we’ll eventually consume whatever helped those plant grow, and the animals that ate them.”

That does not make it acceptable to find them in some protein products. Yet, I’m astonished that Consumer Reports chose to isolate these metals in protein without offering even a single reference point. They offer no relative information to help gauge the significance of these numbers. It’s just “Here… Suck on that!”

Personally I find it helpful to know that arsenic levels found in Myoplex are 10 times less than those found in 6 ounces of shrimp. And that a cup of boiled spinach has 10 times more cadmium than found in most of the tested proteins.

Perspective is critical. So much so that the absence of it seems tactical.

Lack of perspective is a subtle, yet effective way to promote fear. It’s a trick we’ve all experienced at the movies when a giant dinosaur rages onto the big screen and we sink back in our chairs. If you could see the full perspective you’d see that the T-Rex is only 10 inches tall. Nothing to fear there. It’s just the close up that intentionally alters perspective that makes it scary.

It seems almost as if Consumer Reports intended to make this report frightening.

A Question of Limits

The referenced “safe limits” used by Consumer Reports were established by US Pharmacopeia. This much I know. What I don’t find in the article or anywhere on either site is where, when or how these were established. Is it one limit for all people regardless of gender, age and body weight? Seems unlikely.

Some reports have suggested that the reference numbers used are limits for a 110 lbs. person, which would obviously make for another issue entirely. I’ve not confirmed this to be true yet.

On a related note, NSF International, the keepers of standards in all sorts of categories from your household appliances to nutritional supplements, has raised some serious issues about the testing methods used by Consumer Reports.

NSF International cannot comment on the test results reported in the July 2010, Consumer Reports article on protein drinks. It omits critical information about the laboratory that performed the test and its accreditation qualifications. ISO 17025 accreditation is critical for any laboratory testing for heavy metals in dietary supplements and nutritional products. The article also omits the test methods used, analytical preparation, sample size, the basis of their risk assessment, detection limits, quality control data and instrumentation used for this report.

This is a the leading testing and analysis company voicing their dissatisfaction with the entire process. Not good for Consumer Reports. It’s amazing that a company with such a strong reputation as Consumer Reports would be so careless and irresponsible in its methodology.

My friend Tom Venuto took the words out of my mouth in his posted response:

In the future, however, I’d like to see these types of tests performed under scientific scrutiny and get the results published in a peer reviewed journal. This way, we can review the test results, read about the experimental methods and get the evidence-based facts about protein requirements and contaminant safety standards, rather than depend on journalists whose usual job is comparing brands of toasters.

Humorous and at the same time painfully true.

My Conclusion on The Results

As flawed as these test results seem to be, I’m still disappointed that EAS and Myoplex showed up on the list. I hold hopes that this will prompt a deeper, more comprehensive look into all the ingredients in their MRP’s and proteins.

As for Muscle Milk, they’ve posted a clear response here. Once again, I don’t know what—if anything—could be the source but Muscle Milk is a good company run by good people. Just because Muscle Milk doesn’t have the sort of nutritional profile that best supports a man like me doesn’t mean it’s a bad product.

Ultimately, I imagine this report will have everyone looking again at their processes and controls. And I’m sure I’m not alone when I say I hope this is resolved never to be seen again.

A Question of Bias

For decades Consumer Reports has held an esteemed role of trust in an over-hyped world. It’s been the place we go to find the unbiased truth about cars, appliances and all manner of household appliances and various hard goods. They’re the good guy, the one we want to like—to know is on our side—and that’s another reason this article has so been so disappointing to me.

It appears to be written with intent to dissuade people from using protein supplements.

Questionable science aside, the article is anything but neutral. It’s written with a clear bias, to persuade the reader not just to be suspect or fearful of proteins, but to paint the active people who use them in a negative light as well. And that’s just plain sad to me.

It also freely propagates several seriously outdated myths about protein as absolute fact—doing so in a subtle fashion making it very challenging for readers to spot. At one point Consumer Reports suggests, “You don’t need extra protein” and “high protein diets damage your kidneys.” The first they have zero grounds for support (and piles of science that suggests protein can support lean, strong body) and the latter simply fuels a common myth that they could have debunked in just a few minutes of research.

When mentioning cadmium is toxic to the kidney, Consumer Reports makes the following blanket statement “the way that high protein is bad for your kidneys.” A high-protein diet is not damaging to healthy kidneys.

High-protein diets are contraindicated for patients who have kidney disease and caution is warranted in certain populations of high risk of kidney conditions or where there is kidney disease predisposition. But this is not the same as saying eating a high-protein diet causes kidney disease or malfunctions.

But one of my favorite the several Consumer Reports missteps in the article is the ultimate protein fairy-tale, when a “nutritionist” suggests that “the body can only break down 5 to 9 grams of protein per hour, and any excess not burned for energy is converted to fat.”

I’m with my friend, Tom Venuto, who says, “I’d like to see the research citation on that one!”

How about this line, “a review of government documents, and interviews with health and fitness experts and consumers, found most people already get enough protein.”

Are you kidding me? We’re counting on the U.S. government to know how much protein we need? Ha! That’s like asking Grandma what octane of fuel to put in a Ferrari. It’s not exactly an area of expertise for either.

And that my friends, is not what we’ve come to embrace the Consumer Reports role to be. They are (or were) a neutral source; the “just the facts, ma’am,” people. So, my question is why the slant? Is this really a piece that Consumer Reports felt needed to be published so badly that they would forgo reasonable science protocol?

One must ask, who’s pushing this agenda. Could it possibly be a coincidence that this article follows a similar attack on herbal supplements—an attack which lead to a general attack on all supplements to congress a few weeks back?

Could it be that the pharmaceutical industry, which has long viewed supplements as both a bothersome pest and a potential goldmine, if they could get control of them, is seeing an opportunity to clamp down hard with this legislation happy administration in D.C.?

I think we must look deeper into issues and ask questions of motivation and intent. And while I’m not at all the “conspiracy type,” I can imagine no fate worse for the American consumer than having the pharmaceutical industry get its greedy hands on your Vitamin-C. Think our medical and insurance system is whacked now, wait until you see this return to mid-evil times.

Whenever you see things going on that may impede on your freedom, your rights, even if you’re not a supplement fan, you’ve got to ask yourself the question, “What’s really going on behind the curtain?”

My 1-2-3 Advice

(1) Choose your nutrition products just as you do your food. The cheapest crap tends to be just that, the cheapest crap. Select a brand with standards that you trust and believe in and leave gambling for areas other than your health and freedom. (Drink Schlitz and get Schlitz like results… it’s that simple.)

(2) As with anything in the media these days, ask yourself the question of intent first. What’s the primary driving reason for this and who’s set to benefit the greatest? It’s just a good practice for living in a slippery world.

(3) Read Consumer Reports when you want to know what appliance, TV or even car to buy and take their sports nutrition reviews with a grain of salt, if that.

Additional Resources

The Bright, Shiny Clean, Toxin-Free Report for Full Strength
Full Strength: Pure, Premium Through and Through (w/ Lab Results)

Tom Venuto’s Intelligent Response
BurntheFatBlog : Heavy Metals Found in Proteins

The Original Consumer Reports Piece Online
You might want to blend a Full Strength, sit back and take this one in with good sense of humor.
Health Alert on Proteins

Another NEW Scientific Case for Whey Protein Adding Lean Muscle
And finally, just for good measure and balance here’s a brand-spanking new research study which once again supports the benefits of protein intake, especially whey protein. Directly countering one of the numerous myths Consumer Reports stated as fact.
Effect of protein/essential amino acids and resistance training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy: A case for whey protein

To Your Life @ Full Strength,

Shawn
Follow Me: /Twitter/shawn_phillips

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .