Some junk foods are easy to recognize – foods like doughnuts, French fries, or snack chips, for example, are likely to be universally maligned for their obvious nutritional shortcomings. Other junk foods, however, may also be detrimental to our health, but may slip past our junk–food–detecting radar simply because of how effectively they’re marketed. Many nutritional supplements and “sports nutrition” products are perfect examples.
The demand for healthy and convenient nutrition has never been greater than it is today, and for this reason, many “sports nutrition,” meal–replacement, and protein supplement products have achieved crossover success into mainstream markets. While once thought of as nutritional tools geared only towards bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts, these days, protein drinks can be found at nearly every corner drugstore, convenience store, and gas station.
Yet the actual nutritional quality of these supplements is far worse than most people imagine. The protein raw materials used in their production are usually scarcely, if at all, superior to the industrial protein powders used to produce pet foods and feed for farm animals. Many of these products also undergo high–heat pasteurization and adulteration with numerous industrial food additives. In the end, most protein supplements make for some truly bizarre nutritional concoctions. But whether their target market is the would–be bodybuilder, or the busy health–conscious professional, the supplement companies know full–well that they need not produce healthy products, they must merely create a healthy image for their products through advertising.
Most people never even begin to investigate the actual biological effects of many of the foods they consume everyday, but many largely unsuspected factors can make a food harmful to our health. A lack of scientific/nutritional acumen is largely responsible for the herds of docile, passive consumers ready and willing to accept the often deplorably low nutritional standards of the large food producers and government regulatory agencies.
Surprisingly however, nowhere is this sort of true–believer mentality more evident than in the realm of nutritional supplements. Although one would at first think that nutritional supplement users would be particularly savvy and health–conscious, the cult–like dedication of many nutritional supplement users tends to blind them to the overwhelming evidence that many nutritional supplements are equally as harmful as the junk foods they’re supposedly meant to replace. In essence, the supplement user may wisely (yet often self–righteously) shun “junk food” only to consume its nutritional equivalent expertly marketed as cutting–edge “sports nutrition.”
We’ve written many times on this blog about the harmful effects of many ingredients used in nutritional supplements and the negative effects of certain types of processing which many supplements undergo. As yet another piece of evidence along these lines, the findings of an investigation into the heavy metal content of protein supplements were recently published in the July 2010 edition of Consumer Reports Magazine. Fifteen ready–to–drink and powdered protein supplements were purchased in retail stores or online, and were tested for their toxic heavy metal content (arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury). Based upon an intake of 3 servings per day, 3 of the products were found to contain levels of heavy metals in excess of the safe overall daily intakes proposed by the U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP).
Article Link – Alert: Protein drinks You don't need the extra protein or the heavy metals our tests found.
We purchased 15 protein powders and drinks mainly in the New Yorkmetro area or online and tested multiple samples of each for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. The results showed a considerable range, but levels in three products were of particular concern because consuming three servings a day could result in daily exposure to arsenic, cadmium, or lead exceeding the limits proposed by USP.
Some Perspective on Heavy Metals
Like essential mineral nutrients, toxic heavy metals also naturally occur in soils and in water. Plants and animals can take up and concentrate heavy metals, which is why small amounts of these substances can often be found in our food supply. It’s common for even fresh whole foods like seafood, fruits, and vegetables to contain trace amounts of heavy metal toxins.
But it’s important to remember that much of the heavy metal content in our modern food isn’t naturally–occurring, but instead, comes directly from modern industrial agricultural practices and industrial production and storage of processed foods. As examples, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and the improper handling of sewage are all known to cause heavy–metal contamination of our food supply.
Additionally, countless hundreds of industrially–processed food additives often add to the toxic metal content of modern foods, as do metals used in food production and packaging. Ultimately, it’s safe to assume that the greater degree of processing a food undergoes, the greater the risk of heavy metal contamination.
When viewed from this perspective, then, it should come as no surprise that protein powders and ready–to–drink protein shakes – some of the most highly–processed consumable products imaginable – were found to contain potentially–unsafe levels of heavy metal toxins.
In fact, the ingredient lists on most protein–supplement products read like a “who’s who” of industrial food additives – including ingredients such as: mineral caseinates, whey protein concentrates, powdered oils, thickeners, and synthetic sweeteners. Judging most protein supplements by their ingredients, any knowledgeable person not fully indoctrinated by product marketing would be justified to ask, “If this isn’t junk food – what is?”
In the context of their potential heavy–metal content, it’s important to remember that heavy metal contamination of protein supplements isn’t “unavoidable” or “naturally–occurring” – instead, it’s likely to be a direct result of the quality of ingredients used and the processing these products undergo. The finding of heavy metals in such products only serves to further reinforce our contention that most protein supplements are, in fact, no better nutritionally than many other processed junk foods.
However, in light of the publication of the report, it’s been saddening to see the response of many within the supplement industry, and of many pro–nutritional–supplement consumers (It’s understandable that supplement companies will issue spin–laden press releases in a feeble attempt to underscore the quality of their products and the supposed stringency of their manufacturing processes, but the fact that some consumers have been among those defending the very companies whose products tested poorly exposes how thoroughly manipulated consumers can become by incessant supplement–industry propaganda).
Rather than finally recognizing that many protein supplements are unquestionably destined to do more harm than good, the predominant response has been that the heavy metal content of protein supplements is “no big deal” because a person would have to consume high amounts of protein supplements for their heavy metal intake to reach dangerous levels (which isn’t true, by the way, as we discuss below); or similarly, that many foods contain some heavy metals, so what’s a little bit more? Or, “anything’s harmful if you take too much of it.” Some writers have even gone so far as to question the validity of the heavy metal investigation due to Consumer Reports’ separate contention that protein supplements may be unnecessary for many people who use them.
But ultimately, these sorts of misguided responses miss the issue entirely. The relevant issue at hand is that there's no inherent need for heavy metal toxins to exist in protein supplement products. For example, readers of this blog know that we’ve repeatedly touted the purity and unique health benefits of the CFM® Whey Isolate. With regard to heavy metal content as well, it seems that CFM® is again among the cleanest, highest quality protein sources available:
The results of several tests of the CFM® raw material (a.k.a. Provon 190) are shown below.
The fact that some protein supplements do contain problematic levels of heavy metals is simply further testament to the sub–optimal quality of ingredients (and, possibly, manufacturing methods) being used in their production. No matter how much a consumer may think that he or she is making a healthy lifestyle choice by consuming these products, the harsh reality of the available evidence proves otherwise. Protein supplements which add to the cumulative burden of heavy metal intake in a person's diet should be avoided by any health–conscious individual – plain and simple.
A Frame of Reference
There is currently no universally–accepted standard to indicate exactly how much of each heavy metal contaminant can be consumed without causing harm, but as the scientific evidence accumulates, governmental and regulatory agencies across the globe have continually lowered the threshold for intakes of heavy metals. In other words, heavy metals are continually being found to pose toxic threats at lower doses than once thought.
The USP’s standards which were used in the Consumer Reports testing were as follows:
Arsenic: 15 mcg daily
Cadmium: 5 mcg daily
Lead: 10 mcg daily
Mercury: 15 mcg daily
And again, at a dose of 3 servings per day, 3 of the 15 protein supplements tested exceeded the heavy metal limits above.
But even at doses below three servings per day, many of the products tested still pose toxicity risks. A more stringent, and more meaningful standard for environmental toxins (especially for health–conscious individuals) comes from California’s Proposition 65 – legislation which requires that manufacturers notify consumers when their products contain toxic substances at levels the state says pose even a low risk of carcinogenic or reproductive toxicity. The Consumer Reports testing of protein supplements found that a single serving of 8 of the 15 products tested exceeded the threshold of lead which legally requires that the products carry a warning in the state of California.
From the report:
“[t]he amount of lead in a single daily serving of eight of the protein supplements we tested would require that the products carry a warning in California.”
Important to note as well is that even low levels of heavy metals pose a particularly significant threat to children and pregnant women.
As we’ve repeatedly pointed out on this blog, the nutritional supplement user will be well–served to take a second look at some of the supplement products which are being marketed as healthy nutrition. This is especially important now, as the popularity of sports supplements has already begun to expand far beyond the niche market of bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts (In fact there are many who believe that the massive demand for protein supplements in the mainstream market has caused some of the largest players in the supplement industry to source raw materials of particularly questionable quality – thus contributing to the risk of contamination). As the market for these products increases, so does the potential for harm if their true nature continues to go unrecognized. In other words, accepting the supplement industry’s hype at face value can be hazardous to your health.
I thought you would be interested in this.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/06/22/some-protein-drinks-could-poison-you.aspx
I know Mercola is trying to sell his product, and his is only the best, blah, blah, but there may be something in here that will be of interest to you. The part I'm concerned about is how the cow was fed and pasteurization. To quote from the article:
Most commercial whey products are derived from pasteurized dairy and processed with heat and acid. Many are also artificially sweetened. All of these factors render them completely useless from a health perspective.
Whey from organic grass-fed dairy, on the other hand, contains beneficial immuno components, including immunoglobins, bovine serum albomin, and lactoferins, in addition to all the key amino acids and other beneficial nutrients you typically get from a high quality whey protein.*
Posted by: Alan Beall | June 23, 2010 at 10:48 AM
Much of the information from Dr Mercola's article is demonstrably false - pasteurized dairy is not completely useless from a health perspective - that is, if selective filters are used to rid the end product (whey protein) of the proteins which are denatured in pasteurization. This is exactly the process employed in the production of the CFM. Dr Mercola is right that most protein powders are damaged in processing, but this isn't true of all of them. We've got documentation, based on nitrogen solubility testing, that CFM contains greater than 97% undenatured whey protein. I'm not sure if Dr Mercola is claiming that his product comes from unpasteurized milk (I highly doubt that it is), but even if it were, it wouldn't necessarily make any difference -he would have to provide nitrogen solubility testing to prove that it was, indeed, undenatured.
Along these same lines, CFM, containing the highest levels of undenatured proteins, will contain immunoglobulins, bovine serum albumin, and lactoferrin, etc - which are not a function of grass feeding as Mercola states. Grass feeding can alter the lipid composition of milk (perhaps negatively, by the way), but the protein structures / composition don't seem to be altered by grass feeding. Again, testing of the final product is what's needed, but Dr. Mercola doesn't seem to provide the results of testing - he merely plays into the positive associations people have with the terms such as grass-fed and organic, etc.
Also note that a serving of the product being promoted in the Doctors article will contain 40 mg of cholesterol per serving as a result of the relatively inefficient processing
technique employed in the production of whey protein concentrate. As you may have read in some of our articles, the scientific literature gives every reason to believe that cholesterol in powdered form is prone to oxidation, and is therefore atherogenic (causing hardening of the arteries / heart disease). This point is of meaningful significance, but is conspicuously absent from Dr. Mercola's writings on whey protein.
One of the things we do in our newsletters and blog posts is link directly to the relevant scientific articles so that our readers can see for themselves that what we are saying is
backed up by the scientific literature. One of the things that's so frustrating about much of the health writing on the internet is that people often make statements which aren't backed up by the findings in the scientific literature, but because people promote themselves as health experts, many people believe what these people say in the absence of evidence. Because of my research in the field of dairy chemistry, it's easy for me to see how intellectually-sloppy and short-sighted most experts' understanding of whey protein is. Unfortunately, many people take it upon themselves to widely disseminate these mistaken assumptions.
Oh well, thats what we're here for, I guess. If you've got any other questions, or need any clarification, just let me know - I'd be happy to help.
Posted by: Integrated Supplements | June 23, 2010 at 11:13 AM
It's interesting that you bring up the issue of oxidixed cholesterol because that's how I found you in the first place. I googled "oxidized cholesterol powdered milk" and your blog came up. I ended up reading your articles on whey, fiber and creatine and ordered all three. What I appreciated the most was your careful analyses based on studies that were not only quoted but also linked. As I remember, you also linked to articles that had opposing views so that I could analyze the evidence for myself. This did nothing but add to your credibility.
As a non-scientist with no chemistry background, I have a tendency to be impressed with those that explain things in chemical terms. Experience has taught me that I have to be on guard against anyone that throws around data that I only have a partial understanding of. When a scientist presents only one side of the story, chances are better than even that I won't even know that a second side exists. I am constantly finding circles within circles within circles, and it is very difficult to assess what is true. "Grass feeding can alter the lipid composition of milk (perhaps negatively, by the way) " is a good example. So far, I have only heard about the positive effects of grass-feeding as it pertains to lipids. Would it be too much to ask you to send me a link to that info?
Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.
Posted by: Alan Beall | June 24, 2010 at 11:48 AM
Hi Alan,
I’m glad you enjoy the fact that we link to the research – it takes quite a bit of time and effort to construct our articles that way so I’m always happy to hear that people find it useful.
A few weeks ago, I came across an article snippet telling of a study which found that people who ate grain-fed beef experienced better changes in their lipid profile (higher HDL and larger LDL-particle size) relative to those who ate pasture- or grass-fed beef. I did a little searching when you asked, and came up with the following article which comments on the research:
http://agnews.tamu.edu/showstory.php?id=1934
I don’t know if the study, itself, has been published yet.
Of course, based upon the findings outlined in the article, or even the study itself, I don’t think we can necessarily make any firm conclusions as to which type of beef is better health-wise, but I do think it speaks to the fact that oftentimes the research can get us to start asking more meaningful questions. If grain-fed beef is associated with a more favorable lipid profile, is this effect long-lasting? What are the differences in grain-fed versus grass-fed beef which account for the effects?
To be clear, I don’t think that grass-fed beef is detrimental in any way, I was simply trying to point out that the effects of different feeds on the lipid composition of beef (and milk), and the effect of these lipids on human health is currently an area of intense research. I suspect that many of the assumptions people (researchers included) have with regard to what constitutes “healthy fats” will change significantly as this research continues. There are simply a lot of details that haven’t been figured out yet.
You stated it perfectly – as a person trying to understand nutrition research, you may often only hear one side of the story, and never even know another side exists.
Posted by: Integrated Supplements | June 25, 2010 at 12:15 PM