Now, before some of you (you know who you are) start loading up your guns and put me in front of the firing squad, please read this first:
Disclaimer: The following is information from an article in the July issue of Consumer Reports. I am offering NO opinion on this matter. In addition, just so you know, I bought a huge bag of EAS Premium Protein powder from Costco, last week, before I saw the article ($30 for 78 servings if you decide to act against the article's recommendations...).
The article to which I am referring is attached below. If you are not able to click on the thumbnails and read the article, please send me a PM with your e-mail address, so I can e-mail it to you.
To summarize, Consumer Reports tested 15 different popular protein drinks and found they contain low to moderate levels of metals; risky if consumed frequently (3 servings daily).
Consumer Reports also stated, "Although protein is needed for bone development, excessive protein intake over the long term might also cause calcium to be excreted from bones, increasing the risk of ostoporosis..."
In closing, please note my lack of Smilies in this post; something I use abundantly in other posts (because I like them). Hopefully, this emphasizes my intention of just providing information, rather than opinions, so that I can avoid being MISUNDERSTOOD.
Thank you.
Elaine
Parents
Former Member
If supplements are under more scrutiny in Canada, would it make sense to choose supplements that are on sale in Canada as a prescreen?
As for Consumer Reports, I think they tend to do a half assed job in their research. A good example is their choice of "3 servings" as the normalizer that results in protein variations from 27 grams to 180 grams. If my concern is increasing protein by taking protein supplements, wouldn't I care about how much protein I was consuming? Am I really going to drink 1.5 liters of EAS milkshake at a price of $15/day? Elaine's EAS powder would cost $1.15/day in comparison. Consumer Reports usually is on the right track with the ideas behind their articles, but rarely can the results they publish be taken at face value.
Product contamination shouldn't be news. How many products coming out of China for human consumption have been recalled recently because they contained unacceptable levels of contaminates? Where would you expect an unregulated industry to having the majority of their manufacturing done?
Knowing that supplements pose a risk, where do we look for information on what is safe? I have no idea. If I claim that my product isn't sourced in China, am I in any way liable if that claim isn't true? I don't think so, especially since I can just redefine "sourced" since the industry isn't regulated, neither are the terms.
FDA regulation would not make much difference. A single serving of any of the tested proteins would be under the daily max for heavy metals. Would the FDA impose stricter restrictions on the supplement industry, or would the supplement industry lobby that their products are meant to be used as a single serving a day, and are thus safe for consumption? Even under stricter regulations, most of the supplements don't pose a risk high enough to draw attention, and based on the list of products that was included in the chart, I believe Consumer Reports only published the worst offenders. If it was a well balanced test, why was there only one EAS product but 3 Muscle Milk products, two of which are just different flavors of the same product?
The safest thing we can do is just stop eating, drinking and breathing. Today is no more dangerous than yesterday, anything done in excess is going to increase the likelihood of problems.
If supplements are under more scrutiny in Canada, would it make sense to choose supplements that are on sale in Canada as a prescreen?
As for Consumer Reports, I think they tend to do a half assed job in their research. A good example is their choice of "3 servings" as the normalizer that results in protein variations from 27 grams to 180 grams. If my concern is increasing protein by taking protein supplements, wouldn't I care about how much protein I was consuming? Am I really going to drink 1.5 liters of EAS milkshake at a price of $15/day? Elaine's EAS powder would cost $1.15/day in comparison. Consumer Reports usually is on the right track with the ideas behind their articles, but rarely can the results they publish be taken at face value.
Product contamination shouldn't be news. How many products coming out of China for human consumption have been recalled recently because they contained unacceptable levels of contaminates? Where would you expect an unregulated industry to having the majority of their manufacturing done?
Knowing that supplements pose a risk, where do we look for information on what is safe? I have no idea. If I claim that my product isn't sourced in China, am I in any way liable if that claim isn't true? I don't think so, especially since I can just redefine "sourced" since the industry isn't regulated, neither are the terms.
FDA regulation would not make much difference. A single serving of any of the tested proteins would be under the daily max for heavy metals. Would the FDA impose stricter restrictions on the supplement industry, or would the supplement industry lobby that their products are meant to be used as a single serving a day, and are thus safe for consumption? Even under stricter regulations, most of the supplements don't pose a risk high enough to draw attention, and based on the list of products that was included in the chart, I believe Consumer Reports only published the worst offenders. If it was a well balanced test, why was there only one EAS product but 3 Muscle Milk products, two of which are just different flavors of the same product?
The safest thing we can do is just stop eating, drinking and breathing. Today is no more dangerous than yesterday, anything done in excess is going to increase the likelihood of problems.
