My dad gave me the magazine to consumer reports this month and they have a table showing how consuming 3 servings a day of common proteins can be above FDA levels of Cadmium, Lead, Arsenic, and Mercury. My protein powder syntha-6 was featured. I only have 2 servings per day, but that hit close to home.
So I did the math and with 15 servings per container (I take 2 scoops in each daily shake) for $30 and each serving having 44g of protein that comes out to 22g/$. Using rough estimates of $10 for a pack of 6 chicken half-breasts, they rank up at 18g/$. Milk is 36g/$. Tuna reigns king at 40g/$. However, tuna also has the possibility of mercury overload if taken in 3-4 servings a day. So, milk is cheaper per gram of protein so you’re really just paying so you don’t have to drink half a gallon when you get back from the gym.
I’ll continue to use syntha6 and I’ve been drinking lots of milk for years, so no change. But I thought that was interesting.
Depends on your brand of protein. I use optimum nutrition, and by far it was cheaper per gram of protein than any food I’ve found.
As for the fish, don’t worry about mercury: http://www.howmuchfish.com/ . I eat more tuna than probably anyone on the forums and I’m barely 3/4 of the way to where the hypothetical mercury risk begins (11.4 lbs at my weight of 193).
[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:
Depends on your brand of protein. I use optimum nutrition, and by far it was cheaper per gram of protein than any food I’ve found.
As for the fish, don’t worry about mercury: http://www.howmuchfish.com/ . I eat more tuna than probably anyone on the forums and I’m barely 3/4 of the way to where the hypothetical mercury risk begins (11.4 lbs at my weight of 193). [/quote]
Just make sure you have sufficient selenium in diet and in the fish that you eat:
http://thehealthyskeptic.org/is-eating-fish-safe-a-lot-safer-than-not-eating-fish
See the chart 1/2 way down
[quote]Mutsanah wrote:
[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:
Depends on your brand of protein. I use optimum nutrition, and by far it was cheaper per gram of protein than any food I’ve found.
As for the fish, don’t worry about mercury: http://www.howmuchfish.com/ . I eat more tuna than probably anyone on the forums and I’m barely 3/4 of the way to where the hypothetical mercury risk begins (11.4 lbs at my weight of 193). [/quote]
Just make sure you have sufficient selenium in diet and in the fish that you eat:
http://thehealthyskeptic.org/is-eating-fish-safe-a-lot-safer-than-not-eating-fish
See the chart 1/2 way down[/quote]
Great article! I actually get about 600% of the recommended daily dose so hopefully that’s enough
Well Was Metabolic Drive on there? Cause thats my powder of choice and I don’t thinks it’s been leading me to death lol
[quote]TisDrew wrote:
My dad gave me the magazine to consumer reports this month and they have a table showing how consuming 3 servings a day of common proteins can be above FDA levels of Cadmium, Lead, Arsenic, and Mercury. My protein powder syntha-6 was featured. I only have 2 servings per day, but that hit close to home.
So I did the math and with 15 servings per container (I take 2 scoops in each daily shake) for $30 and each serving having 44g of protein that comes out to 22g/$. Using rough estimates of $10 for a pack of 6 chicken half-breasts, they rank up at 18g/$. Milk is 36g/$.
Tuna reigns king at 40g/$. However, tuna also has the possibility of mercury overload if taken in 3-4 servings a day. So, milk is cheaper per gram of protein so you’re really just paying so you don’t have to drink half a gallon when you get back from the gym.
I’ll continue to use syntha6 and I’ve been drinking lots of milk for years, so no change. But I thought that was interesting.[/quote]
sounds like you want your “clean” protein on the cheap. not one mention of raw, grass-fed, or organic? if you are broke, do not watch Food Inc or you’ll have to kill yourself.
You can settle for wild canned Alaskan pink salmon which taste better than tuna anyways.
The protein I buy in bulk (50lbs at a time) is like 25 cents per 27grams of protein.
Can’t beat that in price per gram, but I still prefer red meat/milk/eggs as primary sources.
[quote]Spencerulz wrote:
Well Was Metabolic Drive on there? Cause thats my powder of choice and I don’t thinks it’s been leading me to death lol[/quote]
All Biotest supplements are tested for heavy metals, so you’re safe with Metabolic Drive.
I would be weary of “cheap,” bulk proteins as these are often sourced from China and have been shown to be contaminated.
Cheap Chinese proteins tire me out as well.
[quote]earthquake wrote:
Is this list online?
[/quote]
I have not found it online but here is the list of all proteins tested:
BSN core series lean dessert protein shake chocolate fudge pudding
BSN core series syntha-6 ultra chocolate milkshake
designer whey 100% whey protein choclate
EAS myoplex original rich dark chocolate shake (liquid)*
GNC lean shake choclate
GNC pro performance AMP amplified wheybolic extreme 60 choclate
Jillian Michaels Natural whey protein vanilla cream shake
muscle milk chocolate*
muscle milk nutritional shake chocolate (liquid)
muscle milk vanilla creme*
optimum nutrition gold standard 100% whey extreme milk chocolate
optimum nutrition platinum hydro whey velocity vanilla
six star muscle professional strength whey protein french vanilla cream
solgar whey to go whey protein powder natural vanilla bean
- = Over FDA recommended levels of arsenic (EAS), cadmium (MM choc/EAS), lead(both MMs), and mercury (none listed) when consumed in 3 daily servings.
MM=muscle milk
I tried taking a picture w/ my webcam, but it’s garbage and unreadable.
that’s funny my dad handed me the same exact thing lol
Interesting.
I was reading something earlier about there being lead in O.N.'s Opti-men (multivitamin)
Damn it! I love Muscle Milk! I’d love to see how the company responds to this bit of info. Until further info, I’m putting a halt on my muscle milk consumption. Good thing Costco has a good return policy cause my tub is almost half gone.
It’s fairly hard to believe that a substantial company would not have already had the heavy-metals data.
So it really likely will not be news that the product contains these: the news will be that now some of the public knows it.
It is absolutely standard procedure to have these assays done.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It’s fairly hard to believe that a substantial company would not have already had the heavy-metals data.
So it really likely will not be news that the product contains these: the news will be that now some of the public knows it.
It is absolutely standard procedure to have these assays done.[/quote]
Would you want to provide a statement for a declaration in a prop 65 lawsuit? I’m so pissed that I feel like suing Cytosport over this BS.
I should have stated that to my knowledge it is absolutely standard procedure to obtain these assays. Of course at Biotest we always do, and in the particular instances I’ve known of of other companies obtaining and using materials they have done so, and I know it is not expensive at all to test for heavy metals and it is a routine assay chemically.
But I can’t state for a fact whether every supplement company always does so.
As personal opinion I absolutely expect that they did do so, however. As personal opinion I can only conclude that they decided that since a single serving did not contain amounts violating law or regulations that therefore they could sell it. But that is opinion, not absolute fact.
To give you an idea on the price to test for these metals: Roughly $500.
Personally I find it hard to credit that a company would purchase millions of dollars worth of protein or any other raw material and not pay such a relatively insignificant sum to verify for themselves whether they are getting what the seller claims.
Though if we were talking about a tiny company selling only a few hundred jugs of protein, then of course I could credit that they didn’t obtain an analysis. It wouldn’t be the right way to do business but it could make financial sense for those who considered the risk to be worth saving the $500.
Anyway, how would the suit be won? Does the article state that these products violate the law?
If not, and if they didn’t make advertising claims to the contrary, then what would the suit be for?
“The product doesn’t meet the standards of an intelligent human being” unfortunately probably has no legal standing.