Modbrian,
We can assume its not just Metabolic Drive but Grow! as well that is tested? Poor folks need protein too!
From EAS:
A recent Consumer Reports story (July 2010 issue) raised questions about the trace levels of cadmium and arsenic found in popular protein shakes including our Myoplex® Original Rich Dark Chocolate shakes. We want to assure you that there is no safety risk from the trace levels of cadmium and arsenic in Myoplex protein shakes.
The Consumer Reports testing was based on consumption of three shakes per day. Our recommended up to two servings of Myoplex daily, as stated on the label, is well below the current accepted standards and below the proposed U.S. Pharmacopeia limits.
Trace levels of these elements are naturally found in the environment and in many foods we eat daily (such as shellfish, potatoes, rice, and leafy greens). We conduct extensive testing to ensure the quality of our products. Each time the shakes have been tested for elements, such as arsenic and cadmium, the results are below the limit of all current, well-established safety standards.
Lol at 2 a day being just fine, but 3 a day will kill you.
For some reason I see politics playing a big part in this too due to the fact that they want to take our supplements away from us anyway.
[quote]Enders Drift wrote:
Modbrian,
We can assume its not just Metabolic Drive but Grow! as well that is tested? Poor folks need protein too![/quote]
All Biotest supplements are tested.
[quote]Spartan903 wrote:
For some reason I see politics playing a big part in this too due to the fact that they want to take our supplements away from us anyway. [/quote]
Consumer Reports has been plotting that for years.
This is why i stick to Biotest when i do drink protein. I try to stick to just whole food during spring and summer…once fall and winter comes a long, bring on the 1000 calorie Grow! protein shakes : ).
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
http://media.nbcwashington.com/documents/PROTEIN+DRINKS+JULY+'10.pdf
Anyone read the article?
Wow, this athletic trainer and nutritionist says “the body can only absorb 5-9 g/protein per hour” LULZ any more and you’ll gain fat.
Oh, and it says that excess protein damages kidneys, wow[/quote]
My dad did the same thing and I read it, too. Article looked to me like the protein supplement industry forgot to give the annual homage to CR that they were supposed to get, so as a result, CR wrote some story to bash the industry and make everyone think there’s no reason to use protein powders.
If I recall correctly, no research was cited throughout the article (except CR’s own research detecting the toxic metals in the powders) and statements like the ones jehovasfitness noted were made by people that may or may not be anyone of note aside from a person they found who was willing to say what they wanted to hear for the purposes of the article. They also said, more than once IIRC, that people who consume protein supplements are getting a lot more daily protein than what they need. And at the end of the article, they also mentioned that excess protein can contribute to bone-loss (don’t remember exactly how they worded it, but they went there).
So, should I put CR on my shit-list, now? I’ve trusted them for so many other things, but that felt like a low-blow when I read that article. They could have made it a battle against the 2 or 3 companies with “contaminated products” instead of a bash of the whole industry.
And I love how in their comparison for costs they use one of the most expensive proteins available.
[quote]TDub301 wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
http://media.nbcwashington.com/documents/PROTEIN+DRINKS+JULY+'10.pdf
Anyone read the article?
Wow, this athletic trainer and nutritionist says “the body can only absorb 5-9 g/protein per hour” LULZ any more and you’ll gain fat.
Oh, and it says that excess protein damages kidneys, wow[/quote]
My dad did the same thing and I read it, too. Article looked to me like the protein supplement industry forgot to give the annual homage to CR that they were supposed to get, so as a result, CR wrote some story to bash the industry and make everyone think there’s no reason to use protein powders.
If I recall correctly, no research was cited throughout the article (except CR’s own research detecting the toxic metals in the powders) and statements like the ones jehovasfitness noted were made by people that may or may not be anyone of note aside from a person they found who was willing to say what they wanted to hear for the purposes of the article. They also said, more than once IIRC, that people who consume protein supplements are getting a lot more daily protein than what they need. And at the end of the article, they also mentioned that excess protein can contribute to bone-loss (don’t remember exactly how they worded it, but they went there).
So, should I put CR on my shit-list, now? I’ve trusted them for so many other things, but that felt like a low-blow when I read that article. They could have made it a battle against the 2 or 3 companies with “contaminated products” instead of a bash of the whole industry.[/quote]
No one knows everything.
Some who are sound in many areas will buy into “experts” preaching nonsense, particularly when it fits their philosophical template. Which in this case is one of economy, and feeling smarter than others by knowing that particular things that others believe are needed, are not.
It’s best to identify what is useful and what is not; and what is factual and what is not.
Simply because advice and opinion appears regarding amount of protein that one might consider wrong opinion should not mean that one then has to ignore all facts that are present in the article as well.
But some will do so.
[quote]TDub301 wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
http://media.nbcwashington.com/documents/PROTEIN+DRINKS+JULY+'10.pdf
Anyone read the article?
Wow, this athletic trainer and nutritionist says “the body can only absorb 5-9 g/protein per hour” LULZ any more and you’ll gain fat.
Oh, and it says that excess protein damages kidneys, wow[/quote]
My dad did the same thing and I read it, too. Article looked to me like the protein supplement industry forgot to give the annual homage to CR that they were supposed to get, so as a result, CR wrote some story to bash the industry and make everyone think there’s no reason to use protein powders.
If I recall correctly, no research was cited throughout the article (except CR’s own research detecting the toxic metals in the powders) and statements like the ones jehovasfitness noted were made by people that may or may not be anyone of note aside from a person they found who was willing to say what they wanted to hear for the purposes of the article. They also said, more than once IIRC, that people who consume protein supplements are getting a lot more daily protein than what they need. And at the end of the article, they also mentioned that excess protein can contribute to bone-loss (don’t remember exactly how they worded it, but they went there).
So, should I put CR on my shit-list, now? I’ve trusted them for so many other things, but that felt like a low-blow when I read that article. They could have made it a battle against the 2 or 3 companies with “contaminated products” instead of a bash of the whole industry.[/quote]
Well…obviously your problem is trusting anyone at all.
Maybe, except I think that article validates my inclination to not trust them. Every article I read and listened to them about, I didn’t know enough about the subject matter to be able to identify their fallacies or know if there were any at all. With this one, I can do just that, which sheds a lot of light.
But as a general rule of thumb, I don’t trust very many people. I have to do that, however, because I’m a naturally gullible person so I have to consciously not be trusting to balance it out. I do trust you, at least when it comes to weightlifting or tooth-related topics, so I guess that’s a problem?
But I definitely think you get off on pushing peoples’ buttons, though. Since you want to start getting all psychological on me, I’ll return the favor.
[quote]TDub301 wrote:
Maybe, except I think that article validates my inclination to not trust them. Every article I read and listened to them about, I didn’t know enough about the subject matter to be able to identify their fallacies or know if there were any at all. With this one, I can do just that, which sheds a lot of light.
But as a general rule of thumb, I don’t trust very many people. I have to do that, however, because I’m a naturally gullible person so I have to consciously not be trusting to balance it out. I do trust you, at least when it comes to weightlifting or tooth-related topics, so I guess that’s a problem?
But I definitely think you get off on pushing peoples’ buttons, though. Since you want to start getting all psychological on me, I’ll return the favor.[/quote]
I’m just telling you the truth…and this is the same topic that has been discussed before when it comes to lay people reading info they aren’t formally educated in. That means you are much more open to flat out bullshit as long as it is typed in a professional manner using really big words.
Don’t worry, most of the country is the exact same way.
I was more open to CR because of the infuence of my father, truthfully. He loves it and I grew up with him reading it. But also because they claimed to be honest and unbiased with their articles and explained how they tested and rated the products. Which I thought was the right way to do it, so I listened. I mainly read their automobile reports, which are a lot more in-depth than the protein article was and more influenced by their own tests.
I wouldn’t say that I believe something more or less because of how well-written it is, although I can see that being very common. I would say I believe people more based on my comments from my earlier post about citing research and quoting people who actually know what they’re talking about and have proven it. I have a lot of friends who don’t use the best grammar when writing or speaking, but I do give them the same consideration (more consideration, actually, in certain situations) I would someone who did use professional speech with plenty of big words. For example, I read a lot of interviews on this site and a lot of the people being interviewed use very crude, simple language to get their points across. I oftentimes believe them more than the people I read here who use language as you described. The professionalism really doesn’t matter to me, at least when it comes to my opinions of their validity.
Don’t worry, most of the country jumps to conclusions, too.