@pamella3k You'll struggle to hit your protein goals when already on a glp1 drug. People struggle normally itself.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Understanding the recent Protein Study - A detailed explanation
@its_namex Yeah. Thats why looking for most efficient protein.
@pamella3k Ozampic works by reducing your appetite. If I simplify it. Considering tailoring your dosage AFTER hitting your protein macros. Because protein also does something similar.
To add to it, consider going for Casein over Whey, it further keeps you full for longer. Unless you're a diabetic, this approach should reach the same result as with Ozympic in cutailing your appetite, and you might not even need it, or need only a very small dose.
To add to it, consider going for Casein over Whey, it further keeps you full for longer. Unless you're a diabetic, this approach should reach the same result as with Ozympic in cutailing your appetite, and you might not even need it, or need only a very small dose.
@pamella3k Ozampic works by reducing your appetite. If I simplify it. Considering tailoring your dosage AFTER hitting your protein macros. Because protein also does something similar.
To add to it, consider going for Casein over Whey, it further keeps you full for longer. Unless you're a diabetic, this approach should reach the same result as with Ozympic in cutailing your appetite, and you might not even need it, or need only a very small dose.
To add to it, consider going for Casein over Whey, it further keeps you full for longer. Unless you're a diabetic, this approach should reach the same result as with Ozympic in cutailing your appetite, and you might not even need it, or need only a very small dose.
@pamella3k Ozampic works by reducing your appetite. If I simplify it. Considering tailoring your dosage AFTER hitting your protein macros. Because protein also does something similar.
To add to it, consider going for Casein over Whey, it further keeps you full for longer. Unless you're a diabetic, this approach should reach the same result as with Ozympic in cutailing your appetite, and you might not even need it, or need only a very small dose.
To add to it, consider going for Casein over Whey, it further keeps you full for longer. Unless you're a diabetic, this approach should reach the same result as with Ozympic in cutailing your appetite, and you might not even need it, or need only a very small dose.
@its_namex LiverDoc intentionally cherrypicks brands which will lead to sensational news articles. Dogshit brands choose karo like amway, bigmuscles which are common knowledge ki scams hai aur news articles daaldo most wheys in india are scamminngggggg. Trustified FTW!
@sweetkaka To be fair, if people are buying said dogshit brands, then its worth picking them. I think the issue is in the media houses interpreting these studies, and just slandering general protein companies. They should've put the effort and actually named the brands unlike the shitty articles I've read, where they didn't even bother reading through the paper.
mynameishephzibah
New member
@its_namex You are more concerned about the claimed vs actual protein content than the presence of heavy metal elements!!!!
You do not want your protein shake to cause problems in your body. Big brands are much more problematic especially Muscle Blaze and Optimum Nutrition.
You do not want your protein shake to cause problems in your body. Big brands are much more problematic especially Muscle Blaze and Optimum Nutrition.
joshuah0208
New member
@mynameishephzibah What’s the problem with ON?
@joshuah0208 Nothing much, I've explained it in the above comment.
@mynameishephzibah Does the study say ON is contaminated by heavy metals? I consume ON x.x
@zeljko Shouldn't be a problem. They used some garbage limits on permissibility without bothering to really understand consumption processes.
The limits of lead according to the EU for food supplements is 3 mg/kg, ON had about 0.2 mg / kg, and even these aren't good methods of calculating if something is safe or not, a better metric would've been weekly consumption limit and according to those calculations, ON seems to be completely within permissible limits.
The limits of lead according to the EU for food supplements is 3 mg/kg, ON had about 0.2 mg / kg, and even these aren't good methods of calculating if something is safe or not, a better metric would've been weekly consumption limit and according to those calculations, ON seems to be completely within permissible limits.
good_heart
New member
@mynameishephzibah What is the basis of this comment?
@good_heart probably some amount of paranoia, and not actually doing research.
@mynameishephzibah What is the problem with ON? Im using it now.
mynameishephzibah
New member
@brianvanr It has lead content above the permissible limit.
@mynameishephzibah Personally I found the LOQ's chosen to be fairly arbitrary. For example, they've chosen a general value of 0.025mg/kg as the LOQ for heavy metals. But every agency in the world, has different LOQ levels for the different heavy metals. Cd, Pb etc all have different levels.
Also, I found the mg/kg to be a bad example.
A better way to do this would've been to have a per serving heavy metals level.
This way, we can compare it to the permissible levels of consumption / day limits. Because the levels in a Kg bag aren't really relevant, depending on if a person is consuming 1 serving / day, or 3 servings per day.
So, for example, according to the WHO, permissible amounts of lead are 0.05 mg/(kg x bodyweight of person) per week.
So if we look at an average 65 kg person - that would be 3.5 mg / week.
According to the study, there was about 0.29 mg found in a KG of ON whey. Lets say, this is an enthusiastic person consuming 3 servings of whey per day - that translates to about 0.029 mg of lead exposure / week.
That is still 100 times lower than the amount suggested as limits by the WHO.
You see where I'm going with this. This isn't really worth getting alarmed by. It is a shitty testing process.
Also, I found the mg/kg to be a bad example.
A better way to do this would've been to have a per serving heavy metals level.
This way, we can compare it to the permissible levels of consumption / day limits. Because the levels in a Kg bag aren't really relevant, depending on if a person is consuming 1 serving / day, or 3 servings per day.
So, for example, according to the WHO, permissible amounts of lead are 0.05 mg/(kg x bodyweight of person) per week.
So if we look at an average 65 kg person - that would be 3.5 mg / week.
According to the study, there was about 0.29 mg found in a KG of ON whey. Lets say, this is an enthusiastic person consuming 3 servings of whey per day - that translates to about 0.029 mg of lead exposure / week.
That is still 100 times lower than the amount suggested as limits by the WHO.
You see where I'm going with this. This isn't really worth getting alarmed by. It is a shitty testing process.
mynameishephzibah
New member
@its_namex Optimum Nutrition Whey made in India is slightly different from made in the USA. Different manufacturing contractors.
Also these heavy elements are present in your food items as well. So you are not taking that into account.
Correct me if I am wrong, Muscle Blaze whey and ONS whey have heavy elements in labdoor as well.
Also these heavy elements are present in your food items as well. So you are not taking that into account.
Correct me if I am wrong, Muscle Blaze whey and ONS whey have heavy elements in labdoor as well.
@mynameishephzibah I was referring to the heavy metal presence as detected in the study, which was a product purchased in India.
And you're right, there are heavy metals leeching into a lot food. However, the point is that protein shakes, even the ones that have higher amounts is still nothing.
If you are consuming 3 servings per day, and are 100 times lesser than the weekly permissible limit, then what difference does it make ?
Not to mention, I haven't seen any reference in the paper as to why 0.025 was taken as the limit for ALL heavy metals, when its very well known that each of them have different limits world wide.
The only reason I can imagine are :
a. they are using a standard that I haven't come across, its not the EU, or the US, or the WHO.
b. they picked a limit, to be able to cherry pick data. Cadmium is know to be a lot more toxic than lead, infact the permissible limits of cadmium is about 3 times less than lead, And yet, the study used the same value of 0.025 for both. Which doesn't make any sense.
All of these lead me to question the validity of the claims.
And you're right, there are heavy metals leeching into a lot food. However, the point is that protein shakes, even the ones that have higher amounts is still nothing.
If you are consuming 3 servings per day, and are 100 times lesser than the weekly permissible limit, then what difference does it make ?
Not to mention, I haven't seen any reference in the paper as to why 0.025 was taken as the limit for ALL heavy metals, when its very well known that each of them have different limits world wide.
The only reason I can imagine are :
a. they are using a standard that I haven't come across, its not the EU, or the US, or the WHO.
b. they picked a limit, to be able to cherry pick data. Cadmium is know to be a lot more toxic than lead, infact the permissible limits of cadmium is about 3 times less than lead, And yet, the study used the same value of 0.025 for both. Which doesn't make any sense.
All of these lead me to question the validity of the claims.
@its_namex Ah understood makes sense.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 356
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 148
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 177
- Replies
- 54
- Views
- 349