Welcome back, team, to the Building a Lifelong Athletes podcast. Thanks so much for stopping by. I really appreciate it. If we haven't had the chance to meet yet, my name is Jordan Mankey and I'm a dual board certified physician in family and sports medicine. And the goal of this podcast is to keep you active and healthy for life through actionable evidence form education. And so, this podcast, there's probably a good chance you've seen this before. We talked about it. You've seen headlines in recent weeks about a new consumer reports investigation that found potentially high levels of lead in many popular protein powders. And it's caused for a lot of concern, right? And for good reason. So, today we're going to dive in, kind of cut through the noise and look at the actual data and figure out what this means for you. Let's dive in. And so, the million-dollar question is: Should you throw out your protein powder? Let's dive in. Let's talk a little bit more about that. Before you make any rash decisions, let's go. So, first and foremost, what did this report actually do? So, what did it do? So, Consumer Reports tested 23 of the top-selling protein supplements, including dairy, beef, and plant-based protein options. To be thorough, they bought multiple samples of each product from different stores over a three-month period to make sure the results weren't just from a single bad batch. So that's pretty awesome. There are multiple different samples. Then the lab tested for two main things. Did the protein content match the label? And what was the level of heavy metals like lead, cadmium, inorganic arsenic? That's what we're looking for. The good news is that all 23 of the products met or beat the protein claims. So that's wonderful. So, if you're taking a protein supplement to get protein, Turns out you're probably going to get protein. So that's actually wonderful. And so now we've mentioned that: hey, the protein content is good. Now we're going to talk about the big thing that everyone's talking about. So the benchmark For these lead or heavy metals. So, the first thing we have to talk about, though, is that the FDA actually has no specific enforceable limit for lead in protein powders, right? And so, what did Consumer Reports do? Well, so what they did is they used the benchmark of 0. 5 micrograms of lead per day from any single source kind of as their guideline. There, we'll talk about where that comes from. It came from California Prop 65, which we'll mention a little bit there. But Consumer Report says, okay, the FDA doesn't have a definitive guideline, so we're going to use this 0. 5 micrograms to say, hey, If you're hitting this, this is the daily exposure for leads or anything above that, it's going to be problematic. And so, this number isn't arbitrary, it comes from California's Proposition 65 law, which sets a maximum allowable dose level or the MADL. Of 0. 5 micrograms per day for lead based on potential reproductive toxicity. So, looking at this 0. 5 micrograms per day, that's where they say, hey, this is the threshold we're going to deem. And it's one of the most stringent standards in the world. And we'll see why that matters here in a bit in one second. And so, here's the big headline, right? The main takeaway: it was that About 70% or more than two-thirds of the products they tested actually had more lead in a single serving than the 0. 5 microgram per day benchmark that was set. And some products had over 10 times that amount in one single serving. And so that is why people were like up in arms about this thing. There's so much lead in these products. Oh my gosh, we have to get rid of them all. Now, let's move on to the worst offenders. So, these two plant-based powders were so high that consumer reports actually said, don't take them, like, avoid them completely. The first was Naked Nutrition Vegan Mass Gainer. That came in at a whopping 7. 7 micrograms per serving, which is over 1500% of the consumer reports limit. So, those are kind of some big numbers there. First one is that naked nutrition. Then moving on to the second one, the second was Hule Black Edition. This came in at 6. 3 micrograms per serving. Once again, over about 1,200% of the set threshold that they determined. So these are the two they say. This is so much, we don't recommend anybody consume them. And we have to take a step back here, right? So, a lot of times, these are big mass gainers, right? Which take a lot of actual like Quantity of protein or powder or whatnot. So, you're a lot of times either an enormous scoop, right? Or you're taking multiple scoops. And so, a lot of times, when you're taking that much content, yeah, you're going to have more of something. So, that's like There have been statements been put out by Hewell and whatnot, and other companies saying, like, no, we fit the standards and all that stuff. But mass gainers seem to be a big one there. Two other plant-based products, though, as well. Moving on, did talk about some other issues that talk about moderation. The first was Garden of Life Sport Organic. And then the other one was momentous 100% plant protein. And they were flagged for moderation, meaning, hey, suggesting no more than once a week. That's kind of their overall recommendation, is no more than once a week. And we're starting to see a theme here, right? These plant-based protein powders had an issue, and it's definitely a clear trend. On average, the plant-based protein powders had nine times more lead than dairy-based whey protein powders. And this isn't random, right? All the plant-based products tested used pea protein, and peas are a legume known to be very good at absorbing heavy metals from the soil. This points to kind of a systemic issue with the ingredient source, right? Not necessarily a manufacturing problem. This isn't like, oh, every company had an issue with manufacturing. It's like, no, it's the source it's coming from. That's probably the issue. The report noted this problem seems to be getting worse compared to a similar investigation 15 years ago, likely because the market has shifted so heavily towards these plant-based ingredients, right? So they're just meeting consumer demand. People are saying, hey, we need to have. Resources, and we need to have different varieties for people. We can't no longer have just whey protein. We need to have pea protein. So it's essentially meeting consumer demand. But with that, we're assuming these other things are happening. I do want to make one quick cave out here talking about what about the organic label? And this is a key point where people can get confused, right? So, the Garden of Life product, which Consumer Report said, limit consumption, saying, Hey, like, I wouldn't eat this a lot, I'd kind of limit it. But it's certified organic, right? So, this is like the joke I have all the time with my wife: oh, but it's organic, it's got to be healthy. And it's the same thing, just because something has an organic label does not necessarily mean that it's healthy in any way, shape, or form. But organic does have its own standards, right? So there's standards about pesticides and fertilizers, all those things, but they have no bearing on the heavy metal content already in the soil from either legacy pollution or lead of gasoline, stuff like that. And so. Plants can't really tell the difference between organic soil and conventional soil when they're absorbing minerals, right? They just absorb things in these heavy metals. So, that organic health halo doesn't really apply in this context at all. So, a lot of times people will be like, oh, it's organic, it's totally safe and fine. I'm not trying to scare you saying, like, oh, you can't eat anything. But, like most things, organic can be a marketing term as well. And so, we have to be conscious of that. But in this situation, it doesn't really matter if it's organic, absorbing nutrients in the soil, it's just going to do it, regardless if it's organic or non-organic. And lead was the main story, but they also found some other issues as well. So they did find high levels of cadmium in the Hewlet Black Edition and Vega Premium Sport. And then, on top of that, we also found high levels of inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen, and they're found in these dairy-based product optonutrition serious mass. And so, lead wasn't the only thing. There are other heavy metals as well, but the big main one people talk about is lead. And so let's take one step back here, though, right? And talk about why this even matters. Like, why is lead a problem? Everyone's heard this: lead pain, check for lead at your pediatric visits, all this stuff. So, we talk about lead a lot. Why does it actually matter? Well, first and foremost, there is no known safe level for lead exposure. So it really doesn't serve any purpose in the body and is toxic to virtually every organ system. There's a lot going on there. So, we don't know, like, at a level, like, yeah, I'd recommend you get this amount of lead in your diet. Like, it's not a thing. It's not like if you look in your nutrition tracking app, like micros and macros, like, lead's not going to be in there, right? That's the one thing. There's no real known safe level. Obviously, we're all exposed to it at some point. So, I'm not saying trying to scare you. But there's no known level, like, hey, like, you're fine here, or like, recommended here. Like, that's that doesn't exist. And so, why do we really care about this? We're extrapolating on this. Why does it matter? So, the main danger in this situation. Isn't acute poisoning from a single dose, right? Like if you have a little bit of lead in your protein powder, that's not going to have an issue in the short run. The real concern is the chronic low-level exposure over time, right? So we know that lead is persistent, right? So lead kind of builds and hangs around in your body. Unlike things that are easily cleared, lead kind of builds up. It can accumulate over your lifetime, mostly in your bones, and kind of stay there for a long, long time. And it can stay there for decades and then potentially get released during times of stress in your life. And then this means that even small daily amounts. Might add up over time and leaving you at risk potentially. And so, yes, could you have too much lead acutely and could lead to issues? I guess you could theoretically. That's not going to happen here from this. In this scenario, the big thing we worry about is chronic accumulation. And we'll talk about some other things as well. It's typically known to be insidious, right? It is insidious side effects, things like a gradual raise in your blood pressure or declining kidney function that you wouldn't necessarily have connected to your supplement that you took years ago, right? Those are some big things that we do see. There are other things we'll mention as well. Who's also at the most risk? So, specifically, we care about this because children and developing babies are far and away the most vulnerable because. Lead is a potent neurotoxin that targets the developing brain. So, we know we have examples of this, right? So, exposure can cause irreversible damage, leading to learning disabilities, lower IQ, and behavioral problems. And so, for pregnant women, The lead stored in their bones can get mobilized and cross the placenta to the baby. And so a mother's lifetime exposure can theoretically become a risk for her child or just consuming it so much. That's why. You know, we are trying to avoid it. It doesn't seem like that's necessarily as much of a risk direct, or not necessarily hearing case reports yet, but this is just very, very early. But this is more for like big lead exposure. We're talking about usually huge amounts of lead. You know, back in the day you used to have lead paints, and kids would literally suck on them, and then they lead to neurotoxins and developmental issues. And so that's like more we're looking at here. But this is why we care about this so much, right? We want to protect the most vulnerable in our society. And we mentioned a couple other risks for adults in terms of blood pressure and kidney function and all that stuff. But obviously, as we mentioned before, we have the high blood pressure, we have the kidney issues. You can also have cognitive issues like memory loss. And potentially could have reproductive problems, right? We talked about it being a neurotoxin. We know it is for kids for sure. For adults, it could be there as well. So there's multiple reasons why we'd say, like, hey, we want to at least care about this. We want to make sure we're not just consuming massive amounts of flat. And so here's where we kind of get into the gray area, right? We're kind of bringing the nuance here a lot of times. That's what we do here. How can a company, you know, like Huel, say their product is safe while Consumer Reports says, hey, you should avoid this entirely? It's kind of weird, but it's because they're using completely different yardsticks to measure what's going on. I'll explain. So, to understand this, we need to understand how supplements are regulated in the US, which is a. I've had topics about this on previous podcasts. It's a nightmare. But under the 1994 law, the FDA regulates supplements more like food than drugs, right? So this means that manufacturers are not required to test them for safety. or purity before selling them. So essentially what they do is they can put it to market and then it's out there. The FDA's role is then to mostly react after a problem is found. This is why I talk about the supplement industry all the time, and that, like, it is, it could be the wild west. Obviously, people, I'm, I like to think people start a company in a supplement company for the best intentions to try to help people. But it's a big, big industry and billions of dollars are spent here. So, you know, people talk about big pharma, big supplement, also very, very big and powerful. And so, here though, to get a supplement out there, essentially you can just put it out there and say, yep, it's good. And then the FDA only really has to act if something bad happens and something comes up. And then you're looking for an issue and kind of after the fact, looking at an issue. So that's why it's such a big thing to think about. And going hand in hand with that, I really want to talk about Prop65 a little bit as well. And so, kind of understand that 0. 5 microgram number we talked about. It's crucial to understand that Proposition sixty five is a right to no law, not a safety law. So I'll say that again. It's a right to no law, not a safety law. Its primary purpose is to require companies to put a warning on their products if they contain certain chemicals above a specific threshold. It doesn't ban the product. It just says, hey, like, you should be aware that this product contains X components and it may potentially have issues. You know, from various things, whether it's reproductive or health or cancer, saying, hey, theoretically, it could have damage down the line collegiate there. So obviously, it's a very, very strict one I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm just saying it is what it is. It's a right to know. It's not saying when you see a Prop 65 warning, you see, you know, state of California or whatnot, it doesn't mean you're getting cancer. It just means that. This law, they was, you know, if you manufactured or going to California, you need to have this saying saying, hey, we have this component that has this potential chemical, and you should know about it. That's really much what it comes down to. And How do we set this limit, though, for lead, right? So, the limit for lead is called the maximum allowable dose level, or the MADL, like I mentioned before. And it's set for chemicals known to cause reproductive harm. And here's how they get that number. Essentially, scientists first determine the no-observable effect level, or the NOEL. And this is the highest dose of a substance that has been shown to cause no detectable reproductive harm in studies. So, pretty much saying this level, we know it's safe. And then, to create an extremely large margin of safety, the regulators divide that level, that NOEL level, by a thousand. So you're saying, hey, this is a level. You need to divide that by a thousand to be at that level. And so it creates super, super, super low thresholds for people, just kind of creating a huge buffer zone of safety is what they're essentially going for. So that's why. A lot of things have these warnings because it's a very, very hard threshold to hit. Once again, it doesn't cancel a product or make it illegal. They just have to put a clarification and a warning on there. And so, looking at this further, that 0. 5 microgram per day level, that limit is one-thousandth of the level that was found to have no observable effect. And so, this is incredibly conservative. And it's designed to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. So, as I mentioned before, a couple of them did have over a thousand. So, those both would probably not be a great idea, if anything's that much. But you see a lot of wiggle room here in terms of this is a thousandths, one thousandths of the level that was found. To have no observable effect. But once again, it's just erring on the side of safety. And this is really the core issue here, right? So Prop 65 is designed to trigger a warning at an exceptionally low level, which is very different from the philosophy of the FDA, which people talk about the FDA all the time. They have different philosophy and differing understandings. So, the FDA uses a much higher internal benchmark called the interim reference levels or IRL in real life here. But the IRL, these are the maximum daily intakes from which food sources and the agency considers to be without appreciable risk. So they're saying, hey, this is where the maximum daily intake, like we'd feel confident with that. So that's where that. So obviously, very, very different from Prop65, right? And so for children, the IRL is about 2. 2 micrograms per day. For women of childbearing age, it comes out to about 8. 8 micrograms per day. So those are much higher than what the Prop 65 is looking at. And I do want to stop there for one second. So, the FDA's reference level for an adult woman, 8. 8 micrograms per day, is more than 17 times higher than the Prop 65 benchmark of 0. 5. Once again, as I mentioned before, playing with two completely different measuring sticks, using two different standards. And that's how companies can say, hey, like we've tested and it's fine, versus other consumer reports saying this is actually an issue. So, this is how two people can actually say we're both correct at the same time. Like everything, it's gray and confusing and awful, but this is just what we found. And so, as I mentioned before, let's take a product like Hule, right? So, 6. 3 micrograms of lead is well under the FDA's 8. 8 microgram daily level, but it's nearly 13 times over consumer reports. Both statements can technically be true, which, once again, creates all the confusion. So, FDA says it's good, HEL says it's good, Consumer Report says it's bad, Prop65 says it's bad. Both of those statements are true, which is just incredibly frustrating. And so the FDA's approach is really a risk management model, right? So It balances health risks with what's considered achievable for the food industry. And so this means that the acceptable level isn't a determination of absolute safety, but more of a negotiated balance. And so they're saying, hey, for the good, for the general Well-being of people and society and businesses, like this is the level. So, once again, does it necessarily mean it's academically rigorous? That's a question mark. This is definitely not my area of expertise. But as I was researching this, it just Overall, everything just became very like, hmm, this is kind of interesting. But that's where the FDA kind of lives. Very, very different, right? California says, like, hey, we want to prevent anything from possibly. We want to know everything. And FDA is like, eh, like, it's probably fine. That's pretty much the general understandings, is what I saw. And so, is the lead in these protein powders, though, is it a big deal compared to what we get from other foods? That's kind of the question I wanted to look at. You know, we see this, we're like, oh my goodness, that's a big deal. What to look at? I didn't find a whole lot, but. As we know, that lead is an environmental contaminant. So it's in almost every food at low levels, especially in things like root vegetables, leafy greens, and grains, right? So that's where we see a lot of these things. The key difference, though, here is the concentration effect from manufacturing, where in nature it's going to be a lot less than when we heavily concentrate it, as we'll mention here. So, to make direct comparisons, I kind of want to look at that. We kind of have to look at something called parts per billion. So, that's a different one. So, the FDA shows common foods like sweet potato baby food or canned peaches to have about 13 parts per billion of lead. That's generally where they're at. Now, let's look at the protein powder. So, based on the report, Huel Black Edition comes out at about 70 parts per billion, and then Naked Nutrition Vegan Mass Gainer around 77 parts per billion. So, obviously, substantially higher than the things that we see in nature. And so the concentration of lead in these high-risk powders is five to six times higher than what you'd find in a typical whole food, like baby sweet potato or canned peaches or whatnot there. So five to six times higher. Is that important? I don't know necessarily, but it's definitely interesting finding, that's for sure. And so here's why we're finding this, right? So to make pea protein, you have to process a huge amount of raw peas to strip out everything but the protein, right? Peas aren't like inherently really great protein machine. You know, people say, like, oh, like peas are wonderful for proteins. Like, well, to eat the amount of protein, like That you'd have to get in a certain amount of ounces. You know, if you say 100 grams of ground beef or chicken versus 100 grams of peas, it's going to be vastly different. So you have to process it quite a bit. And this process, though, of breaking things down, stripping out everything but the protein, it's indiscriminate. It also concentrates any heavy metals that were in the original plant. And so. You're not just eating a serving of peas, you're eating the concentrated heavy metal load from a much larger volume of peas, right? So, the process that makes the product desirable for its protein content is exactly what makes it potentially hazardous. So, it's kind of a double-edged sword there. And that was a lot, right? So, I'm talking about here, not trying to scare anybody. That's like what it sounds like doomsday, right? Everyone talks about candy and anything anymore, but let's distill down kind of into a practical framework. What are the big rocks here? What can we do from this information? So, big rock number one. First and foremost, reevaluate, necessity, and prioritize modernization if it comes to protein powders. Essentially, what it comes down to. The single most effective way to reduce your risk. Is to reduce your frequency, right? So if you're just like eating protein powder multiple times a day and it's one of these on the list, I need to think about that a little bit. Remember that the danger here is typically from chronic daily consumption, right? So, a single effective, you know, single daily thing. I'm not too worried about that, but over time, that's what we have to think about. And then you have to ask yourself: do you truly need the supplement, right? So, most people can get protein from their Whole Foods. Like, you can do that. Are protein supplements and protein powders convenient? Yeah, they're very convenient. You can drink one while you're going to work or whatever. So, I'm not saying you can't have them. I'm just saying if you're like, whoa, Jordan, what the heck? Then you can get, you can live life around this. You know, you don't have to have this. The way I kind of view supplementation is like, ideally, it's a supplement, meaning like we can use this as a tool when we need to. It can be a convenience, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a data stable. For some people, it is. And once again, on this list, there's some that are very fine. Like a lot of times, the actual whey proteins coming from, you know. Animal sources like whey and milk, those didn't really have really high levels. And so you could probably take that every day and be a-okay. But I'm just saying, if some people don't want to do that or whatnot, you can live a long, healthy life without taking that. So. Step number two and rock two is be an informed consumer about your protein source, right? So, trying to be practical, Glenn. If you don't have any issues with dairy, then probably just stick with whey or casein protein. It's a much simpler solution and it makes you feel Um, yeah, just better that we're probably not getting this. Obviously, you should look at that, and we'll talk more about that. You should look at your labels, who's manufacturing all that stuff. But the data showed that dairy protein powders had significantly lower levels. They weren't completely excluded, right? We saw some that looked at different lead levels and other higher metal levels, but overall, compared to plant proteins, they had a better profile there. And so there's just something we have to consider about understanding that maybe, maybe that's going to be a better option. And then, if you are going to use plant-based powders, though, that's fine, either by necessity or by choice. Recognize that those from pea protein might potentially carry a higher risk due to the bioaccumulation. In the plant and concentration during manufacturing, right? So, in this case, it's a good idea to probably diversify your sources, right? So, rotate between different brands, types, and different main Plant-based proteins to avoid a consistent exposure to any one product's contaminant profile. So, just kind of moving it around, if you wanted to do that, that would be reasonable. And also, you should pay attention to the serving size, right? As those mass gainers, a lot of times deliver a much larger dose of everything, including contaminants. You're just taking like scoops of this stuff. Like, sometimes you see a huge bottle. And then it's like serving size like 10 or something, I mean, something ridiculous like that, which is a massive mouth that you're going in. I think if you're eating mass gainers, you should probably just reframe and look at your diet in general, but that's something to consider. And key takeaway point number three is look for evidence of quality control, right? In a poorly regulated market like we have here in America, look for third-party certifications. That can be very helpful. So, organizations like the NSF International or USP mean that the product has been voluntarily tested for heavy metals and other contaminants. And obviously, it's not perfect, right? But this is the best evidence we have that a company is investing in quality control and transparency and trying to do the right thing. And on top of that, I want you to be critical of vague claims that a product meets FDA limits. We now know that this can mean very different things depending on the standard being used. And so, the goal is to become your own risk manager by demanding verifiable proof of purity. Essentially, for me, this is the biggest issue I have all the time. People are like, oh, you're anti-supplement. I'm not anti-supplement at all. I just am so worried of there's literally the wild west. Like, you could just. Put a settlement out there and like it's there. And then you don't have to take it off until something bad happens, which is just crazy to me. And so I like kind of the marriage between the two, like kind of a compromise. Getting a product from someone that's been tested for a third party. At least it's the best we can do. It's pharmaceutical grade. People rag on pharmaceutical, but at least we know the strict testing they go through to make sure that. You know, what's in there is actually in there. And there's whole other things I've talked about, supplements that a lot of times they claim something's on there, and it's not actually in there. But getting this third party can be very, very helpful to understand that as well. And so. That was a kind of 30,000-foot view on this take. And so, do I freak out about this? No, not really. I think at the end of the day, it's not a huge part of my diet. So, it wasn't a huge thing for me. Like, oh my gosh, I need to change my life. But maybe it is for you. If that's the case, then, like we talked about, maybe diversify your sources, maybe moving from plant back to whey protein if you can, or just adjusting your diet. That's an option as well. And so you can live a long, healthy life without ever consuming a protein powder. For certain, so but that's going to be it for today. Thanks so much for stopping by. I really appreciate it. If you did enjoy this podcast, it would mean the world to me if you either shared this with a friend, left a five-star rating on your podcast platform of choice, or subscribed on YouTube. But that's going to be it. Now get up your phone, get outside, have a great rest of your day, and we'll see you next time. Disclaimer, this podcast is for entertainment, education, and informational purposes only. The topics discussed should not solely be used to diagnose, treat, or prevent any condition. The information presented here was created with an evidence-based approach, but please keep in mind that science is always changing, and at the time of listening to this, there may be some new data that makes this information incomplete or inaccurate. Always seek the advice of your personal physician or qualified healthcare provider for questions regarding any medical condition.
