The US Presidential election is “on” in full force now…and both Barack Obama and John McCain are duking it out over who is the most “elitist” and out-of-touch with us reg’lar Murikans. The rationale is obvious: if you sling enough mud, some of it will stick.  The idea is to create a negative “vibe” that will influence how people vote on election day – despite the fact that it’s unrelated to the administrative capacity of either candidate.

Supplement ads sometimes use a similar tactic. Often a case “for” a particular supplement rests on a case “against” a competing product (or product type). And – needless to state – the case “against” nearly always consists of some carefully cherry picked “facts,” combined with the use of descriptive terms designed to evoke a negative emotional response.  Like I said, if you sling enough mud…

Paul sent me a perfect example of this today. It was part of the advertising for a pea/rice protein supplement, and the case “for” these proteins was made by slagging two popular alternatives: whey and soy.

So here’s the anti-whey protein spiel:

Whey protein also contains similar safety concerns. Whey is the unappetizing
watery liquid that is left after fat is removed from milk. It is composed of protein,
serum albumin, lactalbumin, dead white blood cells and hormonal residues, such
as estrogen, progesterone, and insulin growth factor 1. The NEJM reports that early
exposure to bovine protein may be a trigger to insulin dependent diabetes. The
International Journal of Cancer revealed “The IGF system is widely involved in human
carcinogenesis… and an increased risk of lung, colon, prostate, and pre-menopausal
breast cancer. A study published in the 1997 US Pharmacist stated that 75% of adults worldwide are lactose intolerant.

Oh my.  Sounds icky, doesn’t it?  I mean, look at all the scary words: “unappetizing,” “watery,” “dead,” “residues,” “diabetes,” “cancer.”

However, on closer inspection, it’s obvious that the authors of this spiel a) don’t know what the hell they’re talking about; and b) simply latched on to some ominous-sounding, but completely irrelevant “facts” to create a menacing-sounding, but utterly meaningless “case” against whey protein.

Let’s break this paragraph down, bit-by-bit, shall we?

1. Whey is the unappetizing watery liquid that is left after fat is removed from milk.  It is?  News to me.  I always thought that whey was what was left after the casein (protein) fraction was removed.  What you have left after you remove the fat from milk is…non-fat milk.

2. It is composed of protein, serum albumin, lactalbumin, dead white blood cells and hormonal residues, such as estrogen, progesterone, and insulin growth factor 1. Wow – lot’s to unpack here.  To begin with, bovine serum protein and lactalbumin are proteins…so to say “It is composed of protein, serum albumin, lactalbumin” is redundant (not to mention dumb).

Next, there are those “dead white blood cells.”  Well, it’s true that there are white blood cells in milk, although producers will reject milk with high “somatic cell counts” as this is responsible for off-flavors and decreased cheese yields.  In any event, they’re harmless, and simply part of the process of mass producing ANY food for sale.  There are, for example, residues of bug parts in flour/grain products, and traces of mycotoxins in peanut butter.  Food isn’t pristine – and never has been.

Finally, about those hormones. Steroid hormones are lipophilic – that is, they’re soluble in fat.  Other fat-containing animal protein sources (i.e., eggs and meat) contain them too.  On the other hand, most good whey protein isolates are virtually fat-free, and would be negligible sources of estrogen, progesterone etc. vs. other dietary sources.

3. The NEJM reports that early exposure to bovine protein may be a trigger to insulin dependent diabetes. This is probably a reference to a 1992 paper demonstrating that Type 1 diabetics had antibodies to bovine serum albmin, and hypothesizing that these could be responsible for triggering an autoimmune response.  It couldn’t possibly be a reference to this NEJM paper published the following year, that completely debunked this hypothesis. :-D

But even if it were true – what would a risk associated with ”early exposure” to bovine serum albumin (BSA) “prove” about the hazards of consuming small amounts of it as an adult?  Two words: exactly nothing.  I’ve consumed dairy products all of my life, and have been exposed to BSA for years.  Needless to state, I do not have Type 1 diabetes, nor any blood sugar/insulin-related abnormalities of any kind.

4. The International Journal of Cancer revealed “The IGF system is widely involved in human carcinogenesis… Yes, there is a relationship between IGF-1 and cancer.  But is this a problem with whey protein?  Hardly.  The consensus is that whey proteins and peptides inhibit cancer development.

5. A study published in the 1997 US Pharmacist stated that 75% of adults worldwide are lactose intolerant. Likewise, lactose intolerance exists, for sure.  But many lactose-intolerant people can nonetheless tolerate whey protein isolates, which contain only traces of lactose.

And so it goes…

So, should I run out and buy this supplement, on the basis of this “evidence?”  I don’t think so…it’s the kind of argument designed to short-circuit critical thought, rather than an honest analysis.  And in my humble opinion, if a manufacturer can’t make an honest case for a product, and has to rely on scare words and factoids, then it’s not worth buying.