3 ms·

Yeah, it's not definitive, but was nice to see it addressed at all. GPT mostly corroborates their basic claim at least, with the caveat that one of the five pro

by buu700 2y ago

Yeah, it's not definitive, but was nice to see it addressed at all. GPT mostly corroborates their basic claim at least, with the caveat that one of the five protein sources in use (algae) can be high-risk depending on where it was sourced from. I would of course much prefer if they published a certificate of analysis for each batch.

teaearlgraycold 2y ago
> GPT mostly corroborates their basic claim at least What exactly did you ask it?
- buu700 2y ago
  Q: Is it true that rice protein is more likely to be contaminated with heavy metals than other plant proteins? What about pea, artichoke, sprouted amaranth, quinoa, and algae? A: Yes, *rice protein* is more likely to be contaminated with heavy metals compared to some other plant proteins. This is due to *rice’s natural tendency to absorb heavy metals, particularly arsenic, cadmium, and lead, from soil and water*. Here’s a breakdown of why this occurs and how it compares to other plant proteins: ... ### Conclusion - *Rice protein* has a higher likelihood of heavy metal contamination, particularly arsenic, compared to other plant proteins like pea, artichoke, and quinoa. - *Algae proteins* can also be at higher risk but are safer if sourced from controlled environments. - Pea, artichoke, and sprouted grains (amaranth and quinoa) generally have lower contamination risks but depend on growing conditions. If heavy metal contamination is a concern, choose products from manufacturers that perform third-party testing and provide transparency about their heavy metal levels. Diversifying protein sources is also a practical way to reduce risk.
  - teaearlgraycold 2y ago
    I have also heard of rice being a risk for heavy metal consumption (especially brown rice). But I don’t trust GPT too much for anything I’m not an expert on. I’ve seen it be wrong often enough for things I know a lot about. Even things I would have expected to appear frequently in the training data.
    - buu700 2y ago
      Yeah, I pretty much see it like something in between Wikipedia and reddit. It's great as a first pass for really specific questions that Google wouldn't help much with, especially when they require follow-up, but I wouldn't treat any of the output as more reliable than random hearsay until verifying it against an authoritative source.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

by buu700 2y ago

teaearlgraycold 2y ago

> GPT mostly corroborates their basic claim at least What exactly did you ask it?

buu700 2y ago
Q: Is it true that rice protein is more likely to be contaminated with heavy metals than other plant proteins? What about pea, artichoke, sprouted amaranth, quinoa, and algae? A: Yes, *rice protein* is more likely to be contaminated with heavy metals compared to some other plant proteins. This is due to *rice’s natural tendency to absorb heavy metals, particularly arsenic, cadmium, and lead, from soil and water*. Here’s a breakdown of why this occurs and how it compares to other plant proteins: ... ### Conclusion - *Rice protein* has a higher likelihood of heavy metal contamination, particularly arsenic, compared to other plant proteins like pea, artichoke, and quinoa. - *Algae proteins* can also be at higher risk but are safer if sourced from controlled environments. - Pea, artichoke, and sprouted grains (amaranth and quinoa) generally have lower contamination risks but depend on growing conditions. If heavy metal contamination is a concern, choose products from manufacturers that perform third-party testing and provide transparency about their heavy metal levels. Diversifying protein sources is also a practical way to reduce risk.
- teaearlgraycold 2y ago
  I have also heard of rice being a risk for heavy metal consumption (especially brown rice). But I don’t trust GPT too much for anything I’m not an expert on. I’ve seen it be wrong often enough for things I know a lot about. Even things I would have expected to appear frequently in the training data.
  - buu700 2y ago
    Yeah, I pretty much see it like something in between Wikipedia and reddit. It's great as a first pass for really specific questions that Google wouldn't help much with, especially when they require follow-up, but I wouldn't treat any of the output as more reliable than random hearsay until verifying it against an authoritative source.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]