Whey protein supplementation and its potentially adverse effects on health: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whey protein comprises soluble whey proteins and its benefits are well described in the literature. However, there are not many studies investigating the potential adverse effect of a diet with indiscriminate use of this supplement. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of papers that addressed this theme. A search was conducted in Medline, LILACS, TOXNET, Web of science, and Scopus electronic databases. In the end, 11 documents comprised this review. The majority of the papers associated the damaging effect with the chronic and abusive use of whey protein, with the kidneys and liver being the main organs affected. The other studies related whey protein to aggravation of aggression, presence of acne, and modification of the microbiota. Therefore, excessive consumption over a long period of protein supplementation may have some adverse effects on the body, which is aggravated when associated with sedentary lifestyle. PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42020140466. Novelty: A systematic review of experimental and randomized studies about the use of whey proteins supplements and its impact on physical health. Analysis revealed that chronic and without professional guidance use of whey protein supplementation may cause some adverse effects specially on kidney and liver function. Presented data support a need for future studies co-relating the use of different types of whey protein with and without exercise to better see the impact on human physical health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".