Re: Desirable Protein Intake

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Rodney,

I think that's the best source - some CRONies think they need more. It may be an individual thing, but the question becomes how to do we determine the right level for CRer's? I guess I found mine by accident more than anything else.

I don't have any trouble ADDING weight at 56 grams. So I think that may be a max for me CR wise.

But recognize that some individuals have very high protein req'ts.

In the MIT study, it reported lysine 27.3 +/- 17.6. That's like a range 10 to 45. Fitting a bell curve to these was discussed in the IOM, as I recall.

The reason I think 92 is high is because my experiment with whey took away the cold feeling. Replacing carbs with whey wastes energy so it loses me weight. Ergo, I have to eat more to maintain weight. I reason that as a CR negative.

The difference in the 56gms of lacto veggie protein versus 92 gram whey,milk,veggies is about 200 kcals. A remarkable number I think.

I just bought 36 pants. I'm gonna hold 176# for a while.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:59 AM

Subject: [ ] Desirable Protein Intake

I am going to rename this "Desirable Protein Intake" since that is what it is about. > Hi JW:> > RDAs for protein, males and females, any age over 19:> > weight -- protein> ------ - ----------> (lbs) -- (g) (kcal)> ------ - ---- ----> 200 ---> 74 - 296> 190 ---> 70 - 280> 180 ---> 66 - 264> 170 ---> 62 - 248> 160 ---> 58 - 232> 150 ---> 54 - 216> 140 ---> 51 - 204> 130 ---> 47 - 188> > Source: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309085373/html/465.html> > http://snipurl.com/7s5i> > Your favorite source, JW. (Plus the next ~40 pages, a pretty > exhaustive review of factors determining desirable protein intake).> > Rodney.> > > > CRON cannot be about wasting calories, because CR is about using > the least calories. I can't use that much protein. In fact, I think > I'm wasting calories at 92 grams (1800 kcals).> > Hafta balance the macronutrients for their individual purposes. The > least calories has to be somewhere that uses more carbs for energy -> energy is the largest nutrient requirement. I'm thinking 20% Protein, > 30% fat, 50% carbs.> > > > Regards.

[Guest guest]

I hardly view the RDA's based on a 2000 calorie American Boobus diet

at 60% carbohydrates having any applicability to CRON. In CR

animals, protein turnover is more rapid and not all proteins are

reclaimed. There is an interplay among these factors:

Desire Less Body Weight = Eat Less Protein

Desire Less Body Fat = Eat More Protein

Desire Less Calories = Eat More Protein

And vice versa.

For a male to be 175 lbs -- which is the suggested fitness weight for

a large framed man at 6'0 " or a medium framed man at 6'2 " or a small

framed man at 6'4 " -- at 15% body fat (the average for males) and

eating 1800 calories, that's 173 grams of protein (39%), 145 grams of

carbohydrates (25%) and 72 grams of fat (36%).

The formula and rational is at:

crsociety/message/4224

Logan

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> >

> RDAs for protein, males and females, any age over 19:

> >

> > weight -- protein

> > ------ - ----------

> > (lbs) -- (g) (kcal)

> > ------ - ---- ----

> > 200 ---> 74 - 296

> > 190 ---> 70 - 280

> > 180 ---> 66 - 264

> > 170 ---> 62 - 248

> > 160 ---> 58 - 232

> > 150 ---> 54 - 216

> > 140 ---> 51 - 204

> > 130 ---> 47 - 188

[Guest guest]

Hi Logan:

Many thanks for that input and reference. Although helpful, it is

almost four years old (post dating from 2000 and references within

the post dating to 1994). Lots has happened in this field since

then.

But I acknowledge that, at the very least, the protein intake numbers

in the table I posted earlier should be adjusted to lean body mass.

Thanks.

This stuff goes to show that we need more studies in humans, or good

human analogues, that take 40% restriction as the control group and

compare all kinds of stuff against that benchmark. Such as meal

frequency; macronutrient ratios; carbohydrate types; fat types; 5%

increments in restriction between 70% and 35%;

whatever ............. . And that the end points NOT be CHD, the

risk of which SEEMS to be pretty much eliminated by CR. But I repeat

myself.

One incongruity, though, is that and Warren have reported

here a number of times that MR has repeatedly posted stuff various

other places (recently?) that says " IT'S CALORIES, CALORIES,

CALORIES " .

I don't know what the truth is. Does anyone? But the latter

certainly seems to contradict most of the contents of that 2000 post.

Rodney.

> I hardly view the RDA's based on a 2000 calorie American Boobus

diet

> at 60% carbohydrates having any applicability to CRON. In CR

> animals, protein turnover is more rapid and not all proteins are

> reclaimed. There is an interplay among these factors:

>

> Desire Less Body Weight = Eat Less Protein

> Desire Less Body Fat = Eat More Protein

> Desire Less Calories = Eat More Protein

>

> And vice versa.

>

> For a male to be 175 lbs -- which is the suggested fitness weight

for

> a large framed man at 6'0 " or a medium framed man at 6'2 " or a

small

> framed man at 6'4 " -- at 15% body fat (the average for males) and

> eating 1800 calories, that's 173 grams of protein (39%), 145 grams

of

> carbohydrates (25%) and 72 grams of fat (36%).

>

> The formula and rational is at:

>

> crsociety/message/4224

>

> Logan

>

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

>

> > RDAs for protein, males and females, any age over 19:

> > >

> > > weight -- protein

> > > ------ - ----------

> > > (lbs) -- (g) (kcal)

> > > ------ - ---- ----

> > > 200 ---> 74 - 296

> > > 190 ---> 70 - 280

> > > 180 ---> 66 - 264

> > > 170 ---> 62 - 248

> > > 160 ---> 58 - 232

> > > 150 ---> 54 - 216

> > > 140 ---> 51 - 204

> > > 130 ---> 47 - 188

[Guest guest]

If this person is actually eating 1750 calories and only weighs 125

lbs, it would suggest to me his carbohydrate intake percentage is

woefully inadequate to minimize catabolism and thus his body fat

percentage is approaching (if not at) bodybuilder levels (5%-9%) but

without the corresponding muscle mass. For this amount of calories

and body weight, Rae's formula suggests only 98 grams to 121 grams of

protein, but 189 to 212 grams of carbohydrates (depending on body fat

percentage). That is hardly an excessive amount of protein to be

assured of maximizing protein synthesis, but if someone can eat that

much carbohydrates and still weigh only 125lbs over time, they've got

a serious case of insulin resistance or a wasting disease!

As for a test, I would suppose body temperature upon waking could

help pinpoint the margin? That is, of course, presuming " excess "

protein and a subsequent normal body temperature in a state of CR is

a net negative as opposed to carbohydrates producing excess insulin

and serum glucose levels turning off CR gene expression. I'm not

particularly impressed by the " toxic metabolism byproducts " theory of

aging, otherwise antioxidants would have been found to been

correlated with extending maximum lifespan rather than gene

expression. Antioxidants belong to the ON in CRON, not CR.

Like Rodney, I do wish there were more CR studies specifically

controlling for all the possible variables, especially macronutrient

ratios and macronutrient types. But I think there is enough evidence

now from paleoanthropology, diabetics and sports nutrition to give

more credence to Rae's formula over the RDA. The absolute amount of

protein may be much more important than the percentage as it will

necessarily become a smaller percentage when the amount of

carbohydrates/fat is increased. But theoretically, not everyone can

maintain their lean muscle mass on just 130 grams of carbohydrates a

day due to varying levels of physical activity, insulin resistance,

biochemistry, et al.. If protein needs to be fixed, and

carbohydrates need to be at least a minimum for the brain to function

(and not waste the protein being converted into glucose), then only

fat is left to be tweaked... and then, like Jeff says, there's no

need to specifically add fat to the diet beyond EFA's.

Logan

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

> I burn 1800 kcals at 175#, when Sherman burns almost as much (1750)

at 125#, because he's less efficient burning protein for energy.

>

> Can you think of a test that you could use on yourself to determine

if you're wasting calories using excess Protein?

[Guest guest]

Hi :

I doubt there is any food about which there is more extreme

disagreement, about health merits, than soy products. One view is

that they are a miracle food. Others say they are dangerous. I do

not know which is correct.

However, I DO know that there is a positive correlation between high

blood levels of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) (or high intake of ALA)

and prostate cancer (a VERY common cancer). So in my opinion males

would be well advised to avoid ALA as far as possible. Soybean oil

contains considerable quantities of ALA ............

BUT soy ***protein*** does not contain ALA. So if there truly are

benefits to soybeans perhaps they are from the protein component?

I go out of my way to avoid soybeans, tofu, soybean oil, etc., but I

am happy to eat soy protein if it is served to me. fwiw.

Rodney.

> Hey Jeff: and what about the sea level of your location.

>

> Some questions to all.

> 1) is there any touble with power aislates soy protein?

> 2) if a statement is your quality deposited fat is in relationship

on your meals and fat is a major endocrine system what about of the

pattern of segregates hormones based on differents fat deposites, is

there any paper on that?

> thanks in advance for the answers.

> Regards .

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Jeff Novick

>

> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 8:18 AM

> Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Desirable Protein Intake

>

>

> >>Visualize a 10 dimensional equation, the curve squirreling

around as a function of protein, fat , carbo availability, protein,

fat requirements, energy requirements, hormonal influences,

temperature of the environment, blood pressure, organ degradation,

excess obesity load.

>

> I did and got dizzy.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Do the math and look at the science, Rodney. Chances of dying are

greater with heart disease.

And this was shown with better prospective and clinical trial

experiments, versus epidemiology studies.

J Nutr. 2004 Apr;134(4):919-22.

Dietary alpha-linolenic acid is associated with reduced risk of fatal

coronary

heart disease, but increased prostate cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

Brouwer IA, Katan MB, Zock PL.

Wageningen Centre for Food Sciences, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

ingeborg.brouwer@...

The objective of this meta-analysis was to estimate quantitatively the

associations between intake of alpha-linolenic acid [ALA, the (n-3)

fatty acid

in vegetable oils], mortality from heart disease, and the occurrence

of prostate

cancer in observational studies. We identified 5 prospective cohort

studies that

reported intake of ALA and mortality from heart disease. We also

reviewed data

from 3 clinical trials on ALA intake and heart disease. In addition,

we

identified 9 cohort and case-control studies that reported on the

association

between ALA intake or blood levels and incidence or prevalence of

prostate

cancer. We combined risk estimates across studies using a random-

effects model.

High ALA intake was associated with reduced risk of fatal heart

disease in

prospective cohort studies (combined relative risk 0.79, 95% CI 0.60-

1.04).

Three open-label trials also indicated that ALA may protect against

heart

disease. However, epidemiologic studies also showed an increased risk

of

prostate cancer in men with a high intake or blood level of ALA

(combined

relative risk 1.70; 95% CI 1.12-2.58). This meta-analysis shows that

consumption

of ALA might reduce heart disease mortality. However, the association

between

high intake of ALA and prostate cancer is of concern and warrants

further study.

Publication Types:

Meta-Analysis

PMID: 15051847 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Cheers, Al Pater.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> Hi :

>

> I doubt there is any food about which there is more extreme

> disagreement, about health merits, than soy products. One view is

> that they are a miracle food. Others say they are dangerous. I do

> not know which is correct.

>

> However, I DO know that there is a positive correlation between

high

> blood levels of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) (or high intake of ALA)

> and prostate cancer (a VERY common cancer). So in my opinion males

> would be well advised to avoid ALA as far as possible. Soybean oil

> contains considerable quantities of ALA ............

>

> BUT soy ***protein*** does not contain ALA. So if there truly are

> benefits to soybeans perhaps they are from the protein component?

>

> I go out of my way to avoid soybeans, tofu, soybean oil, etc., but

I

> am happy to eat soy protein if it is served to me. fwiw.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi Al:

It is just ASTONISHING what you can find in the literature, Al!!!

Thank you.

A couple of issues, though. First, is it the ALA that has the effect

of reducing heart disease? Or is it the EPA and DHA, that are

derived from the ALA (and which have not, yet at least, been linked

to prostate cancer?). As you know we can get the EPA and DHA

directly.

Second, while for the general population heart disease is probably

five times as common as prostate cancer, which should male

***CRers*** be more concerned about? Given the WUSTL study heart

disease risk factor data for CRers, my GUESS is we should be at least

as concerned about the prostate cancer. But I am open minded to

hearing the other side of the argument.

Rodney.

> > Hi :

> >

> > I doubt there is any food about which there is more extreme

> > disagreement, about health merits, than soy products. One view

is

> > that they are a miracle food. Others say they are dangerous. I

do

> > not know which is correct.

> >

> > However, I DO know that there is a positive correlation between

> high

> > blood levels of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) (or high intake of

ALA)

> > and prostate cancer (a VERY common cancer). So in my opinion

males

> > would be well advised to avoid ALA as far as possible. Soybean

oil

> > contains considerable quantities of ALA ............

> >

> > BUT soy ***protein*** does not contain ALA. So if there truly

are

> > benefits to soybeans perhaps they are from the protein component?

> >

> > I go out of my way to avoid soybeans, tofu, soybean oil, etc.,

but

> I

> > am happy to eat soy protein if it is served to me. fwiw.

> >

> > Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

But, see PMID: 14600090 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] and other

papers saying CR protects strongly from prostate cancer, and CRONers

eat loads of tomato products also.

Cheers, Al.

> >

> > J Nutr. 2004 Apr;134(4):919-22.

> >

> > Dietary alpha-linolenic acid is associated with reduced risk of

> fatal

> > coronary

> > heart disease, but increased prostate cancer risk: a meta-

analysis.

> >

> > Brouwer IA, Katan MB, Zock PL.

> > > >

> > PMID: 15051847 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Well, what about CRers for their PSA levels. FOr example, mine is 0.

See:

Median PSA was ...0.99 ng/ml and... 1.09 ng/ml) and ....Using a

cutoff of PSA greater than 4.0 ng/ml 55 of the 288 patients (19%)

with PSA greater than 2.5 ng/ml on the 2 platforms would have been

candidates for prostate biopsy ....

PMID: 15126793 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Cheers, Al Pater.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> CONCLUSIONS: Consumption of tomato powder but not lycopene

inhibited prostate carcinogenesis, suggesting that tomato products

contain compounds in addition to lycopene that modify prostate

carcinogenesis. Diet restriction also reduced the risk of prostate

cancer. Tomato phytochemicals and diet restriction may act by

independent mechanisms.

> PMID: 14600090

>

> Except that rats don't get PCa naturally. A little more protection

would be nice.

> Do we know if ALA excites PCa? Current knowledge it is bad for

advanced PCa.

> Or maybe Fish oil protects against PCa?

>

> Diet restriction possibly works by lowering nutrition to cancer,

but that doesn't cause apoptosis.

[Guest guest]

--- In , " old542000 " <apater@m...>

wrote:

Oops:

For example, mine is 0.3.

[Guest guest]

Maybe you have to take up smoking to get this result?!

From that data mining of the The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene

Cancer Prevention Finnish study.

In conclusion, we found no overall association between serum or

dietary alpha-linolenic acid or any other unsaturated fatty acid and

prostate cancer risk…

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=14693732

http://snipurl.com/7u0t

Fatty acids and risk of prostate cancer in a nested case-control

study in male smokers.

Mannisto S, Pietinen P, Virtanen MJ, Salminen I, Albanes D,

Giovannucci E, Virtamo J.

Department of Epidemiology and Health Promotion, National Public

Health Institute, Helsinki, Finland. satu.mannisto@...

There is some evidence that alpha-linolenic acid might be positively

related to prostate cancer risk. Associations between serum fatty

acid composition as well as fatty acid intakes and prostate cancer

risk were examined in the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer

Prevention Study. The cohort included 29,133 male smokers aged 50-69

years. During 5-8 years of follow-up, 246 prostate cancer cases were

diagnosed. One control was selected and matched by age (+/- 1 month)

for each case from the cohort subjects alive and free of prostate

cancer at the time the case was diagnosed. This study included 198

case-control pairs with baseline serum sample available for both.

Fatty acids of serum cholesterol esters were measured as a

percentage of total fatty acids, using capillary gas chromatography.

Intakes of fatty acids were assessed from a validated self-

administered dietary questionnaire. Serum and dietary fatty acids

had no consistent association with prostate cancer risk. Serum alpha-

linolenic acid was not related to prostate cancer risk. Twofold risk

was found in the highest quartile of serum myristic acid compared

with the lowest quartile (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval,

1.02-3.64). alpha-Tocopherol supplementation modified the

association between serum linoleic acid and prostate cancer risk (P

for interaction 0.03); odds ratio was 0.17 (95% confidence interval,

0.04-0.68) in the highest quartile of serum linoleic acid compared

with the lowest quartile in men who received alpha-tocopherol,

whereas no association was found in men who did not receive alpha-

tocopherol. In conclusion, we found no overall association between

serum or dietary alpha-linolenic acid or any other unsaturated fatty

acid and prostate cancer risk, but high serum linoleic acid was

associated with lower risk in men supplemented with alpha-

tocopherol. High serum myristic acid associated with an increased

risk of prostate cancer.

PMID: 14693732 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

From the same study:

Conclusion:

There was no association between intakes of saturated or cis-

monounsaturated fatty acids, linoleic or linolenic acid, or dietary

cholesterol and the risk of coronary deaths. All the associations

were similar but somewhat weaker for all major coronary events.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=9149659

http://snipurl.com/7u0n

Intake of fatty acids and risk of coronary heart disease in a cohort

of Finnish men. The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer

Prevention Study.

Pietinen P, Ascherio A, Korhonen P, Hartman AM, Willett WC, Albanes

D, Virtamo J.

Department of Nutrition, National Public Health Institute, Helsinki,

Finland.

The relation of intakes of specific fatty acids and the risk of

coronary heart disease was examined in a cohort of 21,930 smoking

men aged 50-69 years who were initially free of diagnosed

cardiovascular disease. All men participated in the Finnish Alpha-

Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study and completed a

detailed and validated dietary questionnaire at baseline. After 6.1

years of follow-up from 1985-1988, the authors documented 1,399

major coronary events and 635 coronary deaths. After controlling for

age, supplement group, several coronary risk factors, total energy,

and fiber intake, the authors observed a significant positive

association between the intake of trans-fatty acids and the risk of

coronary death. For men in the top quintile of trans-fatty acid

intake (median = 6.2 g/day), the multivariate relative risk of

coronary death was 1.39 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.78) (p

for trend = 0.004) as compared with men in the lowest quintile of

intake (median = 1.3 g/day). The intake of omega-3 fatty acids from

fish was also directly related to the risk of coronary death in the

multivariate model adjusting also for trans-saturated and cis-

monounsaturated fatty acids (relative risk (RR) = 1.30, 95% CI 1.01-

1.67) (p for trend = 0.06 for men in the highest quintile of intake

compared with the lowest). There was no association between intakes

of saturated or cis-monounsaturated fatty acids, linoleic or

linolenic acid, or dietary cholesterol and the risk of coronary

deaths. All the associations were similar but somewhat weaker for

all major coronary events.

PMID: 9149659 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

--- In , " old542000 " <apater@m...>

wrote:

> Dietary alpha-linolenic acid is associated with reduced risk of

fatal coronary heart disease, but increased prostate cancer risk: a

meta-analysis.

>

This meta-analysis shows that consumption of ALA might reduce heart

disease mortality. However, the association between high intake of

ALA and prostate cancer is of concern and warrants further study.

[Guest guest]

I haven't seen any concrete evidence the ALA in soy is the primary

problem contributing to prostate cancer. It is the anti-nutrients,

particularly the phytoestrogens. Estrogen is most highly correlated

with prostate cancer. Non-CR aging men have higher estrogen levels

than even women do. CR reduces all hormone levels, including

estrogen.

Men should not be eating soy of any kind, period. From personal

experience eating soy protein isolate for protein, it definitely

suppresses available free testosterone or testosterone production

quite severely.

As for babies and children, well... if you wouldn't give them five

adult equivalent birth control pills a day, don't feed them soy!

[Food Standards Agency, Phytoestrogens and Health; May 2003]

The allegedly beneficial anti-nutrients would probably be better off

ingested as isolates than as part of the legume. Who knows what

other anti-nutrients still remain to be identified?

Logan

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> >

However, I DO know that there is a positive correlation between high

> blood levels of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) (or high intake of ALA)

> and prostate cancer (a VERY common cancer). So in my opinion males

> would be well advised to avoid ALA as far as possible. Soybean oil

> contains considerable quantities of ALA ............

>

> BUT soy ***protein*** does not contain ALA. So if there truly are

> benefits to soybeans perhaps they are from the protein component?

[Guest guest]

>>>

From: " beneathremains " <beneathremains@y...>

Date: Sun Jul 18, 2004 1:23 pm

Subject: Re: Desirable Protein Intake

[snip]

Men should not be eating soy of any kind, period. From personal

experience eating soy protein isolate for protein, it definitely

suppresses available free testosterone or testosterone production

quite severely.

[snip]

>>>

I found this comment intriguing. I have been consuming about 14 grams

of soy protein powder per day for the past year with no apparent

adverse effects. I generally do not consume any other soy products

such as tofu or soy milk. What quantities of soy protein were you

taking, and how did you determine that it suppressed your testosterone

level?

Tony

[Guest guest]

I sincerely doubt 14 grams of soy protein a day will provide any

noticeable, immediate effect. I was consuming 75 grams to 100 grams

a day as a meat substitute for a month or two.

Completely killing my libido was the most obvious effect after a week

or so. In fact, I feel I have never recovered from that much phyto-

estrogen intake. The last hormone panel test several months ago

showed my free testosterone and DHEA-S in the low area of the lower

1/3rd of the lab's reference range. Of course, I cannot distinguish

my lowered hormones from that of CRON as I was CRON long before I ate

the soy protein, but I certainly can tell on a qualitative basis when

the severe drop started.

I consider there to be enough negative research on soy in Medline to

warrant extreme caution, especially for men. Several herbs with

hormonal precursors have been successfully used to balance out female

hormonal imbalances, including herbs containing phytoestrogens (Red

Clover comes to mind). Men do not need elevated estrogen levels,

that's for sure!

Logan

> I found this comment intriguing. I have been consuming about 14

grams

> of soy protein powder per day for the past year with no apparent

> adverse effects. I generally do not consume any other soy products

> such as tofu or soy milk. What quantities of soy protein were you

> taking, and how did you determine that it suppressed your

testosterone