Re: Limiting Amino Acids

[Guest guest]

>>>

From: " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:36 pm

Subject: RE: [ ] " limiting Amino Acids? "

>>>

Jeff,

The section of your note about Rose's work comes verbatim from

McDougall's newsletter.

http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/020700pubattlebrewing.htm

The concept of " limiting amino acids " is firmly established through

nitrogen balance experiments. These are experiments where you measure

the amount of nitrogen (representative of the amino acids) in the food

and in the excretions. The experiments even take into consideration

the effect of bacteria which may synthesize amino acids in the

intestines. The IOM Report: " Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy,

Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino

Acids (Macronutrients) (2002) " has 144 pages dealing with the

determination of protein requirements, and it is well researched.

Just take a look at the number of references considered:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309085373/html/574.html

The references even include work by Hegstead which is newer than the

one used by McDougall as refererence 4 in your quote.

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309085373/html/585.html

McDougall's objective is to promote vegetarian diets as he states in

the paragraph following the one that you quoted:

" The reason it is important to correct this misinformation is because

many people are afraid to follow healthful pure vegetarian diets –

they worry about " incomplete proteins " from plant sources. A

vegetarian diet based around any single one, or combination, of these

unprocessed starches (rice, corn, potatoes, beans, etc.) with the

addition of vegetables and fruits supplies all the protein, amino

acids, essential fats, minerals, and vitamins (with the exception of

vitamin B12) necessary for excellent health. To wrongly suggest

people need to eat animal protein for nutrients will encourage them to

add foods that are known to contribute to the cause of heart disease,

diabetes, obesity, and many forms of cancer, to name just a few common

problems.5 "

As I said in Message 15558, to get 75g of protein, which is in the

range of what Walford recommends in B120YD p. 232, one needs to eat

about 8.8 lb of potatoes containing 3,530 calories. That is a

relatively big sack of potatoes which I don't think that I would be

able to eat in one day, much less every day. In my opinion, McDougall

is wrong when he says that you can build a " vegetarian diet based

around any single " vegetable such as potatoes. Of course, he hedges

by adding vegetables, fruits, etc. Which means that he cannot suggest

a diet consisting of ONE single vegetable.

Protein hormones consist of precise sequences of specific amino acids.

Insulin, for example, contains exactly 51 amino acids, six of which

are cysteine. Can the body build a molecule of insulin without 6

molecules of cysteine? Of course not. This is the principle of the

" limiting amino acids " .

The principle applies to any object built of specific subunits. If

you are assembling cars and you have all the parts needed for building

12 cars, except that you only have one transmission, how many cars can

you build? Only one. The transmission is the part that limits your

production.

All the arguments and literature references in the world cannot

invalidate the principle of " limiting amino acids " as long as there

exist " essential " amino acids that have to be ingested and cannot be

built from other amino acids.

Tony

[Guest guest]

Tony

Dr McDougall Is a friend of mine and yes, the first paragraph comes from him,

not me, with his permission. Sorry if I didnt note that as I should have. I am

not at my desk but at a computer in the desert, and just copied that paragraph

from a article I had on file where he is quoted.. No disrepect to him, this

list or me. Yes, he is trying to promote veganism, which I am not, but the

info is still relevant.

I am famaliar with the reports you cited but remember we have to look at the

references themselves. As we saw recently, the USDA 2005 Guidelines made a

statement in them that the Pritikin diet was defecient in EFAs and Vit E and

gave 2 references for it. Yet, in reading those references, one was not about

the Pritikin diet, but about a typical US diet based on refined grains, white

sugar and was not a healthy diet. And yes, it was low in many nutrients, not

just the 2 mentioned. The other references actually said the exact opposite and

concluded that analysis of the pritikin diet showed it was nutritionally

adequate. So, I would be more interested in seeing the references for the

studies that show what you are saying that a secondary document so we can

discuss them directly. There are nitrogen balance studies in humans for

extended periods on restricted diets that do support what I am saying and as I

said, I will post them

No one is promoting a diet based on one single vegetable and that is not the

point of the discussion. The point is that is any one vegetable if eaten in

suficient quantity to supply enough calories would supply enough EAAs, than the

concept of imcomplete proteins and limitng AAs is not valid. The issue isnt

whether or not you could eat that or would eat, though in terms of CR-ON and its

" cons " , its an interesting point. After all, if hunger is a problem for many

CR-ONers, than consuming foods that allow you to eat large amounts of them w

ithout taking in to many calories, would be part of the solution. Not the whole

solution, as in just eating potatoes or corn, but part of it.

Lets look at it another way, for the sake of argument...

Have you ever considered where the concept of an " ideal protein " like the egg

came from? That the whole concept is in itself false. Why wo uld a food,

like the egg, be considered the standard for protein, when overall it is a poor

food choice. One single egg has more cholesterol than some recommend and loaded

with fat and SFA. It is void of fiber. To get in enough calories from eggs

(of course, as ridiculous a thought as with potatoes) would mean we would have

to consume an incredible amount of fat, SFA, and cholesterol. So, how did such

a poor food become the standard of protein? Wouldnt an ideal protein or

reference protein, also need to be at least a ideal or reference food? Part

of the problem in nutrition is that we often focus on single nutrients, such as

protein or fat, which does more harm than good. As I have commented many times,

not only do i think the focus on a percent of single fat is wrongs, so is the

focus on a ideal protein or references protein wrong.

We have a need for a certain amount of carb a day, to keep the brain

functioning, yet we have no standard carb, and we know if needed, we can convert

both fat to ketones for the brain to use instead of carb and also convert

protein to carb to supply the need if needed We have a need for fiber, and

several kinds, but we have no ideal fiber food or reference fiber food. And we

do have a need for " essential " fats that we must ingest as in EAAs, yet we have

no ideal or reference fat? Not salmon, not flax, not walnuts or any other food.

There is no even thought along those lines, so why so for protein? And why a

food that overall is a poor food choice. Amd while there is serious concern

about EFA defeciency and ratios these days, there is no reference or ideal EFA

food. Yet, iIn light of all this discussion, do you or anyone else know of

anyone in the US who is suffering from (or dying from ) a protein or an EAA

deficeincy or any disease resulting from such said deficiency?

Some of this may have to do with the huge influence the beef and dairy and egg

industry has had on our thinking and education in terms of nutrition. It was

either during the 1995 or 2000 USDA guidelines that they were delayed one year

due to a multi million dollar law suite from the beef and egg industry. They

thought the picture of the egg and the piece of meat in the pyramid were too

small and were suing to have them made bigger. This is insanity not nutrition

education. And no, I dont beleive in conspiracy theories

>>Can the body build a molecule of insulin without 6 molecules of cysteine? Of

course not. This is the principle of the

" limiting amino acids " . "

While I agree with your statements about the structure of Insulin and also the

analogy of building a car. And I was actually going to use them to make my

point. They are correct but are looking at the situation from a " limited " view.

We are forgetting that the body has a circulating storage of amino acids. Yes,

the 51 amino acids and the 6 cysteine need to be present in the exact amounts at

the same time, or we cant make insulin. But how does that in any way mean that

they must be inplace on my dinner plate at the same time in the right amounts?

To think so ignores the whole process of digestion, and metabolism and is what

gave way to the limited limiting AA theory. We have a circulating Amino Acid

Pool in the blood, (which I will post references for) that has a supply of all

the amino acids. (How do fasting patients survive 14-60 days without ingesting

any protein? and still make insulin and all other body proteins?) They come from

food that has been digested recently or in the near past, and also from ongoing

metabolism of cells, speficially from the break down of other cells and tissues.

(The body actually meets most of its protein needs from the breakdown of its own

tissues and the RDA is for external protein)) So, when it is time to make the

molecule of insulin, the body pulls what it needs from where it can get it.

Just because you may have eaten an egg 4 hours earlier, doesnt mean that those

exact amino acids in those exact amounts that were in the egg will be there

waiting to make the insulin. In fact, from what the theory says, the egg

better have the EAA in the exact amounts needed to make insulin. Thats why

most car shops keep an on hand inventory of all parts (and usually keep some

extra around) in the amounts that " may " need so they can fill the orders that

come in. I wouldnt want to run a car shop that ordered in only what it thought

it would need in only the amounts it thought it would need them on the day it

thought it needed them. When I used to be in charge of inventory for a business

we created " pars' and I made sure we also were stocked to cover not only usual

demand, but a build in buffer in case we needed more and kept these levels in

advance of what we may produce. Fortunately, the body works the same way not

only for protein but for many nutrients/needs.

>>All the arguments and literature references in the world cannot invalidate the

principle of " limiting amino acids " as long as there exist " essential " amino

acids that have to be ingested and cannot be built from other amino acids.

This is now begin to sound more like a " belief " than a scientific principle.

Scientific principles are supported by provable facts.

I would argue the exact opposite and show how it is true (as in fasting). There

are eseential amino acids, no doubt. And we know some of them can help fulfill

the needs of others as I posted. It doesnt make them less essential.

The original point was that plants were not incomplete proteins. That, I think

has been made clearly. Then next point raised was the issue of limiting amino

acids which we are discussing. The point of portein complementing, combining

certain foods with certain other foods to create an ideal amino acid profile,

was long ago disproven due to the amino acid pool (which I will post). Even the

conservative ADA retracted its endrosements of the protein complementing theory

based on this amino acid pool data. However, we have to realize that if the

amino acid pool data not only refutes the theory of protein complementing, it

also refutes the theory of limiting amino acids, as what matters most is not

what is consumed at a particular meal but what is consumed over time and

available for the bodys use.

The 75 grams of protein recommended includes a safety buffer of 50% that is

described in the literature and reports of the NAS and WHO. The USDA RDA still

stands at .8 grams/kg Ideal Body Weight. BTW, not if someone is overweight,

the excess weight does not have to be fed protein. The supporting documentation

states that .5 " can be " sufficient but they add in the 50% buffer to bring it to

..75 and then round up to .8. At 125 lba (usually) that come to around 45

for me and has a buffer built into it.

More to come,

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>>

Have you ever considered where the concept of an " ideal protein " like

the egg came from? That the whole concept is in itself false. Why

would a food, like the egg, be considered the standard for protein,

when overall it is a poor food choice. One single egg has more

cholesterol than some recommend and loaded with fat and SFA. It is

void of fiber.

>>>

The question is not whether eggs are a good food or not. When

considering protein metabolism, cholesterol, fat, and fiber are

IRRELEVANT because they are not in the same metabolic class.

Cholesterol, fat, and fiber don't even contain nitrogen whereas all

amino acids do. I suppose that the concept of " ideal " arose from the

fact that you needed the least egg protein to satisfy the nitrogen

balance for humans compared to other proteins. The following page

mentions that more soy protein may be needed to achieve nitrogen

balance compared to egg-white protein. They don't seem to use the

yolks which have the cholesterol and fat:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309085373/html/534.html

>>>

>All the arguments and literature references in the world cannot

>invalidate the principle of " limiting amino acids " as long as there

>exist " essential " amino acids that have to be ingested and cannot be

>built from other amino acids.

This is now begin to sound more like a " belief " than a scientific

principle. Scientific principles are supported by provable facts.

>>>

What I meant here is that because there are " essential " amino acids,

the food that we eat has to have them in the proportions that we need

(demanded by our genetic make-up) for our normal development or

maintenance.

The example where we have enough parts to make 12 cars, except that

there is only one transmission, makes the concept of limiting factors

very explicit. You can only build one car. But suppose that we said

that the transmission is " non-essential " because we can re-assemble

two motors to create one transmission. In this case, we can make a

total of four cars. Three of them contain transmissions made from two

motors, and one has the originally available transmission. We also

have left over 6 cars with no motor or transmission, and two with no

transmission. Originally, we could only build one car, but by being

able to convert motors into transmissions, we can build four cars.

Again we have reached a limit, and the limiting factor is the number

of " essential " motors that we could cannibalize.

Cysteine is non-essential because it can be made from methionine, but

it is not a one-for-one conversion. There is some waste in converting

essential amino acids to non-essential amino acids. All protein

synthesis is guided by our genetic code. The DNA gets mapped to

m-RNA, and the m-RNA is used to create the peptides and proteins that

we need. This is the " demand " side of the equation. The " supply "

side is what we feed our body. If our food is deficient in lysine,

which is an essential amino acid, the body cannot produce insulin

(which requires only one lysine) and many other peptides which require

lysine. Probably some insulin and other peptides will be produced,

but not in the amounts needed to meet the demand. We would be able to

judge our protein nutritional requirements better if somehow we could

take a snapshots of our m-RNA to determine which amino acids are

needed.

I see the principle of " limiting amino acids " not as a belief, but as

a mathematical concept which is inherent in any process that involves

constructing objects from specific subunits. As long as the laws of

conservation of matter apply, you are never going to get 12 working

cars without an additional EXTERNAL supply of motors or

transmissions. Similarly, your body will not be able to produce the

peptides and proteins that it needs if your diet has protein

deficiencies or incorrect balance of amino acids.

Tony

[Guest guest]

TonyThe problem with the analogy of the car and the transmission is that as described, it doesn’t apply to what is actually going on in the body. In theory, it sounds logical, and as you presented the analogy, it makes sense, but it makes certain assumptions that don’t apply to actual physiology. It creates an analogy of a situation in the body representing the situation as being “static”, yet the situation in the body is really highly “dynamic”.It assumes that there is this need for a certain amount of EAAs at a certain “time” to build a certain protein and that if certain EAAs aren’t there at that exact “time” you cant build it. While this is true as presented and I agree with its basic principle, the analogy of wanting to build 12 cars and have only 2 transmissions just doesn’t reflect what’s going on in the body. To get to a point where the body would need to build some protein and not have enough EAAs present to build that protein currently doesn’t exist for most all people and would take an extreme condition to create it and maintain it.As I mentioned in one of my first posts on this topic, true protein deficiency is just such a rare condition as is EAA deficiency. In fact, in 20 years, I have never seen any case of it. Even in vegans. We would need to create an extreme condition to create this deficiency, and I described three potentials where it could exist: 1) not getting in enough calories (and for CR-ON, I would say not getting in enough Nutrient Dense Calories). 2) Eating a diet made up of exclusively or only fruit, 3) eating a diet that contains lots of refined and processed foods. And any one of these would have to be continued over time to create the deficiency.Outside of those 3 exceptions, the situation you described just doesn’t exist. Sure it potentially could exist, but it doesn’t, even in vegans. The reason is 2-fold. 1) most Americans (including vegans) eat protein and EAA’s in amounts way above physiological need everyday (150% -200%) and 2) there is a circulating amino acid pool, which is the most important point. The EAAs from digested protein do not go directly to make up some protein that is just awaiting these missing EAA to show up (as in your analogy). While we don’t have a storage system for protein and AAs as we do glucose and fat, amino acids will circulate in the blood for anywhere from 4-6, to 12 hours (which has been documented) or even 24 hours or more. During that time, the body would be able to draw upon them if and when they are needed, before they are just eliminated. So, as in the analogy that I used, which is closer to the truth, when you want to build the 12 cars, while you may only have 2 transmissions right in front of you there (which would exist only in an extreme and rare situation), you would have plenty of others circulating around ready to be used that are in inventory (the amino acid pool), and you would also have a constant supply of new ones coming in to keep the inventory up to a certain maintenance level. From the American Dietetic Association Position Paper on Vegetarian Diets (a conservative group who promoted the protein complementing theory at one time)J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:748-765.ProteinPlant protein can meet requirements when a variety of plant foods is consumed and energy needs are met. Research indicates that an assortment of plant foods eaten over the course of a day can provide all essential amino acids and ensure adequate nitrogen retention and use in healthy adults, thus complementary proteins do not need to be consumed at the same mealFrom the American Journal Of Clinical Nutrition.Plant Proteins in relation to human protein and amino acid nutrition. Vernon R Young & L Pellet. Amer J Clin Nutr 1994;59(s):1230s-1212s“… One reason for discussing amino acid complementation is to introduce the question of ingestion of complimentary proteins. There is some concern, at least at the consumer level, about the need to ingest different plant proteins at the same time, or within the same meal, to achieve maximum benefit and nutritional value from proteins with different, but complementary, amino acid patterns. This concern may also extend to the question of the need to ingest a significant amount of protein at each meal, or whether it is sufficient to consume protein in variable amounts at different meals as long as the daily average intake meets or exceeds the recommended or safe protein intakes. According to FAO/WHO/UNU, estimates of protein requirements refer to metabolic needs that persist over moderate periods of time. Although protein and amino acid requirements are conventionally expressed as daily rates (of intake), this is no implication that these amounts must be consumed each and every day. Therefore, it is not essential, at least in adults, that daily intakes of protein, or presumably of each indispensable amino acid, must equal of exceed the physiological requirement: it is apparently sufficient for the average intake over a number of days to achieve this level. This pattern of intake would allow maintenance of an adequate protein nutritional state.

(In discussing the value of the original studies done on rats and then pigs)

Earlier work in rapidly growing rats suggested that delaying the supplementation of a protein with its limiting amino acids reduces the value of the supplement. Similarly the frequency of feeding of diets supplemented with lysine in growing pigs affects overall effieciency and utilization of dietary protein. There are few data available from human studies to assess the significance of these findings. However the relevance of rat and pig studies can be questioned in view of the profoundly different qualitative and quantative charicteristics of protein metabolism in in rats and pigs compared to human subjects. (

(in discussing the amino acid pool and using lysine as their example, since it is often thought of as one of the more "limiting" amino acids)

..... it is of interest and relevance that in the skeletal musclulature, there is a sizeable pool in the intracellular space of free amino acids, particularly of lysine. The size of the pool responds to changes, both in acute and chronic,in the amount of lysine ingested (43) Based on the data of Bergstrom et all (44) we calculate that after a protein rich meal 60% of the adult daily requirement for lysine may be deposited in this intracellular pool within 3 hours. Hence, a protein with a relatively low lysine content (corn) could be ingested some hours later than a complementary, higher lysine containing protein (soy) and the fre-lysine pool in the muscle would buffer the low lysine content of the amino acid mixture dervied from the difestion of the corn. Overall, the nutritional quality of the combined meals would be high. We conclude that it is not necessary to balance the amino acid profile at each meal, especially under conditions where intakes of total protein substantially exceed minimum physiological requirements.Summary and ConclusionsThus, we conclude that consumers do not have to be at all concerned about amino acid imbalances when the dietary amino acid supply is from the plant food proteins that make up our usual diets.

43 Munro HN Free amino acid pools and their role in regulation. In Murno HN ed, Mamaliam protein metabolism. Vol 4. New York. Academic Press, 1970:299-386

44. Bergstrom J. et al. Effect of a test meal, without and with protein, on muscle and plasma free amino acids. Clin Sci. 1990;79:331-7

Its even adequate in athletes..FromAm J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):570S-575S.Physical fitness and vegetarian diets: is there a relation?Nieman DC.Department of Health, Leisure, and Exercise Science, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 28608, USA. niemandc@...The available evidence supports neither a beneficial nor a detrimental effect of a vegetarian diet on physical performance capacity, especially when carbohydrate intake is controlled for. Concerns have been raised that an emphasis on plant foods to enhance carbohydrate intake and optimize body glycogen stores may lead to increases in dietary fiber and phytic acid intake to concentrations that reduce the bioavailability of several nutrients, including zinc, iron, and some other trace minerals. There is no convincing evidence, however, that vegetarian athletes suffer impaired nutrient status from the interactive effect of their heavy exertion and plant-food based dietary practices to the extent that performance, health, or both are impaired. Although there has been some concern about protein intake for vegetarian athletes, data indicate that all essential and nonessential amino acids can be supplied by plant food sources alone as long as a variety of foods is consumed and the energy intake is adequate. There has been some concern that vegetarian female athletes are at increased risk for oligoamenorrhea, but evidence suggests that low energy intake, not dietary quality, is the major cause. In conclusion, a vegetarian diet per se is not associated with improved aerobic endurance performance. Although some concerns have been raised about the nutrient status of vegetarian athletes, a varied and well-planned vegetarian diet is compatible with successful athletic endeavor.From one of the resources responsible for the promotion of the myth….From DIET FOR A SMALL PLANET, Tenth Anniversary Edition, Frances Lappe, p 161-162: "When I first wrote DIET FOR A SMALL PLANET in 1971, the idea thatpeople could live well without meat seemed much more controversialthan it does today. I felt I had to prove to nutritionists anddoctors that because we could combine proteins to create foods equalin protein usability to meat, people could thrive on a nonmeat orlow-meat diet. Today, few dispute that people can thrive on this kindof diet. In fact, more and more health professionals are actuallyadvocating less meat precisely for health reasons, reasons I discussedin 'America's Experimental Diet.'"In 1971 I stressed protein complementarity because I assumed that the onlyway to get enough protein (without consuming too many calories) was tocreate a protein as usable by the body as animal protein. In combattingthe myth that meat is the only way to get high-quality protein, Ireinforced another myth. I gave the impression that in order to get enoughprotein without meat, considerable care was needed in choosing foods.Actually, it is much easier than I thought."With three important exceptions, there is little danger of proteindeficiency in a plant food diet. The exceptions are diet very heavilydependent on fruit or on some tubers, such as sweet potatoes orcassava, or on junk food (refined flours, sugars, and fat).Fortunately, relatively few people in the world try to survive onDiets in which these foods are virtually the sole source of calories.In all other diets, if people are getting enough calories, they areVirtually certain of getting enough protein."So,I stand by my original points.- Plant foods are not incomplete proteins in regard to “incomplete” meaning “missing” amino acids. All plant food contain all the EAAs, The only known commonly consumed food product that is truly an incomplete protein is an animal food, gelatin.- Plant foods, do not have to be combined in certain combinations at each meal (or at all) to meet some reference EAA profile that is considered ideal. While some plant foods may have lower amounts of one or two EAAs when compared to some animal foods, these amounts are still in adequate amounts to meet human needs. The concept of limiting amino acids and protein complementing are myths and are not necessary even for athletes.- The body has a dynamic circulating pool of AA’s, which includes the EAAs, that are readily available and can be drawn upon when necessary. - The original “reference” and “standard” protein (egg) was established on feeding experiments on young rats, which have completely different protein and amino acid needs than humans, so the whole concept is flawed from the beginning.RegardsJeffPS, You recently posted a link to a website for information on phospholipids and cell membranes. I took a quick peek and also found this at that same website you recommended..."The World Health Organization has established that an adult requires only 5% of total calories in the form of protein (the same proportion found in human mother's milk -- cow's milk is 15%). Nearly all vegetables, legumes, grains, nuts and even fruit has at least that much protein (a banana's protein is 5% of total calories -- spinach and broccoli have protein nearly 50% of total calories). Most of the original 1971 edition of the book DIET FOR A SMALL PLANET dealt with combining protein, but the 1981 edition was mostly re-written to combat the misimpression that without animal protein one must pay close attention to ensure sufficient percentages of amino acids."

[Guest guest]

>>>

From: " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:39 pm

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Limiting Amino Acids

From: " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:56 pm

Subject: [ ]Vegan Diets and FTT

While I am not promoting a vegan diet, I have followed one for over 20

years

>>>

Jeff,

With regard to the amino acids, I agree that as long as the supply

exceeds the demand, the limits to protein synthesis would not be

reached. However, when you cut calories, the choice of foods becomes

critical, and as you say, the diet should contain " enough Nutrient

Dense Calories " to avoid deficiencies. This is one of the things that

makes me uneasy about vegan CR. It may be difficult to get the ON.

Just in the past week, there have been two postings citing health

problems with low calorie vegetarian diets (Message 15743 and Message

15671).

I am glad that you and your family have enjoyed good health with your

diet. But you are not an ordinary person. You keep abreast of

scientific research and you have great experience and many tools

available to plan your diet. However, the problems cited in the

postings seem to have happened in spite of using nutritional planning

programs.

From time-to-time, I enjoy a vegetarian Mexican menu: Guacamole,

refried beans, Spanish rice, salsa, and corn tortillas.

Another favorite recipe is FRIJOLES BORRACHOS which translates as

" drunken beans " . This is an unusual soup because it is enhanced by

the bitterness of the hops in the beer.

1 tablespoon olive oil

1 large tomato--chopped

1 large onion--chopped

2 cloves garlic-- chopped

2 cans pinto beans

1/2 cup beer

1/4 cup fresh cilantro--chopped

1 jalapeno pepper--seeded and minced

Salt and pepper to taste

In a 4-quart pot over medium a high heat, saute the garlic and the

onions in the olive oil. Add the tomatoes and cook until they begin

to soften, about 2 minutes. Add the cans of pinto beans with their

liquid, add the beer, and jalapeno pepper. Season with salt and

pepper, and simmer for 10 minutes. Add the cilantro at the last

minute. Stir and serve. Preparation time: about 15 minutes.

Tony