Re: Re: Poor vegan and Protein

[Guest guest]

all i meant by special food is that i travel a lot.

and not every city/state/country has tofu/edammame

available at their local grocer, that's why i don't

want to rely on tofu as my main source of protein.

....

and re: 40g this was recommended in the recent

'longetivity diet'

i have very strong beliefs re: veganism so im not

certain what people are refering to when they write

'extreme diet' or 'Or is there some other motivation?'

--- Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:

> Hi Edaz:

>

> Regarding soy protein, 50 grams of it contains 40

> grams of protein,

> and 170 calories. And you would be getting

> additional protein from

> the other things you eat in addition, so you would

> not need all the

> 40 grams of it.

>

> You say you do not want to " rely on special foods " .

> Do you not

> regard being a vegan as " relying on special foods " ?

> What is it you

> are trying to do here? Be healthy? Or is there

> some other

> motivation? One way or another you are going to

> have to eat

> SOMETHING.

>

> Do you have some reason to believe that there is

> something wrong with

> eating the protein component of soybeans, but it is

> OK to eat the

> protein when it is accompanied by the fat,

> carbohydrate, vitamins

> etc? If there is a good reason I would appreciate

> your sharing it

> with us. Thank you.

>

> Rodney.

>

>

>

> > i was thinking about buying some soy protein

> powder but it is very

> > calorie dense and i dont want to rely on special

> foods.

>

>

>

>

>

__________________________________

Discover

Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out!

http://discover./mobile.html

[Guest guest]

>That's why i don't want to rely on tofu as my main source of protein.

It might be beneficial to evaluate foods on their protein/calorie ratio if you

are trying to get in the most protein for the least calories (CR-ON per

protein). Than, once you have that list, you can work through it to see which

ones are the " best " by that criteria that fit both your personal likes and all

lifestyle and the rest of CR-ON

You may find some help here in the tools section

www.nutritiondata.com

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

One of the questions I was going to ask about the book was just what kind of

evidence he gives to back up these statements.

on 6/13/2005 10:55 PM, citpeks at citpeks@... wrote:

> A discussion about Colin 's book on another forum has resulted

> in some heated exchanges depending on what kind of evidence you

> believe. My own opinion is that any EXTREME ideas about diet are not

> for me. I am not willing to experiment on myself and risk my health

> based on one person's opinion. I think that the 900-page Dietary

> Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids,

> Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients) (2002) by the

> Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM)

> provides the most authoritative information for average people. The

> fact that the publication is the cooperative effort of many competent

> physicians and researchers keeps it from advocating extreme ideas as

> gospel.

>

> Here is the page on proteins:

> http://www.nap.edu/books/0309085373/html/465.html

>

> It recommends 0.8 grams of " good quality " protein per kg of body

> weight per day for both men and women. This is around 43 grams for a

> person weighing 120 pounds.

>

> QED

>

> Tony

[Guest guest]

Casein may be bad stuff, on its own, but its bad effects may not apply

to other proteins:

" Fighting Cancer With Whey "

Studies on whey demonstrate it's an even better protein supplement

than previously thought. Although whey protein's health benefits have

only recently been elucidated, the use of whey protein for medicinal

purposes has been prescribed since the time of Hippocrates. In fact,

there are two ancient proverbs from the Italian city of Florence that

say, " If you want to live a healthy and active life, drink whey, " and,

" If everyone were raised on whey, doctors would be bankrupt. "

In previous issues, we've chronicled the extensive research showing

the many potential health benefits of whey protein concentrate. The

majority of that research was done in the 1980s and early 1990s, and

was extremely persuasive. Scientists have continued their research on

whey proteins with even more impressive results. What follows is some

of the more current, interesting and useful research on whey proteins.

Whey and Cancer

Additional studies have been done on animals regarding cancer-causing

chemicals to see what effects whey protein concentrate would have on

cancer prevention or treatment. Scientists fed rats various proteins

and then subjected them to the powerful carcinogen dimethylhydrazine.

As with the previous research, the rats fed whey protein concentrate

showed fewer tumors and a reduced pooled area of tumors (tumor mass

index). The researchers found whey protein offered " considerable

protection to the host " over that of other proteins, including soy. 1

Even more exciting, in vivo research on cancer and whey showed whey

protein concentrate inhibited the growth of breast cancer cells at low

concentrations (Baruchel S. and Vaiu G., Anti Cancer Research, 1996).

Finally, and most importantly, a fairly recent clinical study with

cancer patients showed a regression in some patient's tumors when fed

whey protein concentrate at 30 grams per day. 2

Whey and Glutathione

This new research using whey protein concentrate led researchers to an

amazing discovery regarding the relationship between cancerous cells,

glutathione (GSH) and whey protein concentrate. It was found that whey

protein concentrate selectively depletes cancer cells of their

glutathione, thus making them more susceptible to cancer treatments

such as radiation and chemotherapy.

It has been found that cancer cells and normal cells will respond

differently to nutrients and drugs that affect glutathione status.

What is most interesting to note is the fact that the concentration of

glutathione in tumor cells is higher than that of the normal cells

that surround it. This difference in glutathione status between normal

cells and cancer cells is believed to be an important factor in cancer

cells' resistance to chemotherapy.

As the researchers put it, " Tumor cell GSH concentration may be among

the determinants of the cytotoxicity [poisonous to cells] of many

chemotherapeutic agents and of radiation, and an increase in GSH

concentration appears to be at least one of the mechanisms of acquired

drug resistance to chemotherapy. "

They further state, " It is well-known that rapid GSH synthesis in

tumor cells is associated with high rates of cellular proliferation.

Depletion of tumor GSH in vivo decreases the rate of cellular

proliferation and inhibits cancer growth. "

The problem is, it's difficult to reduce glutathione sufficiently in

tumor cells without placing healthy tissue at risk and putting the

cancer patient in a worse condition. What is needed is a compound that

can selectively deplete the cancer cells of their glutathione, while

increasing, or at least maintaining, the levels of glutathione in

healthy cells.

This is exactly what whey protein appears to do. In this new research

it was found that cancer cells subjected to whey proteins were

depleted of their glutathione, and their growth was inhibited, while

normal cells had an increase in GSH and increased cellular growth.

These effects were not seen with other proteins. Not surprisingly, the

researchers concluded, " Selective depletion of tumor GSH may in fact

render cancer cells more vulnerable to the action of chemotherapy and

eventually protect normal tissue against the deleterious effects of

chemotherapy. " The exact mechanism by which whey protein achieves this

is not fully understood, but it appears that it interferes with the

normal feedback mechanism and regulation of glutathione in cancer

cells.

It is known that glutathione production is negatively inhibited by its

own synthesis. Being that baseline glutathione levels in cancer cells

are higher than that of normal cells, it is probably easier to reach

the level of negative-feedback inhibition in the cancer cells'

glutathione levels than in the normal cells' glutathione levels.

Whey and Cancer

Additional studies have been done on animals regarding cancer-causing

chemicals to see what effects whey protein concentrate would have on

cancer prevention or treatment. Scientists fed rats various proteins

and then subjected them to the powerful carcinogen dimethylhydrazine.

As with the previous research, the rats fed whey protein concentrate

showed fewer tumors and a reduced pooled area of tumors (tumor mass

index). The researchers found whey protein offered " considerable

protection to the host " over that of other proteins, including soy. 1

Even more exciting, in vivo research on cancer and whey showed whey

protein concentrate inhibited the growth of breast cancer cells at low

concentrations (Baruchel S. and Vaiu G., Anti Cancer Research, 1996).

Finally, and most importantly, a fairly recent clinical study with

cancer patients showed a regression in some patient's tumors when fed

whey protein concentrate at 30 grams per day. 2

Whey and Glutathione

This new research using whey protein concentrate led researchers to an

amazing discovery regarding the relationship between cancerous cells,

glutathione (GSH) and whey protein concentrate. It was found that whey

protein concentrate selectively depletes cancer cells of their

glutathione, thus making them more susceptible to cancer treatments

such as radiation and chemotherapy.

It has been found that cancer cells and normal cells will respond

differently to nutrients and drugs that affect glutathione status.

What is most interesting to note is the fact that the concentration of

glutathione in tumor cells is higher than that of the normal cells

that surround it. This difference in glutathione status between normal

cells and cancer cells is believed to be an important factor in cancer

cells' resistance to chemotherapy.

As the researchers put it, " Tumor cell GSH concentration may be among

the determinants of the cytotoxicity [poisonous to cells] of many

chemotherapeutic agents and of radiation, and an increase in GSH

concentration appears to be at least one of the mechanisms of acquired

drug resistance to chemotherapy. "

They further state, " It is well-known that rapid GSH synthesis in

tumor cells is associated with high rates of cellular proliferation.

Depletion of tumor GSH in vivo decreases the rate of cellular

proliferation and inhibits cancer growth. "

The problem is, it's difficult to reduce glutathione sufficiently in

tumor cells without placing healthy tissue at risk and putting the

cancer patient in a worse condition. What is needed is a compound that

can selectively deplete the cancer cells of their glutathione, while

increasing, or at least maintaining, the levels of glutathione in

healthy cells.

This is exactly what whey protein appears to do. In this new research

it was found that cancer cells subjected to whey proteins were

depleted of their glutathione, and their growth was inhibited, while

normal cells had an increase in GSH and increased cellular growth.

These effects were not seen with other proteins. Not surprisingly, the

researchers concluded, " Selective depletion of tumor GSH may in fact

render cancer cells more vulnerable to the action of chemotherapy and

eventually protect normal tissue against the deleterious effects of

chemotherapy. " The exact mechanism by which whey protein achieves this

is not fully understood, but it appears that it interferes with the

normal feedback mechanism and regulation of glutathione in cancer

cells.

It is known that glutathione production is negatively inhibited by its

own synthesis. Being that baseline glutathione levels in cancer cells

are higher than that of normal cells, it is probably easier to reach

the level of negative-feedback inhibition in the cancer cells'

glutathione levels than in the normal cells' glutathione levels.

Whey and LDL Cholesterol

The positive health benefits of whey protein concentrate does not end

with its effects on immunity and cancer prevention and treatment. Whey

protein concentrate also was found to be a potent inhibitor of

oxidized low density lipoprotein cholesterol. Current research

suggests that the conversion of LDL to oxidized LDL is the trigger

that leads to atherogenesis... the formation of the plaque and lesions

associated with atherosclerosis.

Therefore, any substance that prevents the oxidation of LDL is thought

to be anti-atherogenic. Though animal-based proteins have

traditionally been implicated as being pro-atherogenic, whey proteins

appear to be an exception to the rule. whey protein is made up of

several minor and major fractions, such as beta-lactoglobulin,

alpha-lactalbumin, albumin, lactoferrin and immunoglobulin. It was

discovered that the minor constituent responsible for the ability of

whey protein concentrate to prevent the oxidation of LDL appears to be

the lactoferrin fraction of the protein. 3

y and Cancer

" Fighting Cancer With Whey "

Studies on whey demonstrate it's an even better protein supplement

than previously thought. Although whey protein's health benefits have

only recently been elucidated, the use of whey protein for medicinal

purposes has been prescribed since the time of Hippocrates. In fact,

there are two ancient proverbs from the Italian city of Florence that

say, " If you want to live a healthy and active life, drink whey, " and,

" If everyone were raised on whey, doctors would be bankrupt. "

In previous issues, we've chronicled the extensive research showing

the many potential health benefits of whey protein concentrate. The

majority of that research was done in the 1980s and early 1990s, and

was extremely persuasive. Scientists have continued their research on

whey proteins with even more impressive results. What follows is some

of the more current, interesting and useful research on whey proteins.

Whey and Cancer

Additional studies have been done on animals regarding cancer-causing

chemicals to see what effects whey protein concentrate would have on

cancer prevention or treatment. Scientists fed rats various proteins

and then subjected them to the powerful carcinogen dimethylhydrazine.

As with the previous research, the rats fed whey protein concentrate

showed fewer tumors and a reduced pooled area of tumors (tumor mass

index). The researchers found whey protein offered " considerable

protection to the host " over that of other proteins, including soy. 1

Even more exciting, in vivo research on cancer and whey showed whey

protein concentrate inhibited the growth of breast cancer cells at low

concentrations (Baruchel S. and Vaiu G., Anti Cancer Research, 1996).

Finally, and most importantly, a fairly recent clinical study with

cancer patients showed a regression in some patient's tumors when fed

whey protein concentrate at 30 grams per day. 2

Whey and Glutathione

This new research using whey protein concentrate led researchers to an

amazing discovery regarding the relationship between cancerous cells,

glutathione (GSH) and whey protein concentrate. It was found that whey

protein concentrate selectively depletes cancer cells of their

glutathione, thus making them more susceptible to cancer treatments

such as radiation and chemotherapy.

It has been found that cancer cells and normal cells will respond

differently to nutrients and drugs that affect glutathione status.

What is most interesting to note is the fact that the concentration of

glutathione in tumor cells is higher than that of the normal cells

that surround it. This difference in glutathione status between normal

cells and cancer cells is believed to be an important factor in cancer

cells' resistance to chemotherapy.

As the researchers put it, " Tumor cell GSH concentration may be among

the determinants of the cytotoxicity [poisonous to cells] of many

chemotherapeutic agents and of radiation, and an increase in GSH

concentration appears to be at least one of the mechanisms of acquired

drug resistance to chemotherapy. "

They further state, " It is well-known that rapid GSH synthesis in

tumor cells is associated with high rates of cellular proliferation.

Depletion of tumor GSH in vivo decreases the rate of cellular

proliferation and inhibits cancer growth. "

The problem is, it's difficult to reduce glutathione sufficiently in

tumor cells without placing healthy tissue at risk and putting the

cancer patient in a worse condition. What is needed is a compound that

can selectively deplete the cancer cells of their glutathione, while

increasing, or at least maintaining, the levels of glutathione in

healthy cells.

This is exactly what whey protein appears to do. In this new research

it was found that cancer cells subjected to whey proteins were

depleted of their glutathione, and their growth was inhibited, while

normal cells had an increase in GSH and increased cellular growth.

These effects were not seen with other proteins. Not surprisingly, the

researchers concluded, " Selective depletion of tumor GSH may in fact

render cancer cells more vulnerable to the action of chemotherapy and

eventually protect normal tissue against the deleterious effects of

chemotherapy. " The exact mechanism by which whey protein achieves this

is not fully understood, but it appears that it interferes with the

normal feedback mechanism and regulation of glutathione in cancer

cells.

It is known that glutathione production is negatively inhibited by its

own synthesis. Being that baseline glutathione levels in cancer cells

are higher than that of normal cells, it is probably easier to reach

the level of negative-feedback inhibition in the cancer cells'

glutathione levels than in the normal cells' glutathione levels.

Whey and Cancer

Additional studies have been done on animals regarding cancer-causing

chemicals to see what effects whey protein concentrate would have on

cancer prevention or treatment. Scientists fed rats various proteins

and then subjected them to the powerful carcinogen dimethylhydrazine.

As with the previous research, the rats fed whey protein concentrate

showed fewer tumors and a reduced pooled area of tumors (tumor mass

index). The researchers found whey protein offered " considerable

protection to the host " over that of other proteins, including soy. 1

Even more exciting, in vivo research on cancer and whey showed whey

protein concentrate inhibited the growth of breast cancer cells at low

concentrations (Baruchel S. and Vaiu G., Anti Cancer Research, 1996).

Finally, and most importantly, a fairly recent clinical study with

cancer patients showed a regression in some patient's tumors when fed

whey protein concentrate at 30 grams per day. 2

Whey and Glutathione

This new research using whey protein concentrate led researchers to an

amazing discovery regarding the relationship between cancerous cells,

glutathione (GSH) and whey protein concentrate. It was found that whey

protein concentrate selectively depletes cancer cells of their

glutathione, thus making them more susceptible to cancer treatments

such as radiation and chemotherapy.

It has been found that cancer cells and normal cells will respond

differently to nutrients and drugs that affect glutathione status.

What is most interesting to note is the fact that the concentration of

glutathione in tumor cells is higher than that of the normal cells

that surround it. This difference in glutathione status between normal

cells and cancer cells is believed to be an important factor in cancer

cells' resistance to chemotherapy.

As the researchers put it, " Tumor cell GSH concentration may be among

the determinants of the cytotoxicity [poisonous to cells] of many

chemotherapeutic agents and of radiation, and an increase in GSH

concentration appears to be at least one of the mechanisms of acquired

drug resistance to chemotherapy. "

They further state, " It is well-known that rapid GSH synthesis in

tumor cells is associated with high rates of cellular proliferation.

Depletion of tumor GSH in vivo decreases the rate of cellular

proliferation and inhibits cancer growth. "

The problem is, it's difficult to reduce glutathione sufficiently in

tumor cells without placing healthy tissue at risk and putting the

cancer patient in a worse condition. What is needed is a compound that

can selectively deplete the cancer cells of their glutathione, while

increasing, or at least maintaining, the levels of glutathione in

healthy cells.

This is exactly what whey protein appears to do. In this new research

it was found that cancer cells subjected to whey proteins were

depleted of their glutathione, and their growth was inhibited, while

normal cells had an increase in GSH and increased cellular growth.

These effects were not seen with other proteins. Not surprisingly, the

researchers concluded, " Selective depletion of tumor GSH may in fact

render cancer cells more vulnerable to the action of chemotherapy and

eventually protect normal tissue against the deleterious effects of

chemotherapy. " The exact mechanism by which whey protein achieves this

is not fully understood, but it appears that it interferes with the

normal feedback mechanism and regulation of glutathione in cancer

cells.

It is known that glutathione production is negatively inhibited by its

own synthesis. Being that baseline glutathione levels in cancer cells

are higher than that of normal cells, it is probably easier to reach

the level of negative-feedback inhibition in the cancer cells'

glutathione levels than in the normal cells' glutathione levels.

Whey and LDL Cholesterol

The positive health benefits of whey protein concentrate does not end

with its effects on immunity and cancer prevention and treatment. Whey

protein concentrate also was found to be a potent inhibitor of

oxidized low density lipoprotein cholesterol. Current research

suggests that the conversion of LDL to oxidized LDL is the trigger

that leads to atherogenesis... the formation of the plaque and lesions

associated with atherosclerosis.

Therefore, any substance that prevents the oxidation of LDL is thought

to be anti-atherogenic. Though animal-based proteins have

traditionally been implicated as being pro-atherogenic, whey proteins

appear to be an exception to the rule. whey protein is made up of

several minor and major fractions, such as beta-lactoglobulin,

alpha-lactalbumin, albumin, lactoferrin and immunoglobulin. It was

discovered that the minor constituent responsible for the ability of

whey protein concentrate to prevent the oxidation of LDL appears to be

the lactoferrin fraction of the protein. 3

y and Cancer

Additional studies have been done on animals regarding cancer-causing

chemicals to see what effects whey protein concentrate would have on

cancer prevention or treatment. Scientists fed rats various proteins

and then subjected them to the powerful carcinogen dimethylhydrazine.

As with the previous research, the rats fed whey protein concentrate

showed fewer tumors and a reduced pooled area of tumors (tumor mass

index). The researchers found whey protein offered " considerable

protection to the host " over that of other proteins, including soy. 1

Even more exciting, in vivo research on cancer and whey showed whey

protein concentrate inhibited the growth of breast cancer cells at low

concentrations (Baruchel S. and Vaiu G., Anti Cancer Research, 1996).

Finally, and most importantly, a fairly recent clinical study with

cancer patients showed a regression in some patient's tumors when fed

whey protein concentrate at 30 grams per day. 2

Whey and Glutathione

This new research using whey protein concentrate led researchers to an

amazing discovery regarding the relationship between cancerous cells,

glutathione (GSH) and whey protein concentrate. It was found that whey

protein concentrate selectively depletes cancer cells of their

glutathione, thus making them more susceptible to cancer treatments

such as radiation and chemotherapy.

It has been found that cancer cells and normal cells will respond

differently to nutrients and drugs that affect glutathione status.

What is most interesting to note is the fact that the concentration of

glutathione in tumor cells is higher than that of the normal cells

that surround it. This difference in glutathione status between normal

cells and cancer cells is believed to be an important factor in cancer

cells' resistance to chemotherapy.

As the researchers put it, " Tumor cell GSH concentration may be among

the determinants of the cytotoxicity [poisonous to cells] of many

chemotherapeutic agents and of radiation, and an increase in GSH

concentration appears to be at least one of the mechanisms of acquired

drug resistance to chemotherapy. "

They further state, " It is well-known that rapid GSH synthesis in

tumor cells is associated with high rates of cellular proliferation.

Depletion of tumor GSH in vivo decreases the rate of cellular

proliferation and inhibits cancer growth. "

The problem is, it's difficult to reduce glutathione sufficiently in

tumor cells without placing healthy tissue at risk and putting the

cancer patient in a worse condition. What is needed is a compound that

can selectively deplete the cancer cells of their glutathione, while

increasing, or at least maintaining, the levels of glutathione in

healthy cells.

This is exactly what whey protein appears to do. In this new research

it was found that cancer cells subjected to whey proteins were

depleted of their glutathione, and their growth was inhibited, while

normal cells had an increase in GSH and increased cellular growth.

These effects were not seen with other proteins. Not surprisingly, the

researchers concluded, " Selective depletion of tumor GSH may in fact

render cancer cells more vulnerable to the action of chemotherapy and

eventually protect normal tissue against the deleterious effects of

chemotherapy. " The exact mechanism by which whey protein achieves this

is not fully understood, but it appears that it interferes with the

normal feedback mechanism and regulation of glutathione in cancer

cells.

It is known that glutathione production is negatively inhibited by its

own synthesis. Being that baseline glutathione levels in cancer cells

are higher than that of normal cells, it is probably easier to reach

the level of negative-feedback inhibition in the cancer cells'

glutathione levels than in the normal cells' glutathione levels.

References

1. (McIntosh G.H,. et al., Journal of Nutrition, 1995)

2. (Kennedy R.S., Konok G.P., Bounous G., Baruchel S., Lee T.D., Anti

Cancer Research, 1995)

3. (M. Kajikawa et al. Biochemica et Biophysica Acta, 1994)

4. (Zhang X. and Beynen A.C. Brit. J. of Nutri., 1993)

5. (Takada Y., Aoe S., Kumegawa M., Biochemical Research Communications, 1996)

6. (nne K., Fidelus and Min Fu Tsan. Cellular Immunology, 1986)

7. (Bounous G. and Gold P., Clin. Invest. Med. 1991)

8. (Bounous G., Baruchel S., Faiutz J., Gold P., Clin. Invest. Med. 1992)

9. (Bounous G., Konshavn P., Gold P., Clin. Invest. Med. 1988)

[Guest guest]

a: personal anecdotes are interesting but science is what we need

to back up our assertions.

I too have always looked younger (and have always been lean) and I have

never been a vegan. And I used to work with a 7th Day Adventist

(vegetarian) who was obese in spite of his diet. That's we need the

scientific evidence.

OTOH, if you have studies from impeccable sources (and not from websites

that have an agenda to promote) such as Pubmed, we're all ears.

on 6/14/2005 11:12 AM, lv2breathe@... at lv2breathe@... wrote:

> I've been getting my protein from plant sources for years...and I find it is

> definitely cheaper to eat vegan than to not.

>

> I don't know how you can think meat is cheaper...and even if it is, it has

> concentrated pesticides and hormones...which is NOT cheap. I'll take cleaner

> protein, thank you.

>

> I get a lot of my protein from beans and soy milk. I can't think of anything

> cheaper than beans. And there are many ways to prepare them.

>

> a

>

[Guest guest]

Just one more word on veganism. As with any diet, it can go wrong if not

done correctly. Here is one CRonies story:

/message/8032

on 6/14/2005 11:48 AM, Francesca Skelton at fskelton@... wrote:

> a: personal anecdotes are interesting but science is what we need

> to back up our assertions.

>

> I too have always looked younger (and have always been lean) and I have

> never been a vegan. And I used to work with a 7th Day Adventist

> (vegetarian) who was obese in spite of his diet. That's we need the

> scientific evidence.

>

> OTOH, if you have studies from impeccable sources (and not from websites

> that have an agenda to promote) such as Pubmed, we're all ears.

>

[Guest guest]

My apologies if you personal experience doesn't agree... I was responding

to a post that suggested $3 a day for tofu was too expensive. Since I can buy canned

salmon for $1.30/# and chicken for <$2/# they seem relatively cheap, but I must

admit I don't regularly buy and eat tofu so I don't know what that would cost in my market.

I feel better about the food quality of the salmon (wild) than the chicken (farmed, fed animal parts,

injected with saline, etc) but have no specific insight into that ultimate quality besides general news

sources which are often swayed by commercial influence or politicized.

FWIW there are reports of negative factors associated with most foods. Beans for example

contain lectins which can be bad for you if not properly cooked. I personally enjoy beans

but it does give me pause when I see how they stain my "stainless steel" cookware.

I am too busy trying to improve my own behavior to invest significant effort into changing

other's choices and behavior. I stand by my original advice that it's important to cover our

bodies' needs for essential nutrients. I don't care how "you" do that.

Be well,

JR

-----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ]On Behalf Of lv2breathe@...Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:12 AM Cc: Lv2breathe@...Subject: [ ] Re: Poor Vegan and Protein

I've been getting my protein from plant sources for years...and I find it is definitely cheaper to eat vegan than to not.

I don't know how you can think meat is cheaper...and even if it is, it has concentrated pesticides and hormones...which is NOT cheap. I'll take cleaner protein, thank you.

I get a lot of my protein from beans and soy milk. I can't think of anything cheaper than beans. And there are many ways to prepare them.

a

In a message dated 6/14/05 6:48:16 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, writes:

Message: 12 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:16:15 -0500 From: " " <crjohnr@...>Subject: RE: Poor vegan and ProteinSorry it may be difficult to eat well, vegetarian, and cheaply. If soyprotein or tofu is expensive, wheat germ is approx 23% protein, butwheat germ may not be any cheaper than tofu. Pasta is something like20% and rice down around 15% protein. Not great choices from caloric content.The lower cost sources of quality protein are usually meats like fish orpoultry. There is currently a debate regarding best protein levels and activity/exerciseeffort levels will also be a factor.Its important to get essential proteins, so be careful you don't do any harmwhile trying to do better.JR

[Guest guest]

You might check with Kitty tti at Duke University, ricediet.com. Her book mentions 24 grams for adults, as I recall.

Regards.

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

From: drsusanforshey

Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 5:37 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Poor vegan and Protein

Reading an interesting book titled The China Study by Colin PhD. In it he states that "only 5-6% dietary protein is required toreplace the protein regularly excreted by the body (as amino acids)."He says all should be from plant sources. He goes on to say "Theevidence presented in this book shows that increasing dietary proteinwithin the range of about 10-20% is associated with a broad array ofhealth problems, especially when most of the protein is from animalsources."5-6%! I've never heard of protein recommendations that low! Has anyoneelse?

[Guest guest]

Looking at the 6% protein thing, I put 1800 kcals of sweet potato into my spreadsheet to get 30 grams and 7% protein for 1800 kcals total. Almost everything has protein except sugar and fat, so I wonder what food would he choose? Perhaps, french fries?

Of course, I'm just looking at the nitrogen, not the amino reqt's.

Regards.

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

From: drsusanforshey

Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 5:37 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Poor vegan and Protein

Reading an interesting book titled The China Study by Colin PhD. In it he states that "only 5-6% dietary protein is required toreplace the protein regularly excreted by the body (as amino acids)."He says all should be from plant sources. He goes on to say "Theevidence presented in this book shows that increasing dietary proteinwithin the range of about 10-20% is associated with a broad array ofhealth problems, especially when most of the protein is from animalsources."5-6%! I've never heard of protein recommendations that low! Has anyoneelse?

[Guest guest]

an interesting critique of the china study and its methods...

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8e.shtml#china%20proj

(With references)

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>a critique from " beyondveg.com " ?? Is this what you would consider as unbiased?

No, a critique wih references.

considering you are posting Colin s writings which are fairly biased and

only his interpretation of some studies, some he did himself (talk about

bias!!), I htought I would post other writings that interpret the same data from

a differing persepctive.

PS I know both Tom and T.Colin both fairly well and always enjoy a good

intellectual debate.

[Guest guest]

I suspect protein requirements are not influenced by what you eat but your LBM

and activity level. What this turns out to be as a

percentage of the total will depend on your total consumption level. The more

restricted you are, the higher your protein needs as a

percentage of that smaller total.

JR

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

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of drsusanforshey

Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 4:53 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Poor vegan and Protein

states ..

" Perhaps the most shocking figure is the upper limit on protein

intake. relative to total calorie intake, only 5-6% dietary protein is

required to replace the protein regularly excreted by the body (as

amino acids). About 9-10% protein, however, is the amount that has

been recommended for the past fifty years to be assured that most

people at least get their 5-6% 'requirement'. This 9-10%

recommendation is equivalent to the well-known recommended daily

allowance, or RDA. "

Fascinating!

> Looking at the 6% protein thing, I put 1800 kcals of sweet potato

into my spreadsheet to get 30 grams and 7% protein for 1800 kcals

total. Almost everything has protein except sugar and fat, so I wonder

what food would he choose? Perhaps, french fries?

> Of course, I'm just looking at the nitrogen, not the amino reqt's.

>

> Regards.

>

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

> From: drsusanforshey

>

> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 5:37 PM

> Subject: [ ] Re: Poor vegan and Protein

>

>

> Reading an interesting book titled The China Study by Colin

> PhD. In it he states that " only 5-6% dietary protein is required to

> replace the protein regularly excreted by the body (as amino acids). "

> He says all should be from plant sources. He goes on to say " The

> evidence presented in this book shows that increasing dietary protein

> within the range of about 10-20% is associated with a broad array of

> health problems, especially when most of the protein is from animal

> sources. "

>

> 5-6%! I've never heard of protein recommendations that low! Has anyone

> else?

[Guest guest]

Recalling the IOM req't for protein and it's forerunner articles of 2000 by MIT, the variation in individual req't was large. ref Nitrogen and amino acid requirements: : the Massachusetts Institute of Technology amino acid requirement pattern.J Nutr. 2000 Jul;130(7):1841S-9S. Review. PMID: 10867061,

Criteria and Significance of dietary protein sources in humans, Young and Borgonha, pg 1844s, table 8. The value for lysine 27.3 +/- 17.6. That means an individual could be from 9.7 to 44.9.

IOM discusses the difficulty setting the req't when there are outliers at 200+ gms when the bell curve is peaked at 60. Judiciously moving the req't to the right means the IOM req't covers more people. However, my req't is about 56 grams for 175 # to maintain weight. If I want to lose weight, I do 44 grams.

My point it that individuals need to find the level they're happy at. I don't find a vegetarian diet restrictive, getting 56 gms easily with lacto and without a lot of dried beans/soy. I could do vegan almost as easily, but lacto offers Ca, a better balance of essential aminos, to reduce total nitrogen intake. I can see where a person needing 200 grams might need meats.

AFA the china study is concerned, it may very well show that people who ate less protein fared better, BUT that doesn't mean if I eat less protein, I will fare better. I guess it could mean the people who NEED less protein fare better. IMO, CR is about finding the right levels to extend lifespan.

Regards.

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

From: drsusanforshey

Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 7:41 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Poor vegan and Protein

His assertion that low protein intake is desired seems to be based, inpart, on a series of interesting rat studies. In no particular order:1)PMID: 1681520 Nutr Cancer. 1991;16(1):31-41. Thermogenesis, low-protein diets, and decreased development ofAFB1-induced preneoplastic foci in rat liver. Horio F, Youngman LD, Bell RC, TC. Department of Agriculatural Chemistry, Faculty of Agriculture,Nagoya University, Japan. The development of hepatocellular, putatively preneoplastic,gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase positive (GGT+) foci and tumors inducedby aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) has been shown to be reduced in male F344 ratsfed a diet containing 6% protein (as casein). This reduction occursdespite increased energy intake, when compared with animals fed a dietcontaining 22% protein. Among its many effects, low protein intake isknown to increase the proportion of energy intake expended in the formof heat (thermogenesis); thus, this investigation examined theassociation between the development of GGT+ foci and alterations inindices of thermogenesis induced by feeding varying levels of dietaryprotein. Five days following the completion of AFB1 dosing, animalswere assigned to groups fed 4%, 8%, 12%, 16%, or 22% dietary proteinfor 6 weeks. Foci development (% liver volume occupied) was markedlyreduced in animals fed the low-protein diet (4%, 8%), yet calorieconsumption per 100 g body wt was greater. A modest negative lineartrend was observed in oxygen consumption with increasing levels ofdietary protein intake. Urinary norepinephrine levels were elevated inthe groups fed 4% and 8% protein; urinary dopamine and norepinephrineturnover rates in brown adipose tissue were highest in animals fed 4%protein. These results suggest that GGT+ foci development occurs whena "critical level" (approx 12%) of dietary protein intake is reached.Inhibition of foci development at lower levels of protein intake isassociated with several indicators of increased thermogenesis.2)PMID: 14502844 Nutr Cancer. 1994;22(2):151-62. Long-term intake of a low-casein diet is associated with higherrelative NK cell cytotoxic activity in F344 rats. Bell RC, Golemboski KA, Dietert RR, TC. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Earlier studies in our laboratory showed that animals exposed toaflatoxin B1 (AFB1) develop fewer gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase-positive preneoplastic foci and tumors when fed 6%dietary casein than when fed 22% casein during promotion; mechanismsunderlying this effect have not been elucidated. We examined naturalkiller (NK) cell activity, mitogenic responses, and lymphocyte surfaceantigen profiles in male Fischer 344 rats dosed with AFB1 or dosingvehicle alone and then fed 6% or 22% casein isocaloric diets for oneyear. Mean body weights and food intake did not differ significantlyamong the groups during the study. NK cells purified from peripheralblood of rats fed 6% casein mediated higher specific lysis (p <0.0001) against YAC-1 target cells than cells obtained from animalsfed 22% casein. Mitogenic responses of splenic lymphocytes toconcanavalin A and lymphocyte subpopulations, identified by flowcytometry, did not differ significantly among dietary groups. Hepatictumors were detected in 27% of the 22% casein AFB1-treated group andin 6% of animals in the 6% casein AFB1-treated group. The associationbetween long-term intake of a 6% casein diet and higher relative NKcell cytotoxic activity suggests a potentially important mechanismthat may help protect against the development of hepatocellulartumors. Further study of this mechanism as a causal factor in limitingtumor development is required.3)Inhibition of aflatoxin B1-induced gamma-glutamyltranspeptidasepositive (GGT+) hepatic preneoplastic foci and tumors by low proteindiets: evidence that altered GGT+ foci indicate neoplastic potentialLD Youngman and TC Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY14853- 4401.Previous studies in this laboratory with young Fischer 344 male ratshave shown that the post-initiation development of aflatoxin B1(AFB1)- induced gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase positive (GGT+) hepaticfoci was markedly inhibited by low protein feeding, even though theenergy intake was greater. This dietary effect, however, did notnecessarily apply to hepatic tumor development. Thus, the presentinvestigation was undertaken to examine this dietary effect upon thedevelopment of hepatic tumors and, is so doing, to determine thecorrelation of foci development with tumor development. Following AFB1dosing (15 daily doses of 0.3 mg/kg each), animals were fed dietscontaining 6, 14 or 22% casein (5.2, 12.2, 19.1% protein) for 6, 12,40, 58 and 100 weeks. Foci at 12 weeks and tumors at 40, 58 and 100weeks developed dose- dependently to protein intake. Foci development,tumor incidence, tumor size and the number of tumors per animal weremarkedly reduced while the time to tumor emergence was increased withlow protein feeding. Non- hepatic tumor incidence also was lower inthe animals fed the lowest protein diet. Foci development indices(foci number, per cent liver volume occupied) were highly correlatedwith tumor incidence at 58 and 100 weeks (r = 0.90-1.00). Tumor andfoci inhibition occurred in spite of the greater energy intake. > > > A discussion about Colin 's book on another forum has resulted> > in some heated exchanges depending on what kind of evidence you> > believe. My own opinion is that any EXTREME ideas about diet are not> > for me. I am not willing to experiment on myself and risk my health> > based on one person's opinion. I think that the 900-page Dietary> > Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids,> > Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients) (2002) by the> > Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM)> > provides the most authoritative information for average people. The> > fact that the publication is the cooperative effort of many competent> > physicians and researchers keeps it from advocating extreme ideas as> > gospel.> > > > Here is the page on proteins:> > http://www.nap.edu/books/0309085373/html/465.html> > > > It recommends 0.8 grams of "good quality" protein per kg of body> > weight per day for both men and women. This is around 43 grams for a> > person weighing 120 pounds.> > > > QED> > > > Tony

[Guest guest]

I think the point is, you can't just arbitrarily set an individual protein intake based on any study, or other individuals. CR is a new science. Some CRonies have said a lot of protein and I don't see that. When I do manual labor, I need more protein, but just sitting here, 56 grams is fine (12-14%).

Don't you agree that if a person eats 6% protein and loses weight, they are short protein? OTOH, if they eat too much there are side effects - byproducts of protein metabolism? Surely we can determine a level which optimizes the intake for the individual - I don't need to burn protein for energy.

Regards.

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

From: drsusanforshey

Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:25 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Poor vegan and Protein

Perhaps, BUT Walford et al did quite well (actually extremely well!) @12% protein (mostly plant source) despite "difficult manual labor" (asfrancesca expresses it):> > Looking at the 6% protein thing, I put 1800 kcals of sweet potato> into my spreadsheet to get 30 grams and 7% protein for 1800 kcals> total. Almost everything has protein except sugar and fat, so I wonder> what food would he choose? Perhaps, french fries?> > Of course, I'm just looking at the nitrogen, not the amino reqt's.> >> > Regards.> >> > ----- Original Message -----> > From: drsusanforshey> > > > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 5:37 PM> > Subject: [ ] Re: Poor vegan and Protein> >> >> > Reading an interesting book titled The China Study by Colin > > PhD. In it he states that "only 5-6% dietary protein is required to> > replace the protein regularly excreted by the body (as aminoacids)."> > He says all should be from plant sources. He goes on to say "The> > evidence presented in this book shows that increasing dietaryprotein> > within the range of about 10-20% is associated with a broad array of> > health problems, especially when most of the protein is from animal> > sources."> >> > 5-6%! I've never heard of protein recommendations that low! Hasanyone> > else?> > > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

What we need is a way to get the numbers for each of us. And there are known parameters for human health now that argue against the 6% protein for most.

The basic guidelines are if you lose weight, you're not getting enough protein, so to guard against that they skew the number high.

Not talking losing weight,ie, what number maintains the desired weight, best health?

I think it's prudent for each CRer to determine that number, since we dare not rec a number lower than the RDA. A high number was suggested several years ago by Sherm (CRsociety), which was based on extrapolating lines on a chart in MNHD. I doubt that approach.

I don't see the importance of a study that says 6% protein, when most people may not be able to do it.

The MIT data was derived by a new method: Twenty-four-hour oral tracer studies with L-[1-13C]lysine at a low (15 mg.kg (-1).d (-1) and intermediate (29 mg.kg (-1).d(-1)) lysine intake in healthy adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Jul;72(1):122-30. PMID: 10871570.

So we have what might be the ultimate technique, versus a study of a group of humans. And that technique came up with numbers much higher than the RDA in MNHD, eg.

They also covered digestibility issues, so it looks complete to me.

BUT does the one RDA apply to everyone? When I see large variations in individuals, I have to wonder about the effects of too much protein. It seems to me that an optimum number may produce little byproducts of protein energy metabolism, while providing sufficient nitrogen.

So far, I haven't heard a good method for determining that for anyone. I know I don't lose weight at 56gms and I don't have smelly (H2S) gas. And that's using maybe half veggie /half animal protein.

Regards.

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

From: Rodney

Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 6:52 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Poor vegan and Protein

Hi JW:It seems to me the key issue here to which we certainly do not know the answer, may be something like the following: "Are the known longevity benefits of CRON mostly the result of a mild 'starvation' of protein? Or a mild 'starvation' of fat?" ............. (Substitute "restriction" for "mild starvation" if you prefer.)We know that in fruit flies carbohydrate 'starvation' is a minor factor. It may turn out to be that a bottleneck in EITHER fat or protein is effective (this is my bet, or guess, right now). But if it is shown to be one, and not the other, we then will need to find out whether it is mild starvation of a *particular* fat (or a particular protein) that is the critical factor.We can hypothesize all the want about this today. But we do not have the evidence to support any of these hypotheses until the research is carried out. First, most likely, it will be in fruit flies. Years later in mice and rats. Much, much later in monkeys.We are gonna have quite a while to wait before we know the answers, imo. But by using the shortcut of looking at biomarkers and assuming they will be well correlated with longevity, we may be able to come to sensible, but not definite, conclusions a lot sooner.Rodney.[And even when all this is known, for different individuals different amounts of the key ingredient will represent the appropriate degree of mild 'starvation', or restriction.]> I think the point is, you can't just arbitrarily set an individual protein intake based on any study, or other individuals. CR is a new science. Some CRonies have said a lot of protein and I don't see that. When I do manual labor, I need more protein, but just sitting here, 56 grams is fine (12-14%). > Don't you agree that if a person eats 6% protein and loses weight, they are short protein? OTOH, if they eat too much there are side effects - byproducts of protein metabolism? Surely we can determine a level which optimizes the intake for the individual - I don't need to burn protein for energy. > > Regards. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: drsusanforshey > > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:25 PM> Subject: [ ] Re: Poor vegan and Protein> > > Perhaps, BUT Walford et al did quite well (actually extremely well!) @> 12% protein (mostly plant source) despite "difficult manual labor" (as> francesca expresses it):>

[Guest guest]

There was a study done in WWII by Ancel Keyes, "Human Starvation", done to determine the foods required to recoup those that had suffered. The book is large and only found in medical libraries. Volunteers were starved for some weeks.

We also should have extensive data from dr's who perform fasting on patients.

Obviously nitrogen is depleted: MNDH page 1409/1410, N2 excretion is initially high (11-23 g/day) ref Owen, J Clin Invest 1969;48. Nitrogen loss decreases... 154 g of N2 and 963 grams protein after 15 days. Simply adding 100 g of carbo daily decreases N2 loss by 40%..."

"It has been hypothesized that these diets spare protein by decreasing the insulin level and enhancing ketonemia. ref Flatt Am J Clin Nutr 1974;27.

The ketonemia in turn inhibits release of amino acids from muscle. ref Sherwin, J Clin Invest 1975;44."

But that's dieting. "Protein supplemented modified fasts PSMF. In the 70's, 58 deaths were associated with this. -- refractory ventricular arrhythmias." So that pretty well says it all for me. That maybe implies protein loss in heart muscle. Suggest anyone get a Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, 9th ed. and read further.

We have in the WUSTL some of the biomarkers, and Dean (vegan) has alluded to a group that does an extensive survey.

As I think about it, a person who loses weight very slowly and actually shrinks in size over say 20 years, might not show any abnormal blood markers (standard).

Regards

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

From: Rodney

Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 10:03 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Poor vegan and Protein

Hi JW:My guess is that eventually biomarker criteria will be established for (assuming, say, it is just protein that needs to be restricted) signalling an excessive restriction of protein. By excessive I mean a level of restriction that has been shown, in animals first, that restriction beyond that level has negative implications for health and/or longevity.Then we will not need to try to calculate for each of us what our protein needs are. We would simply need to get tested each time we increased our degree of restriction by a notch, to make sure the relevant biomarker - whatever it turns out to be - is not signalling that we have gone to far.Does anyone know what happens to biomarkers in humans under true starvation conditions, that perhaps we could find useful as warning signs in assessing our own degrees of restriction?I suspect concrete information of this type is a long way in the future.Rodney.> What we need is a way to get the numbers for each of us. And there are known parameters for human health now that argue against the 6% protein for most. > The basic guidelines are if you lose weight, you're not getting enough protein, so to guard against that they skew the number high. > Not talking losing weight,ie, what number maintains the desired weight, best health? > I think it's prudent for each CRer to determine that number, since we dare not rec a number lower than the RDA. A high number was suggested several years ago by Sherm (CRsociety), which was based on extrapolating lines on a chart in MNHD. I doubt that approach.> > I don't see the importance of a study that says 6% protein, when most people may not be able to do it. > The MIT data was derived by a new method: Twenty-four-hour oral tracer studies with L-[1-13C]lysine at a low (15 mg.kg (-1).d (-1) and intermediate (29 mg.kg (-1).d(-1)) lysine intake in healthy adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Jul;72(1):122-30. > PMID: 10871570.> So we have what might be the ultimate technique, versus a study of a group of humans. And that technique came up with numbers much higher than the RDA in MNHD, eg.> They also covered digestibility issues, so it looks complete to me.> BUT does the one RDA apply to everyone? When I see large variations in individuals, I have to wonder about the effects of too much protein. It seems to me that an optimum number may produce little byproducts of protein energy metabolism, while providing sufficient nitrogen. > So far, I haven't heard a good method for determining that for anyone. I know I don't lose weight at 56gms and I don't have smelly (H2S) gas. And that's using maybe half veggie /half animal protein. > > Regards.

[Guest guest]

Not exactly. Dr W started experiencing troubling symptoms and became ill

shortly after leaving the biosphere. Although he theorized why (in our

files), we can't be 100% positive of the reason.

In subsequent interviews of the other biospherans they related constant

hunger and irritability, to the point of squabbling amongst themselves

often. (Perhaps someone can dig up some of the actual interviews). In fact

everyone aside from Walford immediately returned to what (for want of a

better name) could be called a " normal " diet because they didn't like the

" side effects " .

on 6/17/2005 12:25 AM, drsusanforshey at drsusanforshey@... wrote:

> Perhaps, BUT Walford et al did quite well (actually extremely well!) @

> 12% protein (mostly plant source) despite " difficult manual labor " (as

> francesca expresses it):