Re: Poor vegan and Protein

[Guest guest]

Hi Edaz:

First, if you don't know how to do it YOU SHOULDN'T BE TRYING TO DO

IT UNTIL YOU DO KNOW HOW TO DO IT.

Second, people here are generally not in favor of extreme diets and

some here would regard what you are trying, especially when you

acknowledge you do not know how to do it, as close to the edge.

Third, presumably you are aware that it is not easy for vegetarians,

even less easy for vegans, to get their full required intake of

various nutrients because there are some essential nutrients that

plants simply do not contain. So you MUST, as I understand it, take

some supplements or you may get into serious trouble.

Fourth, as to the protein issue, if you believe you need 40 grams,

that is a mere 160 calories. So how many calories in total are you

expecting to eat? And what proportion of them are going to be from

protein? Perhaps you should go to some place like nutritiondata.com

and check out the foods that contain the highest amounts of protein

per 100 calories and substitute some of them for what you are

currently eating. For example, spirulina, soy protein, watercress,

tofu, yeast extract, various seaweeds, asparagus, soy flour, low fat

peanut flour, mustard greens all contain more than 40 grams of

protein in a mere 300 calories or less of the food.

But most important find out how to do what you are trying to do

before trying to do it! This is not really the best place to ask

regarding veganism. Surely there must be plenty of websites devoted

to veganism, where the people there should have instant answers?

Be careful and good luck.

Rodney.

> Hi

>

> Im a vegan and recently began CR, i'm having an extremely difficult

> time reaching my protein requirement (im 5'4 " and 115 right now I

> would like to reach 103) I belive my protein requirement if 40g, I

> barely ingest 20g- that's on a good day.

>

> I honestly do not know what to do- I'm not if I have to relenquish

my

> beliefs to con't this regimine

>

> ::sigh::

>

> prior CR i was eating nuts, legumes and grains for protein, but now

i

> have to cut back on my portions and I simply am not getting enough

> protein. i can't spend $3 everyday for tofu.

>

> i dont know.

>

> i know lisa walford is a vegan, how does she do it?

>

> i was thinking about buying some soy protein powder but it is very

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

>

> i dont know- very disheartened

>

> any advice would be greatly appreicated.

>

> edaz19

[Guest guest]

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?

> Hi

>

> Im a vegan and recently began CR, i'm having an extremely difficult

> time reaching my protein requirement (im 5'4 " and 115 right now I

> would like to reach 103) I belive my protein requirement if 40g, I

> barely ingest 20g- that's on a good day.

>

> I honestly do not know what to do- I'm not if I have to relenquish my

> beliefs to con't this regimine

>

> ::sigh::

>

> prior CR i was eating nuts, legumes and grains for protein, but now i

> have to cut back on my portions and I simply am not getting enough

> protein. i can't spend $3 everyday for tofu.

>

> i dont know.

>

> i know lisa walford is a vegan, how does she do it?

>

> i was thinking about buying some soy protein powder but it is very

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

>

> i dont know- very disheartened

>

> any advice would be greatly appreicated.

>

> edaz19

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

Hi :

When he says 5% to 6% does he mean 5% to 6% of total calories?

Perhaps the upcoming University College London experiments with fruit

flies will determine that protein is the most important nutrient to

restrict. We may know by the end of the year.

Rodney.

> > Hi

> >

> > Im a vegan and recently began CR, i'm having an extremely

difficult

> > time reaching my protein requirement (im 5'4 " and 115 right now I

> > would like to reach 103) I belive my protein requirement if 40g, I

> > barely ingest 20g- that's on a good day.

> >

> > I honestly do not know what to do- I'm not if I have to

relenquish my

> > beliefs to con't this regimine

> >

> > ::sigh::

> >

> > prior CR i was eating nuts, legumes and grains for protein, but

now i

> > have to cut back on my portions and I simply am not getting enough

> > protein. i can't spend $3 everyday for tofu.

> >

> > i dont know.

> >

> > i know lisa walford is a vegan, how does she do it?

> >

> > i was thinking about buying some soy protein powder but it is very

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

> >

> > i dont know- very disheartened

> >

> > any advice would be greatly appreicated.

> >

> > edaz19

[Guest guest]

Sorry it may be difficult to eat well, vegetarian, and cheaply. If soy

protein or tofu is expensive, wheat germ is approx 23% protein, but

wheat germ may not be any cheaper than tofu. Pasta is something like

20% and rice down around 15% protein. Not great choices from caloric content.

The lower cost sources of quality protein are usually meats like fish or

poultry.

There is currently a debate regarding best protein levels and activity/exercise

effort levels will also be a factor.

Its important to get essential proteins, so be careful you don't do any harm

while trying to do better.

JR

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

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of edaz19

Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 4:24 PM

Subject: [ ] Poor vegan and Protein

Hi

Im a vegan and recently began CR, i'm having an extremely difficult

time reaching my protein requirement (im 5'4 " and 115 right now I

would like to reach 103) I belive my protein requirement if 40g, I

barely ingest 20g- that's on a good day.

I honestly do not know what to do- I'm not if I have to relenquish my

beliefs to con't this regimine

::sigh::

prior CR i was eating nuts, legumes and grains for protein, but now i

have to cut back on my portions and I simply am not getting enough

protein. i can't spend $3 everyday for tofu.

i dont know.

i know lisa walford is a vegan, how does she do it?

i was thinking about buying some soy protein powder but it is very

calorie dense and i dont want to rely on special foods.

i dont know- very disheartened

any advice would be greatly appreicated.

edaz19

[Guest guest]

Hi Edaz:

With regard to travelling, most places I have seen soy protein for

sale it is not refridgerated. So you could easily put a couple of

packages of soy protein in your luggage when you travel, to

supplement your protein intake if you feel your diet is deficient in

protein.

You do not specify the nature of the beliefs that cause you to choose

veganism, and perhaps you do not want to get into it, which is fine.

But if your belief is that veganism is necessary for health then you

will find quite a few people here who would think that to be

inaccurate. In fact we would all be very interested to see any

evidence you have that supports the view that vegans are generally

healthier, or live longer than other types of health conscious people.

If it is your belief that killing animals is inappropriate, then what

is the logic by which it is OK to kill plants? If the killing of

living things is inappropriate perhaps we should all be eating a

chemically defined diet? But for sure some of the chemical nutrients

will have been derived from living things. But I assume that the

killing of animals is not the issue because if it was then there

would be no reason why you could not drink milk, or eat milk

products, like cheese or yogurt. But 100 calories of cheddar cheese

contains only 6 grams of protein, nowhere near as good as spinach

listed below.

If your belief is based on some religious reason then clearly logical

argument is irrelevant.

One additional point: You did not mention green vegetables in your

earlier post. Worth mentioning that according to Fitday.com 100

calories of spinach contains a 13 grams of protein. It also contains

plenty of fiber and lots of healthy micronutrients. So just ~300

calories of spinach would provide 40 grams of protein. Another food

for you to think about.

But it seems to me (fwiw) that you will be running the risk of

possibly seriously damaging your health if you try to balance: A)

extremely low caloric intake; severe restrictions on the foods

you permit yourself to eat; and C) travelling to places where the

foods you need to maintain your health may not be available.

If I was in your shoes I wouldn't try it. But of course I am not.

Hope this helps. But I get the feeling you have pretty much made up

your mind. Good luck.

Rodney.

--- In , anila zaidi <edaz19@y...>

wrote:

> 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?'

>

[Guest guest]

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

> 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]

Hi Edaz

I am a vegan and have been so for years. I think you are worrying too much. Eat all the beans and nuts you need. They are high in minerals and vitamins and very good for you with excellent fats. In fact, I think you can be CR on a vegan diet as long as you keep your food choices healthy...lots of vegetables and other high nutrient foods.

I don't I am thrilled to be vegan. I just went to my 20th high school reunion and noticed how thick others have gotten...while I am 5' 6" and 117 lbs. I also danced for hours that night while the others could not. I am not wanting to brag but want to show what the vegan diet can do for one....everyone I have told I am going to my reunion said it was my 10th...they could not believe it was my 20th.

Just keep eating high nutrient vegetable protein foods...as much as you need and no more. Eat whole foods. Stay away from refined and processed foods. I honestly would not worry about it. I've had breaks where I had some dairy from time to time and it just felt heavy and yucky...truly plant based eating makes you youthful.

Don't forget to take supplements, though. I would suggest this for everyone. I supplement with some seaweed which is incredible for your health and beauty.

And don't say "poor vegan"!!! Feel sorry for those who stuff themselves with dairy and meat and thicken themselves up. Once beautiful people in high school are no longer so because of what they eat.

a C.

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

Message: 7 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:23:38 -0000 From: "edaz19" <edaz19@...>Subject: Poor vegan and ProteinHiIm a vegan and recently began CR, i'm having an extremely difficulttime reaching my protein requirement (im 5'4" and 115 right now Iwould like to reach 103) I belive my protein requirement if 40g, Ibarely ingest 20g- that's on a good day.I honestly do not know what to do- I'm not if I have to relenquish mybeliefs to con't this regimine ::sigh::prior CR i was eating nuts, legumes and grains for protein, but now ihave to cut back on my portions and I simply am not getting enoughprotein. i can't spend $3 everyday for tofu. i dont know.i know lisa walford is a vegan, how does she do it?i was thinking about buying some soy protein powder but it is verycalorie dense and i dont want to rely on special foods. i dont know- very disheartenedany advice would be greatly appreicated.edaz19

[Guest guest]

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]

His assertion that low protein intake is desired seems to be based, in

part, 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 of

AFB1-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 induced

by aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) has been shown to be reduced in male F344 rats

fed a diet containing 6% protein (as casein). This reduction occurs

despite increased energy intake, when compared with animals fed a diet

containing 22% protein. Among its many effects, low protein intake is

known to increase the proportion of energy intake expended in the form

of heat (thermogenesis); thus, this investigation examined the

association between the development of GGT+ foci and alterations in

indices of thermogenesis induced by feeding varying levels of dietary

protein. Five days following the completion of AFB1 dosing, animals

were assigned to groups fed 4%, 8%, 12%, 16%, or 22% dietary protein

for 6 weeks. Foci development (% liver volume occupied) was markedly

reduced in animals fed the low-protein diet (4%, 8%), yet calorie

consumption per 100 g body wt was greater. A modest negative linear

trend was observed in oxygen consumption with increasing levels of

dietary protein intake. Urinary norepinephrine levels were elevated in

the groups fed 4% and 8% protein; urinary dopamine and norepinephrine

turnover rates in brown adipose tissue were highest in animals fed 4%

protein. These results suggest that GGT+ foci development occurs when

a " critical level " (approx 12%) of dietary protein intake is reached.

Inhibition of foci development at lower levels of protein intake is

associated 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 higher

relative 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 to

aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) develop fewer gamma-glutamyl

transpeptidase-positive preneoplastic foci and tumors when fed 6%

dietary casein than when fed 22% casein during promotion; mechanisms

underlying this effect have not been elucidated. We examined natural

killer (NK) cell activity, mitogenic responses, and lymphocyte surface

antigen profiles in male Fischer 344 rats dosed with AFB1 or dosing

vehicle alone and then fed 6% or 22% casein isocaloric diets for one

year. Mean body weights and food intake did not differ significantly

among the groups during the study. NK cells purified from peripheral

blood of rats fed 6% casein mediated higher specific lysis (p <

0.0001) against YAC-1 target cells than cells obtained from animals

fed 22% casein. Mitogenic responses of splenic lymphocytes to

concanavalin A and lymphocyte subpopulations, identified by flow

cytometry, did not differ significantly among dietary groups. Hepatic

tumors were detected in 27% of the 22% casein AFB1-treated group and

in 6% of animals in the 6% casein AFB1-treated group. The association

between long-term intake of a 6% casein diet and higher relative NK

cell cytotoxic activity suggests a potentially important mechanism

that may help protect against the development of hepatocellular

tumors. Further study of this mechanism as a causal factor in limiting

tumor development is required.

3)Inhibition of aflatoxin B1-induced gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase

positive (GGT+) hepatic preneoplastic foci and tumors by low protein

diets: evidence that altered GGT+ foci indicate neoplastic potential

LD Youngman and TC

Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

14853- 4401.

Previous studies in this laboratory with young Fischer 344 male rats

have shown that the post-initiation development of aflatoxin B1

(AFB1)- induced gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase positive (GGT+) hepatic

foci was markedly inhibited by low protein feeding, even though the

energy intake was greater. This dietary effect, however, did not

necessarily apply to hepatic tumor development. Thus, the present

investigation was undertaken to examine this dietary effect upon the

development of hepatic tumors and, is so doing, to determine the

correlation of foci development with tumor development. Following AFB1

dosing (15 daily doses of 0.3 mg/kg each), animals were fed diets

containing 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 100

weeks developed dose- dependently to protein intake. Foci development,

tumor incidence, tumor size and the number of tumors per animal were

markedly reduced while the time to tumor emergence was increased with

low protein feeding. Non- hepatic tumor incidence also was lower in

the animals fed the lowest protein diet. Foci development indices

(foci number, per cent liver volume occupied) were highly correlated

with tumor incidence at 58 and 100 weeks (r = 0.90-1.00). Tumor and

foci 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]

One more:

4)PMID: 1356614

Cancer Lett. 1992 Sep 30;66(2):165-74.

Attenuation of preneoplastic lesion development by dietary protein

intervention: apparent persistence and regression.

Youngman LD, TC.

Clinical Trial Service Unit, Radcliffe Infirmary, University of

Oxford, UK.

The effects of feeding high protein diets that promote the

development of aflatoxin B1 (AFB1)-induced gamma-glutamyl

transpeptidase positive (GGT+) preneoplastic lesions were examined in

Fischer 344 (F344) rats. After administering AFB1 for 2 weeks

(initiation), animals were fed diets over four successive 3-week

periods (promotion). Either a low (5% casein) or high (20% casein)

protein diet was fed for 3, 6, or 9 weeks before switching to the

opposite diet to determine whether progressively longer periods of

feeding the initial diet caused preneoplastic foci to become more

refractory to the intervention effects of the second diet. The results

from animals consuming the 20% casein diet for progressively longer

periods suggest that longer exposure to the high protein diet

progressively enhances the potential for future lesion growth. Results

from animals consuming the 5% casein diet for progressively longer

periods suggest that longer exposure to the inhibitory low protein

diet progressively inhibits the potential for future lesion growth.

These results suggest that a high protein diet is a potent promoter of

preneoplastic growth and that progressively longer exposure to a

particular promotive environment increasingly attenuates foci response

to future dietary intervention.

> >

> > > 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]

Last but not least:

5)PMID: 1359506

Nutr Cancer. 1992;18(2):131-42.

The sustained development of preneoplastic lesions depends on high

protein intake.

Youngman LD, TC.

Clinical Trial Service Unit, Radcliffe Infirmary, University of

Oxford, UK.

The effects of sequential alterations in the feeding of two levels

of dietary protein (5% and 20% casein) on the postinitiation

development of aflatoxin B1- (AFB1) induced gamma-glutamyl

transpeptidase-positive (GGT+) preneoplastic foci were examined.

Weanling male Fischer 344 rats fed AIN-76A diet (20% protein) were

administered 10 intragastric doses of AFB1 (1 dose/day during the

14-day dosing period excluding weekends) at 250 micrograms/kg body wt

(initiation). After AFB1 tissue clearance, rats were randomly assigned

to dietary treatment groups. During the next 12 weeks (promotion),

they developed AFB1-induced GGT+ preneoplastic lesions. The 12-week

promotion period was subdivided into four three-week periods, during

which rats were fed isocaloric diets containing 20% casein during all

four periods (20:20:20:20), 5% casein during all four periods

(5:5:5:5), or sequentially altered casein levels (20:5:20:5 and

5:20:5:20). Rats were killed at 3,6,9, and 12 weeks to examine the

dependence of GGT+ foci development on protein intake. Animals fed 5%

casein diets developed significantly fewer (p < 0.01) GGT+ foci than

animals fed 20% casein diets despite greater total caloric intake.

Similarly, in the intervention groups, preneoplastic development was

enhanced when the 20% casein diet was fed and inhibited when the 5%

casein diet was fed. These results indicate that the sustained

development of AFB1-induced preneoplastic foci depends on a high

protein intake. Alternatively, these results suggest that low protein

intake inhibits lesion development.

> > >

> > > > 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]

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]

Page 308 of " The China Study " says that only 5-6% of total calorie

intake is needed to replenish excreted protein, but that 9-10% is what

has been recommended in the RDA in the past (prior to 2002).

's conclusions are based on the results of large

epidemiological studies done in China, with follow-up ground-truthing

of the data they collected, as well as on lab studies he did prior to

and following his involvement with the study. Note that he went into

this field trying to grow cows better and cheaper (he grew up on a

dairy farm) and the data forced him to reconsider what he knew as

conventional wisdom.

We've all seen the plots of things like breast cancer incidence vs. fat

consumption, with the points labeled with the country the data came

from. The US has one of the higher incidences. Consider that fat

consumption can be considered simply as a marker for level of animal

protein consumption.

According to the new food pyramid, I need 5 ounces of meat or beans per

day, where 1 oz. of meat, or 1 egg, or 1/4 cup beans or 1 tablespoon of

peanut butter or 1/2 oz. of nuts or seeds is an ounce. An egg is 6g of

protein, and an ounce of meat is about 8g. So this is about 30-40g.

It also says 3 cups of milk, which would also include some protein - 8

g per cup, or 24g.

This would make it 64g of protein per day. At 4 calories per, this is

256 calories, or 16% of the 1600 calories it thinks I should eat based

on age, gender and activity level (weight is not considered).

Obviously, if you're eating fewer calories, this makes up a bigger

chunk of your diet.

If it were 40g per day, it would be 160 calories, or 10% of my total

calories, which sites as being consistent with the older

guidelines. This 10% threshold is also the lower level of dietary

protein consumption that sites for the beginning of the

skyrocketing of various diseases.

According to The China Study, the 2002 guidelines (note that the

copyright date is 2004 so predates the new pyramid) bumped the protein

recommendation up to 10% to as much as 35% of dietary calories, but the

2002 report says this is the same as previous recommendations which

says is false. says he knows of no prior report

suggesting an intake anywhere near this high.

At .8g per kg of body weight, I calculate about 54g of protein for a

150 lb person, which would be 217 calories. This would be 15% of a

1500 calorie intake. Note that this is straight protein calories, and

does not include accompanying fats.

Note that the new pyramid presentation on the web does NOT give this

info in grams, which is a royal pain in the arse when looking at food

labels. After finally getting all this info on food labels, their new

dietary guide doesn't tie them together.

Iris

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

wrote:

> Hi :

>

> When he says 5% to 6% does he mean 5% to 6% of total calories?

>

> Perhaps the upcoming University College London experiments with fruit

> flies will determine that protein is the most important nutrient to

> restrict. We may know by the end of the year.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

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

unbiased?

> 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]

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

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

francesca expresses it):

Calorie restriction in biosphere 2: alterations in physiologic,

hematologic, hormonal, and biochemical parameters in humans restricted

for a 2-year period.

Walford RL, Mock D, Verdery R, MacCallum T.

Department of Pathology, Center for Health Sciences, University of

California, Los Angeles 90095, USA. roy@...

Four female and four male crew members, including two of the present

authors (R. Walford and T. MacCallum)--seven of the crew being ages 27

to 42 years, and one aged 67 years--were sealed inside Biosphere 2 for

two years. During seven eighths of that period they consumed a

low-calorie (1750-2100 kcal/d) nutrient-dense diet of vegetables,

fruits, nuts, grains, and legumes, with small amounts of dairy, eggs,

and meat (approximately 12% calories from protein, approximately 11%

from fat, and approximately 77% from complex carbohydrates). They

experienced a marked and sustained weight loss of 17 +/- 5%, mostly in

the first 8 months. Blood was drawn before entry into Biosphere 2, at

many time-points inside it, and four times during the 30 months

following exit from it and return to an ad libitum diet. Longitudinal

studies of 50 variables on each crew member compared outside and

inside values by means of a Bayesian statistical analysis. The data

show that physiologic (e.g., body mass index, with a decrease of 19%

for men and 13% for women; blood pressure, with a systolic decrease of

25% and a diastolic decrease of 22%), hematologic (e.g., white blood

cell count, decreased 31%), hormonal (e.g., insulin, decreased 42%;

T3, decreased 19%), biochemical (e.g., blood sugar, decreased 21%;

cholesterol, decreased 30%), and a number of additional changes,

including values for rT3, cortisol, glycated hemoglobin, plus others,

resembled those of rodents or monkeys maintained on a

calorie-restricted regime. Significant variations in several

substances not hitherto studied in calorie-restricted animals are also

reported (e.g., androstenedione, thyroid binding globulin, renin, and

transferrin). We conclude that healthy nonobese humans on a

low-calorie, nutrient-dense diet show physiologic, hematologic,

hormonal, and biochemical changes resembling those of rodents and

monkeys on such diets. With regard to the health of humans on such a

diet, we observed that despite the selective restriction in calories

and marked weight loss, all crew members remained in excellent health

and sustained a high level of physical and mental activity throughout

the entire 2 years.

> > 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]

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.]

> > > 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]

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.

>

> > 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

" Weight loss " is a pretty vague term. When I lose weight, I want to

know, as exactly as possible, WHAT it is I'm losing: is it fat, or

muscle, or bone, or water, etc.

My personal goal is to maintain and even increase muscle mass as I

age. My primary reason for this is I have a lumbar scoliosis that gets

progressively worse if I lose muscle, the degree of the curvature

increases dramatically. When I increase muscle, especially core and

trunk muscles, my spine straightens back up. Having good muscle mass

also helps the joints, increases balance and stability, and is great

for every day functioning. I have no problem loading 80 pound sacks of

steer manure into the trunk of my car, and last week I flipped AND

rotated my queen sized laytex mattress, all by myself. I don't believe

that muscle catabolism is an inevitable aspect of aging, or a healthy

aspect of CR. Lifting weights and eating a diet fairly high in protein

are both necessary components for achieving muscle maintenance or

anabolism.

So far, I haven't been convinced by any evidence I've read that animal

protein is detrimental. I do avoid animal fats though, and it seems to

me a lot of the evidence for not eating animal products is as much

related to the consumption of the fat as anything. My main sources of

dietary protein are egg whites, nonfat dairy, lean chicken breast, and

fish, and I eat at least 1 g protein/pound of body fat per day.

Whenever I decrease my calorie intake I increase my protein.

But I'm following this discussion with great interest.

-Liz