Re: High legume and meat intake vs long life

[Guest guest]

Doesn't sound like it. " Only among 7th Day Adventists who ate red meat " . Rather sounds like something protective in the legumes.

on 2/12/2007 8:51 AM, Al Pater at old542000@... wrote:

Hi All,

Why would high legume intake predict survival in the

(1) paper? It might have been due to the lower

methionine content of legumes.

However, the free full-text at

http://tinyurl.com/2zlgd2 (2) paper, below, the data

of Table 2 shows relevant data. Also, see:

" Legume consumption =/>3 times/wk compared with <1

time/wk was associated with much lower relative risk

of colon cancer (0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.83), but only

among Seventh-day Adventists who ate red meat.

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Since Al has raised the question of beans and methionine ..........

which type of bean contains, of those I have checked, by far the most

methionine? Answer: soybeans. 1700 calories of soybeans contains

about 2.3 grams of MET. So if one is trying to reduce one's overall

MET intake to one gram or less daily, then soybeans and most types of

tofu would provide a lot more than their fair share of MET.

Okara tofu (I have often looked for it but never found it; I have

heard that historically only the peasants eat it in Japan) and fried

versions of tofu, the caloric content of which is boosted with even

more fat, both have somewhat lower levels of MET per 1700 calories.

Among the other beans, 1700 calories of adzuki, regular baked beans,

lima, or chick peas each contain about 1 gram of MET, so would comply

quite well with an overall one gram target. Some other bean types

are 50% higher than these.

Rodney.

(I use 1700 calories as my approximate base caloric intake benchmark)

>

> Hi All,

>

> Why would high legume intake predict survival in the

> (1) paper? It might have been due to the lower

> methionine content of legumes.

>

> However, the free full-text at

> http://tinyurl.com/2zlgd2 (2) paper, below, the data

> of Table 2 shows relevant data. Also, see:

>

> " Legume consumption =/>3 times/wk compared with <1

> time/wk was associated with much lower relative risk

> of colon cancer (0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.83), but only

> among Seventh-day Adventists who ate red meat. In

> addition, the positive association between colon

> cancer risk and red meat consumption (relative risk =

> 2.68; 95% CI: 1.24, 5.78) was only seen in those who

> consumed legumes infrequently. "

>

> 1. Blackberry I, Kouris-Blazos A, Wahlqvist ML, Steen

> B, Lukito W, Horie Y.

> Legumes: the most important dietary predictor of

> survival in older people of different ethnicities.

> Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(Suppl):S126.

> PMID: 15294666 http://tinyurl.com/2ajuml

>

> 2. Fraser GE.

> Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart

> disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white

> California Seventh-day Adventists.

> Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S.

> PMID: 10479227 http://tinyurl.com/2zlgd2

>

>

> -- Al Pater, PhD; email: Alpater@...

>

>

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

______________

> Music Unlimited

> Access over 1 million songs.

> http://music./unlimited

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney.

One would expect soybeans to contain more methionine than other beans

simply because they contain substantially more protein overall per

serving (i.e. more of *all* the amino acids). Do you know if the

proportional amino acid breakdown of soybeans is different than other

beans? This question may be relevant to any CRON person looking to

consume a specific daily grammage of protein via beans, while

consuming the least amount of calories -- and soybeans have the

highest protein-to-calorie ratio, right?

-Dave

> >

> > Hi All,

> >

> > Why would high legume intake predict survival in the

> > (1) paper? It might have been due to the lower

> > methionine content of legumes.

> >

> > However, the free full-text at

> > http://tinyurl.com/2zlgd2 (2) paper, below, the data

> > of Table 2 shows relevant data. Also, see:

> >

> > " Legume consumption =/>3 times/wk compared with <1

> > time/wk was associated with much lower relative risk

> > of colon cancer (0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.83), but only

> > among Seventh-day Adventists who ate red meat. In

> > addition, the positive association between colon

> > cancer risk and red meat consumption (relative risk =

> > 2.68; 95% CI: 1.24, 5.78) was only seen in those who

> > consumed legumes infrequently. "

> >

> > 1. Blackberry I, Kouris-Blazos A, Wahlqvist ML, Steen

> > B, Lukito W, Horie Y.

> > Legumes: the most important dietary predictor of

> > survival in older people of different ethnicities.

> > Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(Suppl):S126.

> > PMID: 15294666 http://tinyurl.com/2ajuml

> >

> > 2. Fraser GE.

> > Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart

> > disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white

> > California Seventh-day Adventists.

> > Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S.

> > PMID: 10479227 http://tinyurl.com/2zlgd2

> >

> >

> > -- Al Pater, PhD; email: Alpater@

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> ______________

> > Music Unlimited

> > Access over 1 million songs.

> > http://music./unlimited

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Dave:

I haven't specifically checked the data to compare the protein

content of various beans. But since you ask, I do know that soybeans

themselves (40+% of calories), and tofu especially (60+%), have a

remarkably high fat content. So, based on that, I would have

imagined that the protein percentage would be lower for soybeans than

for beans with a lower fat content. But as I said I haven't

specifically checked the data.

Nor am I sure I would want to raise my protein intake. I rarely see

a number below 15% when I do a detailed nutrient analysis. Quite

often it is a lot higher. Substituting fish oil for fish will make a

difference.

Rodney.

> >

> > Hi folks:

> >

> > Since Al has raised the question of beans and

> methionine ..........

> > which type of bean contains, of those I have checked, by far the

> most

> > methionine? Answer: soybeans. 1700 calories of soybeans

contains

> > about 2.3 grams of MET. So if one is trying to reduce one's

> overall

> > MET intake to one gram or less daily, then soybeans and most

types

> of

> > tofu would provide a lot more than their fair share of MET.

> >

> > Okara tofu (I have often looked for it but never found it; I have

> > heard that historically only the peasants eat it in Japan) and

> fried

> > versions of tofu, the caloric content of which is boosted with

even

> > more fat, both have somewhat lower levels of MET per 1700

calories.

> >

> > Among the other beans, 1700 calories of adzuki, regular baked

> beans,

> > lima, or chick peas each contain about 1 gram of MET, so would

> comply

> > quite well with an overall one gram target. Some other bean

types

> > are 50% higher than these.

> >

> > Rodney.

> >

> > (I use 1700 calories as my approximate base caloric intake

> benchmark)

> >

> > --- In , Al Pater <old542000@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi All,

> > >

> > > Why would high legume intake predict survival in the

> > > (1) paper? It might have been due to the lower

> > > methionine content of legumes.

> > >

> > > However, the free full-text at

> > > http://tinyurl.com/2zlgd2 (2) paper, below, the data

> > > of Table 2 shows relevant data. Also, see:

> > >

> > > " Legume consumption =/>3 times/wk compared with <1

> > > time/wk was associated with much lower relative risk

> > > of colon cancer (0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.83), but only

> > > among Seventh-day Adventists who ate red meat. In

> > > addition, the positive association between colon

> > > cancer risk and red meat consumption (relative risk =

> > > 2.68; 95% CI: 1.24, 5.78) was only seen in those who

> > > consumed legumes infrequently. "

> > >

> > > 1. Blackberry I, Kouris-Blazos A, Wahlqvist ML, Steen

> > > B, Lukito W, Horie Y.

> > > Legumes: the most important dietary predictor of

> > > survival in older people of different ethnicities.

> > > Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(Suppl):S126.

> > > PMID: 15294666 http://tinyurl.com/2ajuml

> > >

> > > 2. Fraser GE.

> > > Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart

> > > disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white

> > > California Seventh-day Adventists.

> > > Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S.

> > > PMID: 10479227 http://tinyurl.com/2zlgd2

> > >

> > >

> > > -- Al Pater, PhD; email: Alpater@

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> > ______________

> > > Music Unlimited

> > > Access over 1 million songs.

> > > http://music./unlimited

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I spent some time on nutritiondata.com. Indeed, soybeans have

significantly more protein and fat(!!) than other beans. They are

the only " low-carb " beans that I was able to find.

soybeans: protein:33% fat:43% carbs:24%

garbanzo: p:19% f:13% c:68%

black: p:23% f:3% c:74%

pinto: p:22% f:4% c:74%

I was also able to check the ratio of methionine

to total protein. Soybeans do not have a higher

proportion of methionine compared with other beans.

They're all nearly the same:

Proportion of Methionine to Total Protein:

soybeans: 0.0135

garbanzo: 0.0131

black: 0.0151

pinto: 0.0130

It doesn't appear that methionine is a good reason to avoid soybeans.

-Dave

> > > >

> > > > Hi All,

> > > >

> > > > Why would high legume intake predict survival in the

> > > > (1) paper? It might have been due to the lower

> > > > methionine content of legumes.

> > > >

> > > > However, the free full-text at

> > > > http://tinyurl.com/2zlgd2 (2) paper, below, the data

> > > > of Table 2 shows relevant data. Also, see:

> > > >

> > > > " Legume consumption =/>3 times/wk compared with <1

> > > > time/wk was associated with much lower relative risk

> > > > of colon cancer (0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.83), but only

> > > > among Seventh-day Adventists who ate red meat. In

> > > > addition, the positive association between colon

> > > > cancer risk and red meat consumption (relative risk =

> > > > 2.68; 95% CI: 1.24, 5.78) was only seen in those who

> > > > consumed legumes infrequently. "

> > > >

> > > > 1. Blackberry I, Kouris-Blazos A, Wahlqvist ML, Steen

> > > > B, Lukito W, Horie Y.

> > > > Legumes: the most important dietary predictor of

> > > > survival in older people of different ethnicities.

> > > > Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(Suppl):S126.

> > > > PMID: 15294666 http://tinyurl.com/2ajuml

> > > >

> > > > 2. Fraser GE.

> > > > Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart

> > > > disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white

> > > > California Seventh-day Adventists.

> > > > Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S.

> > > > PMID: 10479227 http://tinyurl.com/2zlgd2

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -- Al Pater, PhD; email: Alpater@

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> > > ______________

> > > > Music Unlimited

> > > > Access over 1 million songs.

> > > > http://music./unlimited

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Dave:

I do not agree at all with your statement that methionine is not a

good reason to avoid soybeans. (I do not have an opinion about

whether, apart from the MET issue, soybeans are net beneficial or net

harmful ............ that is another discussion altogether.)

Surely, if someone wishes to limit MET intake then it is the amount

as a percentage of total calories that they need to minimize, not the

amount as a proportion of protein.

If we wish to consume just one gram of MET daily in, say, a 1700

daily calorie diet, then the average food in our diet needs to

contain 0.235% of the calories from MET. It will hardly help to

achieve this by eating cooked soybeans which contain 0.518% of

calories from MET. More than double the amount we are aiming for.

Certainly you could eat soybeans and at the same time make up for

that by eating an equivalent caloric amount of other foods that

contain zero MET. But might it not be better, since beans in general

are believed to be helpful, to get the benefit of beans by eating

other types, say adzuki garbanzo or lima beans, which contain less

than half the MET of soybeans?

So if you want to get the benefits of beans while limiting your MET

intake, soybeans seem to be the worst choice. OTOH, if you believe

soybeans have magical qualities (we are all entitled to our

opinions!) you will have to offset their excessive MET content

elsewhere.

[And based on much stuff I have read, the validity of which is very

unclear, I am far from being convinced that soybeans are net

beneficial even ignoring the MET content. Indeed there are a number

of sources that fervently believe soy products are positively

harmful. I do not have an opinion. I remain open-minded. In the

mean time I am placing my bets on avoiding *possible* risks (of which

MET is one) by consuming only small, very occasional, amounts of soy

products.

Rodney.

> > > > >

> > > > > Hi All,

> > > > >

> > > > > Why would high legume intake predict survival in the

> > > > > (1) paper? It might have been due to the lower

> > > > > methionine content of legumes.

> > > > >

> > > > > However, the free full-text at

> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2zlgd2 (2) paper, below, the data

> > > > > of Table 2 shows relevant data. Also, see:

> > > > >

> > > > > " Legume consumption =/>3 times/wk compared with <1

> > > > > time/wk was associated with much lower relative risk

> > > > > of colon cancer (0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.83), but only

> > > > > among Seventh-day Adventists who ate red meat. In

> > > > > addition, the positive association between colon

> > > > > cancer risk and red meat consumption (relative risk =

> > > > > 2.68; 95% CI: 1.24, 5.78) was only seen in those who

> > > > > consumed legumes infrequently. "

> > > > >

> > > > > 1. Blackberry I, Kouris-Blazos A, Wahlqvist ML, Steen

> > > > > B, Lukito W, Horie Y.

> > > > > Legumes: the most important dietary predictor of

> > > > > survival in older people of different ethnicities.

> > > > > Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(Suppl):S126.

> > > > > PMID: 15294666 http://tinyurl.com/2ajuml

> > > > >

> > > > > 2. Fraser GE.

> > > > > Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart

> > > > > disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white

> > > > > California Seventh-day Adventists.

> > > > > Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S.

> > > > > PMID: 10479227 http://tinyurl.com/2zlgd2

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -- Al Pater, PhD; email: Alpater@

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> > > > ______________

> > > > > Music Unlimited

> > > > > Access over 1 million songs.

> > > > > http://music./unlimited

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

--- In , Al Pater <old542000@...>

wrote:

>

> Hi All,

>

> Why would high legume intake predict survival in the

> (1) paper? It might have been due to the lower

> methionine content of legumes.

>

> " Legume consumption =/>3 times/wk compared with <1

> time/wk was associated with much lower relative risk

> of colon cancer (0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.83), but only

> among Seventh-day Adventists who ate red meat. In

> addition, the positive association between colon

> cancer risk and red meat consumption (relative risk =

> 2.68; 95% CI: 1.24, 5.78) was only seen in those who

> consumed legumes infrequently. "

> Seventh-day Adventists.

> Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S.

HI all and Al:

This seems to be a rather selective quote from the

original source. The very next sentence suggests there

are similarly significant benefits from the consumption

of fish which happens to be quite high in methionine.

Quote:

There was a reduction in risk of death by up to 8% for every 20

grams increase in legumes intake. The result remained significant

with or without controlling for ethnic backgrounds. With every 20

grams increase in fish and shellfish intake, there was a 6% decrease

in the hazard of death (95% CI 1%-12%), after adjusting for age,

gender, and smoking status only.

Unquote.

Interested in your response.

.

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Well my response is to suggest we may be 'talking apples and oranges'.

The benefit of fish appears to be largely to prevent people dying at

a comparatively young age from CVD.

The benefit of reducing methionine intake is to slow the aging

process.

These are two very very different phenomena for the following

reason: For most ad libbers there is not likely to be much benefit

to be derived from reducing MET intake and thereby aging more slowly

if they are going to die in their sixties from clogged arteries no

matter how fast or slowly they are aging.

But for people on CR (who judging from their CVD risk factors, appear

to have an extraordinarily low probability of dying from heart

disease, or from cancer according to the mouse studies) slowing the

aging rate may be very much more significant than trying to prevent

the development of a disease they are not going to develop anyway.

By greatly reducing the two major causes of death, we on CR have a

chance, with luck, of reaching 120, which the person with clogged

arteries will never have. Sixty-eight is the current average age of

death in the US.

So by this logic I suggest that forgoing fish may be net negative for

an ad libber (because of the loss of EPA and DHA which might

otherwise have delayed his CVD) but net beneficial for anyone on CR

(because of the reduction in MET which slows our aging rate).

Even better, of course, would be to: A) do CR; take fish oil

supplements to get the oil and avoid the MET, and; C) avoid

excessive MET from other sources also.

................ all IMO, based on making what seem to me to be

logical inferences from the data in the studies that have been

referenced here the past few years.

Rodney.

> >

> > Hi All,

> >

> > Why would high legume intake predict survival in the

> > (1) paper? It might have been due to the lower

> > methionine content of legumes.

> >

>

> > " Legume consumption =/>3 times/wk compared with <1

> > time/wk was associated with much lower relative risk

> > of colon cancer (0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.83), but only

> > among Seventh-day Adventists who ate red meat. In

> > addition, the positive association between colon

> > cancer risk and red meat consumption (relative risk =

> > 2.68; 95% CI: 1.24, 5.78) was only seen in those who

> > consumed legumes infrequently. "

> > Seventh-day Adventists.

> > Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S.

>

> HI all and Al:

>

> This seems to be a rather selective quote from the

> original source. The very next sentence suggests there

> are similarly significant benefits from the consumption

> of fish which happens to be quite high in methionine.

>

> Quote:

>

> There was a reduction in risk of death by up to 8% for every 20

> grams increase in legumes intake. The result remained significant

> with or without controlling for ethnic backgrounds. With every 20

> grams increase in fish and shellfish intake, there was a 6%

decrease

> in the hazard of death (95% CI 1%-12%), after adjusting for age,

> gender, and smoking status only.

>

> Unquote.

>

> Interested in your response.

>

> .

>

[Guest guest]

Where are you getting this figure from? It''s more like 77 in 2000 and likely higher in 2006.

on 2/14/2007 10:50 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

Sixty-eight is the current average age of

death in the US.

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

Thanks for asking. My understanding is that the average age of people

who are currently dying in the US is between 68 and 69. I will try to

find the source of that number for you.

The ~77 number is the current *life expectancy*. Life expectancy is

*not* defined as the average age at death of people born ~60 to ~70

years ago - which is the ~68.5 number mentioned in the first paragraph

above.

Life expectancy for, say, 2006, is defined as what the average age at

death would be if the CURRENT, 2006, age-specific death rates are

hypothetically applied to a large population. Those death rates are

applied cumulatively, by single year of age, starting at age zero, and

continuing on up year by year until half that theoretical population

has died. The age at which half that theoretical population has died

is determined to be the current life expectancy.

I am not sure if the above explains the calculation of life expectancy

clearly enough. If not, I can give you a specific numerical example

which may make it clearer.

Rodney.

>

> Sixty-eight is the current average age of

> death in the US.

>

[Guest guest]

If a baby dies it drops the average age of death of all its

contemporaries but does not drop the remaining life expectancy of all

the rest,

Positive Dennis

Rodney wrote:

> Hi Francesca:

>

> Thanks for asking. My understanding is that the average age of people

> who are currently dying in the US is between 68 and 69. I will try to

> find the source of that number for you.

>

> The ~77 number is the current *life expectancy*. Life expectancy is

> *not* defined as the average age at death of people born ~60 to ~70

> years ago - which is the ~68.5 number mentioned in the first paragraph

> above.

>

> Life expectancy for, say, 2006, is defined as what the average age at

> death would be if the CURRENT, 2006, age-specific death rates are

> hypothetically applied to a large population. Those death rates are

> applied cumulatively, by single year of age, starting at age zero, and

> continuing on up year by year until half that theoretical population

> has died. The age at which half that theoretical population has died

> is determined to be the current life expectancy.

>

> I am not sure if the above explains the calculation of life expectancy

> clearly enough. If not, I can give you a specific numerical example

> which may make it clearer.

>

> Rodney.

>

>

>>

>> Sixty-eight is the current average age of

>> death in the US.

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Rodney: Your second statement below is: " The benefit of reducing methionine intake is to slow the aging process. " .

Please be careful about statements like these. Usually you are careful to add: IMO. Adding that is VERY IMPORTANT. So folks remember this is Rod's hypothesis and opinion and although he is one of our sterling contributors - he is fallible (as are we all - even the best scientists in the field are).

We just don't know yet and in fact there are pieces of this puzzle missing and that don't fit. I would caution people to be careful about restricting foods from their diet. The best diet at this point, and as far as we know is a varied one, which includes especially as many fruits and vegetables as possible. I personally am still eating a small amount of fish every day (as well as small amounts of other proteins) until proven otherwise. There may be substances in the " food " that are not in the supplements.

An example of how fast things change in nutrition is that the " reservatrol " argument is still being debated. Scientists are disagreeing what it is in red wine that is the X factor. So those of us taking reservatrol supplements may be throwing our " pretty pennies " down the drain, you might say.

on 2/14/2007 10:50 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

Well my response is to suggest we may be 'talking apples and oranges'.

The benefit of fish appears to be largely to prevent people dying at

a comparatively young age from CVD.

The benefit of reducing methionine intake is to slow the aging

process.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Yes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

However, " technically, life expectancy means the

expected number of years remaining to live, and it can

be calculated for any age. "

Note that the US is less than Canada for the life

expectancy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Life_expectancy_world_map.PNG

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

> Hi Francesca:

>

> Thanks for asking. My understanding is that the

> average age of people

> who are currently dying in the US is between 68 and

> 69. I will try to

> find the source of that number for you.

>

> The ~77 number is the current *life expectancy*.

> Life expectancy is

> *not* defined as the average age at death of people

> born ~60 to ~70

> years ago - which is the ~68.5 number mentioned in

> the first paragraph

> above.

>

> Life expectancy for, say, 2006, is defined as what

> the average age at

> death would be if the CURRENT, 2006, age-specific

> death rates are

> hypothetically applied to a large population. Those

> death rates are

> applied cumulatively, by single year of age,

> starting at age zero, and

> continuing on up year by year until half that

> theoretical population

> has died. The age at which half that theoretical

> population has died

> is determined to be the current life expectancy.

>

> I am not sure if the above explains the calculation

> of life expectancy

> clearly enough. If not, I can give you a specific

> numerical example

> which may make it clearer.

>

> Rodney.

>

>

> >

> > Sixty-eight is the current average age of

> > death in the US.

> >

>

>

>

-- Al Pater, PhD; email: Alpater@...

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.

Try the free Beta.

http://advision.webevents./mailbeta/features_spam.html

[Guest guest]

Hi Al:

Interesting map. Worth noting that, for all the talk about the

wonderful benefits of the 'Mediterranean Diet', there isn't much in

the way of dark green around the Mediterranean in that map. Too much

olive oil probably.

Perhaps we should be spending more time studying the 'Icelandic Diet'

instead? (The dark green for Canada must be in spite of, not because

of, the diet most people eat here.)

Rodney.

> > >

> > > Sixty-eight is the current average age of

> > > death in the US.

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> -- Al Pater, PhD; email: Alpater@...

>

>

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

______________

> Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.

> Try the free Beta.

> http://advision.webevents./mailbeta/features_spam.html

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you for adding some healthy skepticism to this question. I for

one am also somewhat less than persuaded by the evidence presented so

far. Health enhancing? Certainly if you happen to be a mouse of that

genetically selected strain, perhaps even if you're not. Aging

retardation? I remember Dr Walford's response to similar claims, show

me a 45 month old mouse. Has anyone ever presented a study where the

maximimum lifespan for that species has been exceeded by such means?

That used to be the gold standard. Has something changed that?

>

> Well my response is to suggest we may be 'talking apples and oranges'.

>

> The benefit of fish appears to be largely to prevent people dying at

> a comparatively young age from CVD.

>

> The benefit of reducing methionine intake is to slow the aging

> process.

>

[Guest guest]

>

> I spent some time on nutritiondata.com. Indeed, soybeans have

> significantly more protein and fat(!!) than other beans. They are

> the only " low-carb " beans that I was able to find.

>

> soybeans: protein:33% fat:43% carbs:24%

> garbanzo: p:19% f:13% c:68%

> black: p:23% f:3% c:74%

> pinto: p:22% f:4% c:74%

>

> I was also able to check the ratio of methionine

> to total protein. Soybeans do not have a higher

> proportion of methionine compared with other beans.

> They're all nearly the same:

>

> Proportion of Methionine to Total Protein:

> soybeans: 0.0135

> garbanzo: 0.0131

> black: 0.0151

> pinto: 0.0130

>

Lentils are even lower in their proportion of Methionine to Total

Protein: 0.0085, and also lower as a percent of calories. Among nuts,

almonds have a similarly low Methionine/Protein ratio: 0.0089.

Arthur