Re: Less protein gives longer life

[Guest guest]

Hi Arturo:

THANK YOU! This is amazing!

From the abstract:

" ... longevity [was] highest at a protein-to-carbohydrate ratio of 1:16 ....."

PMID: 18268352

If it is true, and if we assume fat intake at 20% of calories (choose another number for fat percentage if you prefer), then the diet providing the longest lifespan in fruit flies is:

Carbohydrate .. 75·3%Fat ................ 20.0%Protein ............. 4.7%..................... ------- Total ............. 100.0%.................... ======

This may confirm the suspicions about methionine.

Rodney.>> All> CR and protein intake discussed in this article. > Cheers,> Arturo> > Less protein gives longer life > Tuesday, 19 February 2008 > University of Sydney > The key to longevity is eating less protein - and not just fewer calories, as has previously been thought - scientists have discovered. But the catch is that while cutting protein may help you live longer, it may mean you'll have fewer children. > > "Animals that eat less live longer - up to a point," says Professor Simpson of the University of Sydney's School of Biological Sciences. "Our research using animal models shows the balance of protein to carbohydrate in the diet is critical." > > The idea that restricting food intake without malnutrition prolongs life has become a core belief in gerontology research, Professor Simpson says. "We know dietary restriction extends life in yeasts, fruit flies, worms, mice and monkeys, and it is widely held that the same affect should be true for humans." > > But scientists couldn't be sure whether it was the restriction of calories in itself, or the restriction of specific nutrients, that affected ageing. But now Professor Simpson and colleagues at Seoul University, Auckland University, UNSW and Macquarie have measured for the first time in any organism the relationship between diet, nutrient intake, lifespan and reproduction > > Using new techniques developed by Professor Simpson and Professor Raubenheimer (Auckland) the team showed in the fruit fly that calorie restriction is not responsible for extending lifespan: rather the balance of protein to carbohydrate in the diet was critical > > "Flies lived longest when the diet contained a low percentage of protein, and died sooner the more protein they consumed," says Professor Simpson. "But protein is needed for reproduction - so flies are faced with a conundrum: eat less protein and live longer, or eat more protein and lay more eggs?" > > Professor Simpson said his team 'asked' the flies what they preferred. "When offered a choice, flies behaved like nutrient-seeking missiles, unerringly mixing a relatively high protein diet that maximised their lifetime egg production. In other words, flies preferred to achieve maximum evolutionary fitness rather than live as long as possible." > > "In demonstrating the role protein plays in determining both lifespan and reproduction, my co-authors and I have united a body of apparently conflicting work within a common framework and provided a new platform for studying ageing in all organisms," Professor Simpson said. > > The research has been published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). > > http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081902-16917-2.html>

[Guest guest]

Let’s not get so excited. As we’ve estaqblished, vegans and vegetarians don’t live any longer than others who have good health habits. So something’s not quite right here.

From: Rodney <perspect1111@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:56:57 -0000

< >

Subject: [ ] Re: Less protein gives longer life

Hi Arturo:

THANK YOU! This is amazing!

From the abstract:

" ... longevity [was] highest at a protein-to-carbohydrate ratio of 1:16 ..... "

PMID: 18268352

If it is true, and if we assume fat intake at 20% of calories (choose another number for fat percentage if you prefer), then the diet providing the longest lifespan in fruit flies is:

Carbohydrate .. 75·3%

Fat ................ 20.0%

Protein ............. 4.7%

...................... -------

Total ............. 100.0%

..................... ======

This may confirm the suspicions about methionine.

Rodney.

>

> All

> CR and protein intake discussed in this article.

> Cheers,

> Arturo

>

> Less protein gives longer life

> Tuesday, 19 February 2008

> University of Sydney

> The key to longevity is eating less protein - and not just fewer calories, as has previously been thought - scientists have discovered. But the catch is that while cutting protein may help you live longer, it may mean you'll have fewer children.

>

> " Animals that eat less live longer - up to a point, " says Professor Simpson of the University of Sydney's School of Biological Sciences. " Our research using animal models shows the balance of protein to carbohydrate in the diet is critical. "

>

> The idea that restricting food intake without malnutrition prolongs life has become a core belief in gerontology research, Professor Simpson says. " We know dietary restriction extends life in yeasts, fruit flies, worms, mice and monkeys, and it is widely held that the same affect should be true for humans. "

>

> But scientists couldn't be sure whether it was the restriction of calories in itself, or the restriction of specific nutrients, that affected ageing. But now Professor Simpson and colleagues at Seoul University, Auckland University, UNSW and Macquarie have measured for the first time in any organism the relationship between diet, nutrient intake, lifespan and reproduction

>

> Using new techniques developed by Professor Simpson and Professor Raubenheimer (Auckland) the team showed in the fruit fly that calorie restriction is not responsible for extending lifespan: rather the balance of protein to carbohydrate in the diet was critical

>

> " Flies lived longest when the diet contained a low percentage of protein, and died sooner the more protein they consumed, " says Professor Simpson. " But protein is needed for reproduction - so flies are faced with a conundrum: eat less protein and live longer, or eat more protein and lay more eggs? "

>

> Professor Simpson said his team 'asked' the flies what they preferred. " When offered a choice, flies behaved like nutrient-seeking missiles, unerringly mixing a relatively high protein diet that maximised their lifetime egg production. In other words, flies preferred to achieve maximum evolutionary fitness rather than live as long as possible. "

>

> " In demonstrating the role protein plays in determining both lifespan and reproduction, my co-authors and I have united a body of apparently conflicting work within a common framework and provided a new platform for studying ageing in all organisms, " Professor Simpson said.

>

> The research has been published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).

>

> http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081902-16917-2.html

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

I am not sure I understand your point.

If it is that vegetables do not contain much protein then (unless I just lost my marbles - which is by no means impossible, lol) consider the protein content (protein calories as a percent of total calories) of the following foods, chosen at random as a few examples of the kinds of foods vegetarians, and people like us, frequently eat - data just extracted from CRON-o-Meter:

Romaine 29% Bok choy 46%Spinach 49%

30% to 50% of total calories is a lot more than the VERY approximately ~5% apparently found to be most beneficial for longevity in fruit flies in the paper Arturo just posted.

I have previously noted, I believe, that on a largely vegetarian diet I have always had trouble getting my protein intake down to a level I consider appropriate. Restricting just methionine is a lot easier, so I hope that does turn out, eventually, to be the key issue. We will have to stay tuned.

If I have misinterpreted the data at CRON-o-Meter I am confident someone will promptly straighten me out : ^ )))

Rodney.

> >> > All> > CR and protein intake discussed in this article.> > Cheers,> > Arturo> > > > Less protein gives longer life> > Tuesday, 19 February 2008> > University of Sydney> > The key to longevity is eating less protein - and not just fewer calories, as> has previously been thought - scientists have discovered. But the catch is that> while cutting protein may help you live longer, it may mean you'll have fewer> children. > > > > "Animals that eat less live longer - up to a point," says Professor > Simpson of the University of Sydney's School of Biological Sciences. "Our> research using animal models shows the balance of protein to carbohydrate in the> diet is critical." > > > > The idea that restricting food intake without malnutrition prolongs life has> become a core belief in gerontology research, Professor Simpson says. "We know> dietary restriction extends life in yeasts, fruit flies, worms, mice and> monkeys, and it is widely held that the same affect should be true for humans."> > > > But scientists couldn't be sure whether it was the restriction of calories in> itself, or the restriction of specific nutrients, that affected ageing. But now> Professor Simpson and colleagues at Seoul University, Auckland University, UNSW> and Macquarie have measured for the first time in any organism the relationship> between diet, nutrient intake, lifespan and reproduction> > > > Using new techniques developed by Professor Simpson and Professor > Raubenheimer (Auckland) the team showed in the fruit fly that calorie> restriction is not responsible for extending lifespan: rather the balance of> protein to carbohydrate in the diet was critical> > > > "Flies lived longest when the diet contained a low percentage of protein, and> died sooner the more protein they consumed," says Professor Simpson. "But> protein is needed for reproduction - so flies are faced with a conundrum: eat> less protein and live longer, or eat more protein and lay more eggs?"> > > > Professor Simpson said his team 'asked' the flies what they preferred. "When> offered a choice, flies behaved like nutrient-seeking missiles, unerringly> mixing a relatively high protein diet that maximised their lifetime egg> production. In other words, flies preferred to achieve maximum evolutionary> fitness rather than live as long as possible."> > > > "In demonstrating the role protein plays in determining both lifespan and> reproduction, my co-authors and I have united a body of apparently conflicting> work within a common framework and provided a new platform for studying ageing> in all organisms," Professor Simpson said.> > > > The research has been published online in Proceedings of the National Academy> of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).> > > > http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081902-16917-2.html> >>

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

It seems to me that, if it is really true, it implies that it is fine to eat more calories so long as they are not protein.

Rodney.

>> On 1800 kcals that would be 28 gm of protein.> Does this imply we should eat more calories?> What do we do with this?> I figure that would equate to me weighing 102#.> > Regards> > [ ] Re: Less protein gives longer life> > > Hi Arturo:> > THANK YOU! This is amazing!> > From the abstract:> > " ... longevity [was] highest at a protein-to-carbohydrate ratio of 1:16> ....."> > PMID: 18268352> > If it is true, and if we assume fat intake at 20% of calories (choose> another number for fat percentage if you prefer), then the diet providing> the longest lifespan in fruit flies is:> > Carbohydrate .. 75·3%> Fat ................ 20.0%> Protein ............. 4.7%> ..................... -------> Total ............. 100.0%> .................... ======> > This may confirm the suspicions about methionine.> > Rodney.>

[Guest guest]

On 1800 kcals that would be 28 gm of protein.

Does this imply we should eat more calories?

What do we do with this?

I figure that would equate to me weighing 102#.

Regards

[ ] Re: Less protein gives longer life

Hi Arturo:

THANK YOU! This is amazing!

From the abstract:

" ... longevity [was] highest at a protein-to-carbohydrate ratio of 1:16

...... "

PMID: 18268352

If it is true, and if we assume fat intake at 20% of calories (choose

another number for fat percentage if you prefer), then the diet providing

the longest lifespan in fruit flies is:

Carbohydrate .. 75·3%

Fat ................ 20.0%

Protein ............. 4.7%

...................... -------

Total ............. 100.0%

..................... ======

This may confirm the suspicions about methionine.

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

I dont see this as a vegan or vegetarian issue as one can still consume high protein on either of those diets. What I found interesting is that those numbers were not far off from some of the ones we discussed that we saw in one of the studies on what the okinawians ate, though their fat was lower and their protein was a little higher. I dont have the post number but it was a discussion by Rodney, Me and Tony about a year ago.RegardsjeffOn Feb 19, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Arturo Veve wrote:AllCR and protein intake discussed in this article. Cheers,ArturoLess protein gives longer life Tuesday, 19 February 2008 University of Sydney The key to longevity is eating less protein - and not just fewer calories, as has previously been thought - scientists have discovered. But the catch is that while cutting protein may help you live longer, it may mean you'll have fewer children. "Animals that eat less live longer - up to a point," says Professor Simpson of the University of Sydney's School of Biological Sciences. "Our research using animal models shows the balance of protein to carbohydrate in the diet is critical." The idea that restricting food intake without malnutrition prolongs life has become a core belief in gerontology research, Professor Simpson says. "We know dietary restriction extends life in yeasts, fruit flies, worms, mice and monkeys, and it is widely held that the same affect should be true for humans." But scientists couldn't be sure whether it was the restriction of calories in itself, or the restriction of specific nutrients, that affected ageing. But now Professor Simpson and colleagues at Seoul University, Auckland University, UNSW and Macquarie have measured for the first time in any organism the relationship between diet, nutrient intake, lifespan and reproduction Using new techniques developed by Professor Simpson and Professor Raubenheimer (Auckland) the team showed in the fruit fly that calorie restriction is not responsible for extending lifespan: rather the balance of protein to carbohydrate in the diet was critical "Flies lived longest when the diet contained a low percentage of protein, and died sooner the more protein they consumed," says Professor Simpson. "But protein is needed for reproduction - so flies are faced with a conundrum: eat less protein and live longer, or eat more protein and lay more eggs?" Professor Simpson said his team 'asked' the flies what they preferred. "When offered a choice, flies behaved like nutrient-seeking missiles, unerringly mixing a relatively high protein diet that maximised their lifetime egg production. In other words, flies preferred to achieve maximum evolutionary fitness rather than live as long as possible." "In demonstrating the role protein plays in determining both lifespan and reproduction, my co-authors and I have united a body of apparently conflicting work within a common framework and provided a new platform for studying ageing in all organisms," Professor Simpson said. The research has been published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081902-16917-2.html Jeff Novick, MS, RD, LD/Nwww.JeffNovick.com

[Guest guest]

Well maybe I’m missing something.....but.......

Since most veggies and fruits contain less methionine than animal and dairy foods, it sounds to me that vegetarians (and especially vegans) who would most likely be consuming less methionine than the general population should be live longer. And yet afa we know, they don’t.

Please point out the error of my thinking.

From: Rodney <perspect1111@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:45:11 -0000

< >

Subject: [ ] Re: Less protein gives longer life

Hi Francesca:

I am not sure I understand your point.

If it is that vegetables do not contain much protein then (unless I just lost my marbles - which is by no means impossible, lol) consider the protein content (protein calories as a percent of total calories) of the following foods, chosen at random as a few examples of the kinds of foods vegetarians, and people like us, frequently eat - data just extracted from CRON-o-Meter:

Romaine 29%

Bok choy 46%

Spinach 49%

30% to 50% of total calories is a lot more than the VERY approximately ~5% apparently found to be most beneficial for longevity in fruit flies in the paper Arturo just posted.

I have previously noted, I believe, that on a largely vegetarian diet I have always had trouble getting my protein intake down to a level I consider appropriate. Restricting just methionine is a lot easier, so I hope that does turn out, eventually, to be the key issue. We will have to stay tuned.

If I have misinterpreted the data at CRON-o-Meter I am confident someone will promptly straighten me out : ^ )))

Rodney.

> >

> > All

> > CR and protein intake discussed in this article.

> > Cheers,

> > Arturo

> >

> > Less protein gives longer life

> > Tuesday, 19 February 2008

> > University of Sydney

> > The key to longevity is eating less protein - and not just fewer calories, as

> has previously been thought - scientists have discovered. But the catch is that

> while cutting protein may help you live longer, it may mean you'll have fewer

> children.

> >

> > " Animals that eat less live longer - up to a point, " says Professor

> Simpson of the University of Sydney's School of Biological Sciences. " Our

> research using animal models shows the balance of protein to carbohydrate in the

> diet is critical. "

> >

> > The idea that restricting food intake without malnutrition prolongs life has

> become a core belief in gerontology research, Professor Simpson says. " We know

> dietary restriction extends life in yeasts, fruit flies, worms, mice and

> monkeys, and it is widely held that the same affect should be true for humans. "

> >

> > But scientists couldn't be sure whether it was the restriction of calories in

> itself, or the restriction of specific nutrients, that affected ageing. But now

> Professor Simpson and colleagues at Seoul University, Auckland University, UNSW

> and Macquarie have measured for the first time in any organism the relationship

> between diet, nutrient intake, lifespan and reproduction

> >

> > Using new techniques developed by Professor Simpson and Professor

> Raubenheimer (Auckland) the team showed in the fruit fly that calorie

> restriction is not responsible for extending lifespan: rather the balance of

> protein to carbohydrate in the diet was critical

> >

> > " Flies lived longest when the diet contained a low percentage of protein, and

> died sooner the more protein they consumed, " says Professor Simpson. " But

> protein is needed for reproduction - so flies are faced with a conundrum: eat

> less protein and live longer, or eat more protein and lay more eggs? "

> >

> > Professor Simpson said his team 'asked' the flies what they preferred. " When

> offered a choice, flies behaved like nutrient-seeking missiles, unerringly

> mixing a relatively high protein diet that maximised their lifetime egg

> production. In other words, flies preferred to achieve maximum evolutionary

> fitness rather than live as long as possible. "

> >

> > " In demonstrating the role protein plays in determining both lifespan and

> reproduction, my co-authors and I have united a body of apparently conflicting

> work within a common framework and provided a new platform for studying ageing

> in all organisms, " Professor Simpson said.

> >

> > The research has been published online in Proceedings of the National Academy

> of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).

> >

> > http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081902-16917-2.html

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> Please point out the error of my thinking.

I don't think the error is in your thinking, the error is the

lifestyle many vegans follow. While we may assume what a vegan diet

is, many vegans eat diets that are not healthy at all. Veganism

tells us what someone doesn't it (animal products) but doesn't tell us

at all what they do eat.

Calcium, Zinc, Vit D, Iodine and Essential Fats have all been

identified as nutritional issues for vegans.

Regards

jeff

>

>

>

> From: Rodney <perspect1111@...>

> Reply-< >

> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:45:11 -0000

> < >

> Subject: [ ] Re: Less protein gives longer life

>

>

>

>

>

> Hi Francesca:

>

> I am not sure I understand your point.

>

> If it is that vegetables do not contain much protein then (unless I

> just lost my marbles - which is by no means impossible, lol)

> consider the protein content (protein calories as a percent of total

> calories) of the following foods, chosen at random as a few examples

> of the kinds of foods vegetarians, and people like us, frequently

> eat - data just extracted from CRON-o-Meter:

>

> Romaine 29%

> Bok choy 46%

> Spinach 49%

>

> 30% to 50% of total calories is a lot more than the VERY

> approximately ~5% apparently found to be most beneficial for

> longevity in fruit flies in the paper Arturo just posted.

>

> I have previously noted, I believe, that on a largely vegetarian

> diet I have always had trouble getting my protein intake down to a

> level I consider appropriate. Restricting just methionine is a lot

> easier, so I hope that does turn out, eventually, to be the key

> issue. We will have to stay tuned.

>

> If I have misinterpreted the data at CRON-o-Meter I am confident

> someone will promptly straighten me out : ^ )))

>

> Rodney.

>

>

> > >

> > > All

> > > CR and protein intake discussed in this article.

> > > Cheers,

> > > Arturo

> > >

> > > Less protein gives longer life

> > > Tuesday, 19 February 2008

> > > University of Sydney

> > > The key to longevity is eating less protein - and not just fewer

> calories, as

> > has previously been thought - scientists have discovered. But the

> catch is that

> > while cutting protein may help you live longer, it may mean you'll

> have fewer

> > children.

> > >

> > > " Animals that eat less live longer - up to a point, " says

> Professor

> > Simpson of the University of Sydney's School of Biological

> Sciences. " Our

> > research using animal models shows the balance of protein to

> carbohydrate in the

> > diet is critical. "

> > >

> > > The idea that restricting food intake without malnutrition

> prolongs life has

> > become a core belief in gerontology research, Professor Simpson

> says. " We know

> > dietary restriction extends life in yeasts, fruit flies, worms,

> mice and

> > monkeys, and it is widely held that the same affect should be true

> for humans. "

> > >

> > > But scientists couldn't be sure whether it was the restriction

> of calories in

> > itself, or the restriction of specific nutrients, that affected

> ageing. But now

> > Professor Simpson and colleagues at Seoul University, Auckland

> University, UNSW

> > and Macquarie have measured for the first time in any organism the

> relationship

> > between diet, nutrient intake, lifespan and reproduction

> > >

> > > Using new techniques developed by Professor Simpson and

> Professor

> > Raubenheimer (Auckland) the team showed in the fruit fly that

> calorie

> > restriction is not responsible for extending lifespan: rather the

> balance of

> > protein to carbohydrate in the diet was critical

> > >

> > > " Flies lived longest when the diet contained a low percentage of

> protein, and

> > died sooner the more protein they consumed, " says Professor

> Simpson. " But

> > protein is needed for reproduction - so flies are faced with a

> conundrum: eat

> > less protein and live longer, or eat more protein and lay more

> eggs? "

> > >

> > > Professor Simpson said his team 'asked' the flies what they

> preferred. " When

> > offered a choice, flies behaved like nutrient-seeking missiles,

> unerringly

> > mixing a relatively high protein diet that maximised their

> lifetime egg

> > production. In other words, flies preferred to achieve maximum

> evolutionary

> > fitness rather than live as long as possible. "

> > >

> > > " In demonstrating the role protein plays in determining both

> lifespan and

> > reproduction, my co-authors and I have united a body of apparently

> conflicting

> > work within a common framework and provided a new platform for

> studying ageing

> > in all organisms, " Professor Simpson said.

> > >

> > > The research has been published online in Proceedings of the

> National Academy

> > of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).

> > >

> > > http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081902-16917-2.html

> > >

> >

>

>

>

Jeff Novick, MS, RD, LD/N

www.JeffNovick.com

[Guest guest]

Rodney:

But don't forget about fruits, which are generally quite low in

protein and rich in nutrients:

apples: 2% protein

oranges: 7%

mangos: 3%

blueberries: 4%

cantaloupe: 8%

(etc. -- source: nutritiondata.com)

Strange thing, though, is that I read (on the Pritikin website) about

the study concerning beans being the food eaten in common among the

longest-lived. Of course, beans are relatively high in protein as far

as vegan foods are concerned:

http://www.pritikin.com/eperspective/0603/beans.shtml

-Dave

> > >

> > > All

> > > CR and protein intake discussed in this article.

> > > Cheers,

> > > Arturo

> > >

> > > Less protein gives longer life

> > > Tuesday, 19 February 2008

> > > University of Sydney

> > > The key to longevity is eating less protein - and not just fewer

> calories, as

> > has previously been thought - scientists have discovered. But the

> catch is that

> > while cutting protein may help you live longer, it may mean you'll

> have fewer

> > children.

> > >

> > > " Animals that eat less live longer - up to a point, " says Professor

>

> > Simpson of the University of Sydney's School of Biological Sciences.

> " Our

> > research using animal models shows the balance of protein to

> carbohydrate in the

> > diet is critical. "

> > >

> > > The idea that restricting food intake without malnutrition prolongs

> life has

> > become a core belief in gerontology research, Professor Simpson says.

> " We know

> > dietary restriction extends life in yeasts, fruit flies, worms, mice

> and

> > monkeys, and it is widely held that the same affect should be true for

> humans. "

> > >

> > > But scientists couldn't be sure whether it was the restriction of

> calories in

> > itself, or the restriction of specific nutrients, that affected

> ageing. But now

> > Professor Simpson and colleagues at Seoul University, Auckland

> University, UNSW

> > and Macquarie have measured for the first time in any organism the

> relationship

> > between diet, nutrient intake, lifespan and reproduction

> > >

> > > Using new techniques developed by Professor Simpson and Professor

>

> > Raubenheimer (Auckland) the team showed in the fruit fly that calorie

> > restriction is not responsible for extending lifespan: rather the

> balance of

> > protein to carbohydrate in the diet was critical

> > >

> > > " Flies lived longest when the diet contained a low percentage of

> protein, and

> > died sooner the more protein they consumed, " says Professor Simpson.

> " But

> > protein is needed for reproduction - so flies are faced with a

> conundrum: eat

> > less protein and live longer, or eat more protein and lay more eggs? "

> > >

> > > Professor Simpson said his team 'asked' the flies what they

> preferred. " When

> > offered a choice, flies behaved like nutrient-seeking missiles,

> unerringly

> > mixing a relatively high protein diet that maximised their lifetime

> egg

> > production. In other words, flies preferred to achieve maximum

> evolutionary

> > fitness rather than live as long as possible. "

> > >

> > > " In demonstrating the role protein plays in determining both

> lifespan and

> > reproduction, my co-authors and I have united a body of apparently

> conflicting

> > work within a common framework and provided a new platform for

> studying ageing

> > in all organisms, " Professor Simpson said.

> > >

> > > The research has been published online in Proceedings of the

> National Academy

> > of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).

> > >

> > > http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081902-16917-2.html

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Another irony about this – beans which we have noted are associated with long life.

So I’m rather clueless about this (as JW is). Since even plants have protein – and some even have large amounts of methionine – beans for example - how is this optimum 4% to be achieved? Of course, we’re also assuming the optimum amt of protein/methionine (if indeed it is the methionine) for flies is the optimum for humans.

Rod? Jeff?

From: orb85750 <orb85750@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:28:33 -0000

< >

Subject: [ ] Re: Less protein gives longer life

Rodney:

But don't forget about fruits, which are generally quite low in

protein and rich in nutrients:

apples: 2% protein

oranges: 7%

mangos: 3%

blueberries: 4%

cantaloupe: 8%

(etc. -- source: nutritiondata.com)

Strange thing, though, is that I read (on the Pritikin website) about

the study concerning beans being the food eaten in common among the

longest-lived. Of course, beans are relatively high in protein as far

as vegan foods are concerned:

http://www.pritikin.com/eperspective/0603/beans.shtml

-Dave

> > >

> > > All

> > > CR and protein intake discussed in this article.

> > > Cheers,

> > > Arturo

> > >

> > > Less protein gives longer life

> > > Tuesday, 19 February 2008

> > > University of Sydney

> > > The key to longevity is eating less protein - and not just fewer

> calories, as

> > has previously been thought - scientists have discovered. But the

> catch is that

> > while cutting protein may help you live longer, it may mean you'll

> have fewer

> > children.

> > >

> > > " Animals that eat less live longer - up to a point, " says Professor

>

> > Simpson of the University of Sydney's School of Biological Sciences.

> " Our

> > research using animal models shows the balance of protein to

> carbohydrate in the

> > diet is critical. "

> > >

> > > The idea that restricting food intake without malnutrition prolongs

> life has

> > become a core belief in gerontology research, Professor Simpson says.

> " We know

> > dietary restriction extends life in yeasts, fruit flies, worms, mice

> and

> > monkeys, and it is widely held that the same affect should be true for

> humans. "

> > >

> > > But scientists couldn't be sure whether it was the restriction of

> calories in

> > itself, or the restriction of specific nutrients, that affected

> ageing. But now

> > Professor Simpson and colleagues at Seoul University, Auckland

> University, UNSW

> > and Macquarie have measured for the first time in any organism the

> relationship

> > between diet, nutrient intake, lifespan and reproduction

> > >

> > > Using new techniques developed by Professor Simpson and Professor

>

> > Raubenheimer (Auckland) the team showed in the fruit fly that calorie

> > restriction is not responsible for extending lifespan: rather the

> balance of

> > protein to carbohydrate in the diet was critical

> > >

> > > " Flies lived longest when the diet contained a low percentage of

> protein, and

> > died sooner the more protein they consumed, " says Professor Simpson.

> " But

> > protein is needed for reproduction - so flies are faced with a

> conundrum: eat

> > less protein and live longer, or eat more protein and lay more eggs? "

> > >

> > > Professor Simpson said his team 'asked' the flies what they

> preferred. " When

> > offered a choice, flies behaved like nutrient-seeking missiles,

> unerringly

> > mixing a relatively high protein diet that maximised their lifetime

> egg

> > production. In other words, flies preferred to achieve maximum

> evolutionary

> > fitness rather than live as long as possible. "

> > >

> > > " In demonstrating the role protein plays in determining both

> lifespan and

> > reproduction, my co-authors and I have united a body of apparently

> conflicting

> > work within a common framework and provided a new platform for

> studying ageing

> > in all organisms, " Professor Simpson said.

> > >

> > > The research has been published online in Proceedings of the

> National Academy

> > of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).

> > >

> > > http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081902-16917-2.html

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hello,

I'm wondering what a diet constructed according to this undertanding would look

like. That is, what would we eat on a daily basis that would keep protein low

enough?

Deb

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

Well, my impression is that the " optimum 4% " (actually 4.7%) was Rodney's

hypothetical number, not given in the study in question.

Assuming this study is reflecting the truth, couldn't the CRON lifestyle help in

reducing overall protein intake in grams if not percentage? It begs the

question: percentage of what? The study mentioned a 16:1 ratio, but that was in

a non-calorie-restricting situation, no? It seems to me that if you are already

reducing calories, you should be shooting for a grams per day target, and not a

protein ratio.

I could be off, but that's the first thing that occurs to me in resolving this

apparent conflict.

Chris

Re: [ ] Re: Less protein gives longer life

Another irony about this – beans which we have noted are associated with long

life.

So I’m rather clueless about this (as JW is). Since even plants have protein

– and some even have large amounts of methionine – beans for example - how

is this optimum 4% to be achieved? Of course, we’re also assuming the optimum

amt of protein/methionine (if indeed it is the methionine) for flies is the

optimum for humans.

Rod? Jeff?

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

Perhaps the best way to look at this would be to make sure that we hit

the RDA of protein, including the recommended intake of the essential

amino acids. This is an absolute number, not a percentage. The NAS

recommends .8g/kg based on Ideal Body Weight. This is so we do not

inflate the number up for someone who has excess weight due to excess

fat.

It has been theorized that since some plant proteins are not as highly

rated in utilization, than increasing this number 10% could account

for the difference. So, as a health CRON diet would typically include

more plants than a typical american diet, increasing this number 10%,

might have some rationale. But, on the other hand, advanced kidney

patients survive on a diet that is based on .4 to .5g/kg and as can

maintain muscle mass and strength at the intake.

Many of the healthy lower fat diets easily meet the protein and EAA

requirements with a protein range of 10-15%, depending on the calorie

level. I am not sure of the benefit of increasing protein above and

beyond the recommended amount if essential amino acids levels have

been met.

Like with fats, once the need for essential fats have been assured, I

do not know of a benefit to excess fats.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Ya know...

I am doing my best to stick to the CRON program, and

feel 1000 times better as my calories/sugar/fat has

been reduced. However, when I drop low in protein (I

don't eat much as it is) my hair starts falling out in

fistfuls. It's vanity v.s. longevity over here. Do I

wish to live to 150 bald as a cue ball?

Hmmm....

--- Arturo Veve <volae@...> wrote:

> All

> CR and protein intake discussed in this article.

> Cheers,

> Arturo

>

> Less protein gives longer life

> Tuesday, 19 February 2008

> University of Sydney

> The key to longevity is eating less protein - and

> not just fewer calories, as has previously been

> thought - scientists have discovered. But the catch

> is that while cutting protein may help you live

> longer, it may mean you'll have fewer children.

>

> " Animals that eat less live longer - up to a point, "

> says Professor Simpson of the University of

> Sydney's School of Biological Sciences. " Our

> research using animal models shows the balance of

> protein to carbohydrate in the diet is critical. "

>

> The idea that restricting food intake without

> malnutrition prolongs life has become a core belief

> in gerontology research, Professor Simpson says. " We

> know dietary restriction extends life in yeasts,

> fruit flies, worms, mice and monkeys, and it is

> widely held that the same affect should be true for

> humans. "

>

> But scientists couldn't be sure whether it was the

> restriction of calories in itself, or the

> restriction of specific nutrients, that affected

> ageing. But now Professor Simpson and colleagues at

> Seoul University, Auckland University, UNSW and

> Macquarie have measured for the first time in any

> organism the relationship between diet, nutrient

> intake, lifespan and reproduction

>

> Using new techniques developed by Professor Simpson

> and Professor Raubenheimer (Auckland) the team

> showed in the fruit fly that calorie restriction is

> not responsible for extending lifespan: rather the

> balance of protein to carbohydrate in the diet was

> critical

>

> " Flies lived longest when the diet contained a low

> percentage of protein, and died sooner the more

> protein they consumed, " says Professor Simpson. " But

> protein is needed for reproduction - so flies are

> faced with a conundrum: eat less protein and live

> longer, or eat more protein and lay more eggs? "

>

> Professor Simpson said his team 'asked' the flies

> what they preferred. " When offered a choice, flies

> behaved like nutrient-seeking missiles, unerringly

> mixing a relatively high protein diet that maximised

> their lifetime egg production. In other words, flies

> preferred to achieve maximum evolutionary fitness

> rather than live as long as possible. "

>

> " In demonstrating the role protein plays in

> determining both lifespan and reproduction, my

> co-authors and I have united a body of apparently

> conflicting work within a common framework and

> provided a new platform for studying ageing in all

> organisms, " Professor Simpson said.

>

> The research has been published online in

> Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of

> the United States of America (PNAS).

>

>

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081902-16917-2.html

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

No error, but most people who claim to be vegetarians are not vegans.

They eat some animal, ie, milk products and/or eggs.

I never met a vegan in person.

We've never read of a vegan centenarian.

The ratio has nothing to do with the food, rather the % protein in the

calories we eat.

If we actually need 70 grams for a 150# person, and we don't get 70 grams,

we lose weight even of the calories are increased. We shed some samll amount

of protein each day and the small amount we eat is just make up for that not

conserved. Called the nitrogen balance method on page 41 of Modern Nutrition

1999.

There are other factors - humans vary individually in the amount of protein

needed, some as high as 224.

It has been said that healthy adults need only 24 grams, but the number is

tripled assuming the 24 is one sigma.

So it's quite possible on average we eat too much protein and grow too

large, but having done that doesn't mean we can drop to 5% P intake and

live.

In fact, the higher protein claimed for CRONies has not been rebuked yet.

A personal note is if I eat less than 44 grams, I lose weight and I can

estimate an intake of 28 grams would lower my weight too much. Recall we

burn muscle and organ tissue if we eat too little protein (and calories).

These fruit flies - are they all from the same banana?

Are there as many differences in those flies studied as there are

differences in humans?

Regards.

Re: [ ] Re: Less protein gives longer life

Well maybe I'm missing something.....but.......

Since most veggies and fruits contain less methionine than animal and dairy

foods, it sounds to me that vegetarians (and especially vegans) who would

most likely be consuming less methionine than the general population should

be live longer. And yet afa we know, they don't.

Please point out the error of my thinking.

[Guest guest]

Hair falling out due to dietary restriction sounds unusual and surely evidence of some unhealthy extreme situation. Please stop whatever you're doing that's causing this and strive to consume adequate nutrition and energy balance.JROn Feb 20, 2008, at 11:20 AM, claire roberts-torres wrote:Ya know...I am doing my best to stick to the CRON program, andfeel 1000 times better as my calories/sugar/fat hasbeen reduced. However, when I drop low in protein (Idon't eat much as it is) my hair starts falling out infistfuls. It's vanity v.s. longevity over here. Do Iwish to live to 150 bald as a cue ball?Hmmm....--- Arturo Veve <volaeearthlink (DOT) net> wrote:> All> CR and protein intake discussed in this article. > Cheers,> Arturo> > Less protein gives longer life > Tuesday, 19 February 2008 > University of Sydney > The key to longevity is eating less protein - and> not just fewer calories, as has previously been> thought - scientists have discovered. But the catch> is that while cutting protein may help you live> longer, it may mean you'll have fewer children. > > "Animals that eat less live longer - up to a point,"> says Professor Simpson of the University of> Sydney's School of Biological Sciences. "Our> research using animal models shows the balance of> protein to carbohydrate in the diet is critical." > > The idea that restricting food intake without> malnutrition prolongs life has become a core belief> in gerontology research, Professor Simpson says. "We> know dietary restriction extends life in yeasts,> fruit flies, worms, mice and monkeys, and it is> widely held that the same affect should be true for> humans." > > But scientists couldn't be sure whether it was the> restriction of calories in itself, or the> restriction of specific nutrients, that affected> ageing. But now Professor Simpson and colleagues at> Seoul University, Auckland University, UNSW and> Macquarie have measured for the first time in any> organism the relationship between diet, nutrient> intake, lifespan and reproduction > > Using new techniques developed by Professor Simpson> and Professor Raubenheimer (Auckland) the team> showed in the fruit fly that calorie restriction is> not responsible for extending lifespan: rather the> balance of protein to carbohydrate in the diet was> critical > > "Flies lived longest when the diet contained a low> percentage of protein, and died sooner the more> protein they consumed," says Professor Simpson. "But> protein is needed for reproduction - so flies are> faced with a conundrum: eat less protein and live> longer, or eat more protein and lay more eggs?" > > Professor Simpson said his team 'asked' the flies> what they preferred. "When offered a choice, flies> behaved like nutrient-seeking missiles, unerringly> mixing a relatively high protein diet that maximised> their lifetime egg production. In other words, flies> preferred to achieve maximum evolutionary fitness> rather than live as long as possible." > > "In demonstrating the role protein plays in> determining both lifespan and reproduction, my> co-authors and I have united a body of apparently> conflicting work within a common framework and> provided a new platform for studying ageing in all> organisms," Professor Simpson said. > > The research has been published online in> Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of> the United States of America (PNAS). > >http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081902-16917-2.html> > > 

[Guest guest]

Your assertion that some people need 224 grams of protein per day is

not believable for a healthy individual. Can you provide a reference

for this number? Do you refer to individuals suffering from some

specific disease, perhaps? (you didn't mention)

Thanks,

-Dave

>

> No error, but most people who claim to be vegetarians are not vegans.

> They eat some animal, ie, milk products and/or eggs.

> I never met a vegan in person.

> We've never read of a vegan centenarian.

>

> The ratio has nothing to do with the food, rather the % protein in the

> calories we eat.

> If we actually need 70 grams for a 150# person, and we don't get 70

grams,

> we lose weight even of the calories are increased. We shed some

samll amount

> of protein each day and the small amount we eat is just make up for

that not

> conserved. Called the nitrogen balance method on page 41 of Modern

Nutrition

> 1999.

>

> There are other factors - humans vary individually in the amount of

protein

> needed, some as high as 224.

> It has been said that healthy adults need only 24 grams, but the

number is

> tripled assuming the 24 is one sigma.

>

> So it's quite possible on average we eat too much protein and grow too

> large, but having done that doesn't mean we can drop to 5% P intake and

> live.

> In fact, the higher protein claimed for CRONies has not been rebuked

yet.

>

> A personal note is if I eat less than 44 grams, I lose weight and I can

> estimate an intake of 28 grams would lower my weight too much. Recall we

> burn muscle and organ tissue if we eat too little protein (and

calories).

>

> These fruit flies - are they all from the same banana?

> Are there as many differences in those flies studied as there are

> differences in humans?

>

> Regards.

>

> Re: [ ] Re: Less protein gives longer life

>

>

> Well maybe I'm missing something.....but.......

>

> Since most veggies and fruits contain less methionine than animal

and dairy

> foods, it sounds to me that vegetarians (and especially vegans) who

would

> most likely be consuming less methionine than the general population

should

> be live longer. And yet afa we know, they don't.

>

> Please point out the error of my thinking.

>

[Guest guest]

That was for an individual. The point is we have a large variation amongst

individual humans.

Easiest place to see the variation in protein requirement:

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/7/1841S

Table 8,

Look at the variation in lysine.

You see 27.3 ± 17.6

That means 10 to 45

This is only lysine but it formed the basis of the present IOM standards.

The bell curve was actually peaked near 56 grams but the out lyers value

drove them to select a higher nominal rec.

Regards

[ ] Re: Less protein gives longer life

Your assertion that some people need 224 grams of protein per day is

not believable for a healthy individual. Can you provide a reference

for this number? Do you refer to individuals suffering from some

specific disease, perhaps? (you didn't mention)

Thanks,

-Dave

>

> No error, but most people who claim to be vegetarians are not vegans.

> They eat some animal, ie, milk products and/or eggs.

> I never met a vegan in person.

> We've never read of a vegan centenarian.

>

> The ratio has nothing to do with the food, rather the % protein in the

> calories we eat.

> If we actually need 70 grams for a 150# person, and we don't get 70

grams,

> we lose weight even of the calories are increased. We shed some

samll amount

> of protein each day and the small amount we eat is just make up for

that not

> conserved. Called the nitrogen balance method on page 41 of Modern

Nutrition

> 1999.

>

> There are other factors - humans vary individually in the amount of

protein

> needed, some as high as 224.

> It has been said that healthy adults need only 24 grams, but the

number is

> tripled assuming the 24 is one sigma.

>

> So it's quite possible on average we eat too much protein and grow too

> large, but having done that doesn't mean we can drop to 5% P intake and

> live.

> In fact, the higher protein claimed for CRONies has not been rebuked

yet.

>

> A personal note is if I eat less than 44 grams, I lose weight and I can

> estimate an intake of 28 grams would lower my weight too much. Recall we

> burn muscle and organ tissue if we eat too little protein (and

calories).

>

> These fruit flies - are they all from the same banana?

> Are there as many differences in those flies studied as there are

> differences in humans?

>

> Regards.

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

And this latest paper has not come out of the blue as a single

isolated example suggesting benefit from restriction of protein.

The Sanz, Caro, Barja, et al studies in rodents that I posted here

perhaps a year ago do seem to suggest the possibility that the most

important aspect of CR may be to restrict not just protein, but

simply just methionine. These studies opened up a *possibility*

that it may eventually turn out that the restriction of methionine

explains all the benefits of CR.

**If true** then just making sure to get no more than the RDA for

methionine may be a large part of the battle. And I find it a lot

easier to control my methionine intake than my overall protein

consumption, which I still regard as too high, in large part because

of the huge protein content of many 'otherwise very healthy' green

vegetables.

Of course, while CRON can be regarded pretty much as settled

science, the protein/methionine issue is nowhere remotely close to

that status. So read the papers yourself and draw your own

conclusions.

Rodney.

>

> Perhaps the best way to look at this would be to make sure that we

hit

> the RDA of protein, including the recommended intake of the

essential

> amino acids. This is an absolute number, not a percentage. The

NAS

> recommends .8g/kg based on Ideal Body Weight. This is so we do

not

> inflate the number up for someone who has excess weight due to

excess

> fat.

>

> It has been theorized that since some plant proteins are not as

highly

> rated in utilization, than increasing this number 10% could

account

> for the difference. So, as a health CRON diet would typically

include

> more plants than a typical american diet, increasing this number

10%,

> might have some rationale. But, on the other hand, advanced

kidney

> patients survive on a diet that is based on .4 to .5g/kg and as

can

> maintain muscle mass and strength at the intake.

>

> Many of the healthy lower fat diets easily meet the protein and

EAA

> requirements with a protein range of 10-15%, depending on the

calorie

> level. I am not sure of the benefit of increasing protein above

and

> beyond the recommended amount if essential amino acids levels

have

> been met.

>

> Like with fats, once the need for essential fats have been

assured, I

> do not know of a benefit to excess fats.

>

> Regards

> Jeff

>

[Guest guest]

Jeff:

Should the baseline number be increased somewhat for an individual

that exercises regularly, particularly if that exercising involves

weightlifting? Or perhaps that is an old myth?

Thanks,

-Dave

--- In , Novick <jnovickrd@...>

wrote:

>

> Perhaps the best way to look at this would be to make sure that we hit

> the RDA of protein, including the recommended intake of the essential

> amino acids. This is an absolute number, not a percentage. The NAS

> recommends .8g/kg based on Ideal Body Weight. This is so we do not

> inflate the number up for someone who has excess weight due to excess

> fat.

>

> It has been theorized that since some plant proteins are not as highly

> rated in utilization, than increasing this number 10% could account

> for the difference. So, as a health CRON diet would typically include

> more plants than a typical american diet, increasing this number 10%,

> might have some rationale. But, on the other hand, advanced kidney

> patients survive on a diet that is based on .4 to .5g/kg and as can

> maintain muscle mass and strength at the intake.

>

> Many of the healthy lower fat diets easily meet the protein and EAA

> requirements with a protein range of 10-15%, depending on the calorie

> level. I am not sure of the benefit of increasing protein above and

> beyond the recommended amount if essential amino acids levels have

> been met.

>

> Like with fats, once the need for essential fats have been assured, I

> do not know of a benefit to excess fats.

>

> Regards

> Jeff

>

[Guest guest]

As far as I know, the NAS recommendations already account for the

average amount of exercise/activity most of us might do. They already

have a " buffer " built into them.

Part of the report even mentions that the .8g/kg is enough for

soldiers involved in training, which would be pretty intense exercise.

I posted a study here a while back on strength training in kidney

patients who were on a .4-.5g/kg protein intake who were able to

increase both muscle strength and muscle size during a 12 week weigh

training program.

In regard to endurance exercise, sometimes the increased need for

protein that is seen is because they dont eat enough carbs, end up

depleting their reserves and the body begins to burn protein for energy.

Regards

jeff

[Guest guest]

If weight training results in increased mass of some muscle groups that mass (mostly protein, carbohydrate, and water) must come from somewhere. If not from diet you will lose muscle mass elsewhere from less used muscles (not desirable IMO). There are different weight training routines designed specifically for increasing size/mass but in general they expect a surplus of raw material available. Also there could be some increased protein required for repair of exercise induced wear and tear if exercising to excess. Perhaps consider one of those exercise machines they advertise on TV that requires "no effort at all."  :-)I expect a well balanced diet perhaps on the upper range of protein requirements will support moderate exercise patterns. With any training program it is generally good advice to cross train or participate in a mix of activities so you don't rob to pay in specific athletic capability. JROn Feb 21, 2008, at 8:57 AM, orb85750 wrote:Jeff:Should the baseline number be increased somewhat for an individualthat exercises regularly, particularly if that exercising involvesweightlifting? Or perhaps that is an old myth?Thanks, -Dave--- In  , Novick <jnovickrd@...>wrote:>> Perhaps the best way to look at this would be to make sure that we hit > the RDA of protein, including the recommended intake of the essential > amino acids. This is an absolute number, not a percentage. The NAS > recommends .8g/kg based on Ideal Body Weight. This is so we do not > inflate the number up for someone who has excess weight due to excess > fat.> > It has been theorized that since some plant proteins are not as highly > rated in utilization, than increasing this number 10% could account > for the difference. So, as a health CRON diet would typically include > more plants than a typical american diet, increasing this number 10%, > might have some rationale. But, on the other hand, advanced kidney > patients survive on a diet that is based on .4 to .5g/kg and as can > maintain muscle mass and strength at the intake.> > Many of the healthy lower fat diets easily meet the protein and EAA > requirements with a protein range of 10-15%, depending on the calorie > level. I am not sure of the benefit of increasing protein above and > beyond the recommended amount if essential amino acids levels have > been met.> > Like with fats, once the need for essential fats have been assured, I > do not know of a benefit to excess fats.> > Regards> Jeff>

[Guest guest]

Don't forget, most of the mass of increased muscle is 75% water. Most people

are not going to gain that much muscle mass to begin with and once they do add

whatever mass they are going to add, they won't be adding it in again each year.

Also, if adding muscle mass increases my weight, then the protein equation goes

up as it is based on weight.

Regards

Jeff

Re: [ ] Re: Less protein gives longer life

If weight training results in increased mass of some muscle groups

that mass (mostly protein, carbohydrate, and water) must come from

somewhere. If not from diet you will lose muscle mass elsewhere from

less used muscles (not desirable IMO). There are different weight

training routines designed specifically for increasing size/mass but

in general they expect a surplus of raw material available.

Also there could be some increased protein required for repair of

exercise induced wear and tear if exercising to excess. Perhaps

consider one of those exercise machines they advertise on TV that

requires " no effort at all. " :-)

I expect a well balanced diet perhaps on the upper range of protein

requirements will support moderate exercise patterns. With any

training program it is generally good advice to cross train or

participate in a mix of activities so you don't rob to pay

in specific athletic capability.

JR

[Guest guest]

I thought protein equation was based on ideal weight not actual weight?Of course this is just more micro management of diet to a precision that our understanding of cause and effect may not support. So caveat lector... My observation was of a relative nature and baseline may vary some between individuals.JROn Feb 21, 2008, at 10:45 AM, S. Novick wrote:Don't forget, most of the mass of increased muscle is 75% water. Most people are not going to gain that much muscle mass to begin with and once they do add whatever mass they are going to add, they won't be adding it in again each year.Also, if adding muscle mass increases my weight, then the protein equation goes up as it is based on weight.RegardsJeff  Re: [ ] Re: Less protein gives longer lifeIf weight training results in increased mass of some muscle groups that mass (mostly protein, carbohydrate, and water) must come from somewhere. If not from diet you will lose muscle mass elsewhere from less used muscles (not desirable IMO). There are different weight training routines designed specifically for increasing size/mass but in general they expect a surplus of raw material available.Also there could be some increased protein required for repair of exercise induced wear and tear if exercising to excess. Perhaps consider one of those exercise machines they advertise on TV that requires "no effort at all." :-)I expect a well balanced diet perhaps on the upper range of protein requirements will support moderate exercise patterns. With any training program it is generally good advice to cross train or participate in a mix of activities so you don't rob to pay  in specific athletic capability.JR

[Guest guest]

True

But that is in regard to excess fat. So, the IBW is to not add in

protein for added fat.

IBW is also a range not a number and there is a range of % Body Comp

that is acceptable also and not one number. There are different

formulas for it, and there is BMI which has a range of 18.5 to 25.

If I weigh 130 and go to 140 from added muscle, both numbers are

within my normal range.

But, the added 10# would increase protein about 4 grams.

Of the 10#, 7.5 would be water and only around 2# active muscle cells.

Regards

Jeff