Guest guest Posted January 26, 2000 Report Share Posted January 26, 2000 The correct source is the missing factor, animal based protein is hardest on the liver, proteins from plant sources are not. It has to do with the complexity/structure of the protein molecules. Hamilton Protein Intake From: " Claudine Crews " <claudinecrews@...> Hello everyone! Nutrition seems to be a favorite subject lately. I have a question concerning protein intake for anyone who has some answers. I keep getting contradictory information. I have read/heard all three of the following: 1. You need to eat a high protein diet because your liver requires protein to repair itself. 2. You need a low protein diet so you don't put too much stress on your liver. 3. (This is from a mini cookbook from Amgen, the people who make Infergen) " When you have hepatitis C, getting the right amount of protein is important. You need to take in enough protein to promote liver repair, but not so much that it will put a burden on your digestive system. " This is as specific as it gets. So, I guess my question is - How much protein is the 'right' amount? Claudine ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2000 Report Share Posted January 26, 2000 > Hello everyone! > Nutrition seems to be a favorite > subject lately. I have a question > concerning protein intake for anyone who has > some answers. > I keep getting contradictory information. Here is some protein info from a Hepatitis C web site. Hope it helps. http://gi.ucsf.edu/alf/info/diethcv.html > PROTEIN AND HEPATITIS C Adequate protein intake is important to build and maintain muscle mass and to assist in healing and repair. Protein intake must be adjusted to one's body weight and medical condition. Approximately 1.0 to 1.5 gm. of protein per kilogram of body weight is recommended in the diet each day for regeneration of liver cells in non-cirrhotic patients. In a small but significant number of individuals with cirrhosis, a complication known as encephalopathy, or impaired mental status, may occur. Affected individuals may show signs of disorientation and confusion. The exact cause(s) of encephalopathy is not fully understood. While some experts do not believe there is a link between dietary protein and encephalopathy, others believe in substantially reducing or even eliminating animal protein and adhering to a vegetarian diet, in order to help improve mental status. Patients who are at risk for encephalopathy may be advised to eat no more than .6 - .8 gm. of animal source protein per kilogram of body weight per day. (Animal source proteins are meat, fish, eggs, poultry, and dairy products. Each provides 7 gm. of actual protein per ounce of food.) There is no limit on vegetable protein consumption. Maintaining adequate protein intake and body weight should be considered a priority if vegetarian protein substitutes are not utilized . The table below gives recommended grams of animal source protein intake per pound of body weight. (Note: The chart is intended to provide guidelines for patients with hepatitis C. For specific recommendations, consult your physician.) Weight Recommended average protein intake for regeneration of liver cells in non-cirrhotic patients Maximum recommended protein intake for patients at risk for encephalopathy 100 lbs. 45-68 gm. (6 -9 oz. meat or equivalent) 27 gm. 130 lbs. 59-87 gm. (8 - 12 oz. meat or equiv.) 35 gm. 150 lbs. 68-103 gm. (9.7-14 oz. meat or equiv.) 40 gm. 170 lbs. 77-116 gm. (11 -16 oz. meat or equiv.) 46 gm. 200 lbs. 91-136 gm. (13 -19 oz. meat or equiv.) 54 gm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 I just get the feeling from the studies we've seen and what we do know that more protein is better than less. Less osteo , feeling more satiated, etc etc. And although I believe the Atkins (may he rest in peace) diet is unhealthy, obviously it does have something going for it, because for weight loss it can't be beat. on 4/28/2003 1:26 PM, jwwright at jwwright@... wrote: I don't > see anything that would encourage me to eat more than my usual 56gms (for > weight control). Definitely not a precise science. > I'd be interested in any articles that show a curve for P intake versus > calories. (other than Sears). > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 From what I've seen, the diet is very successful in the short term. The critiques are that in the long term, the diet can kill you!!!! on 4/28/2003 3:11 PM, Kyberneticist at kyberneticist@... wrote: > Is Atkins really that good for weightloss? Not that I > have any interest in it (it'd be really hard as a > vegetarian, anyway), but I've read conflicting reports > on long-term effectiveness and actual advantage over > other food watching diets. > > I do have anecdotal evidence against, a friend who > was/is significantly overweight. He did Atkins > whole-heartedly - almost nothing but slices of meat > eaten for every meal. He slimmed down noticeably in > first couple of months, but not to the point where one > would say he was no longer overweight. After lack of > further progress for about half a year, he stopped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Ok, I get that in the book it says that O's thrive on a protein rich diet, but where does it say how much is enough? Is there anywhere (one of the books or on the website) that says exactly what ratio an O (or an A or B, for that matter) will do best on? If it's there I haven't found it. According to what I hear here, at 130#, I should be consuming 130g of protein/day. That's a lot of meat (that's like 5 1/2 4oz sirloin burgers). Now, in order to not cause damage to the kidney and liver " enough " fat must be consumed with the protein, correct? What's enough? If I'm getting 130g protein, that's 520 calories. Let's say I get the same amount of calories from fat (that would be about 57g which seems tremendously high). That would leave about 300 calories for carbohydrates (on a 1350 cal/day diet, which is my average), that's 75g of carbs (that's like 2 bananas, or an apple, a cup of rice and some broccoli, that doesn't seem like enough fruits and vegetables, let alone whole grains). Where's the fiber? What about cholesterol? It all looks very Atkins-esque to me. I know that's the diet of choice right now for many but there's conflicting evidence as to it's effectiveness and health consequences. For instance there is evidence that a diet deficient in carbohydrate will reduce cognitive ability, affect sleep patterns, make one irritable, etc. I don't know about you guys and gals but I'm in school and the last thing I can afford is to let Algebra get any more difficult I digress...what I'm really interested in finding is D'adamo's take on nutritional ratios (ie: 30-30-40 with the Zone or 10-30-60 RDA) I've never been much good at accepting anecdotal evidence. I need to experience it myself or analyze empirical data before making a commitment. I sincerely appreciate the interest, advice and patience of everyone in this group. Anyway, that's again for letting me run on at the mouth/fingers Be Joyous and Well, Eva > Don't be confused. If you want to loose fat - consume close to 1 gr/lbs. > > If in great shape, follow the 5 oz of per day suggestion and see what > happens? 35 gr of protein = 140 calories. It is not enough. Now let's > add fat calories to that since protein always comes with fat in nature > (another 140 calories). That gives you 280 calories from protein. 1 > average fruit is 27 gr of carbs = 108 calorie. > > Now read page 53 in ER - the first thing it says that Os strive of > protein and exercise. So naturally, that is the type of food that an O > should consume enough of. > When protein deprived (regardless of blood types) and most of us are > (just look at your midsection :-)) we will reach for starches to > compensate. That is why we are so out of shape. We are ODing on carbs > every day and somehow nobody is concerned about it. Why do we all think > that we don't have to worry about excess carb intake? > > IF YOU DON'T EAT PROTEIN, YOU WILL EAT STARCHES. ACCORDING TO PETER, > THAT IS THE NO 1 ENEMYOF AN O. > > In my book, it says: > 2.5oz 6-9 times Rh- increase by 1 -2 servings. (MEAT) > 2.5oz 3-5 times Rh- increases by 2 servings. (FISH) > 1 egg 3-6 times > > Love > > ABO Specifics Inc. - http://www.foodforyourblood.com > protein intake > > So, a 128 pounder should be taking in 128 grams of protein or approx. 17 > oz. > of meat/fish per day.... is this right? But since I'm a secretor/rh- > (neg) > my ounce needs per week may be different. The LR book says 2.5oz 8x/wk > of > meat and 2.5 oz. 6/wk of fish which would be 35 oz/week or 5 oz per > day... ok > now I'm confused! thx for any insight! ,, > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 On dadamo.com: Os - 40/40/20 ratio. That would be? For 1300 calories 130 gr of protein 130 gr of carbs and 30 gr of fat. Elevation of cholesterol comes from eating starches (sugars). Also, I am the one advocating the 1gr/lbs . Not or anyone else here. I have no idea about the shape you are in. We know very little about you. The less fat you have the more hungry you are. If your fat% is high, then it will be a bit harder to consume the amounts. In any case, if you consume 1300 calories, make sure to eat enough protein (size of your fist) at each meal for optimum health. Sounds like you have been reading a lot of different theories>>. For instance there is evidence that a diet deficient in carbohydrate will reduce cognitive ability, affect sleep patterns, make one irritable, etc.<<< It would effect As more then Os since Os don't do well with high carbs. ABO Specifics Inc. - http://www.foodforyourblood.com protein intake > > So, a 128 pounder should be taking in 128 grams of protein or approx. 17 > oz. > of meat/fish per day.... is this right? But since I'm a secretor/rh- > (neg) > my ounce needs per week may be different. The LR book says 2.5oz 8x/wk > of > meat and 2.5 oz. 6/wk of fish which would be 35 oz/week or 5 oz per > day... ok > now I'm confused! thx for any insight! ,, > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Another point about the serving sizes in the books, and dosage amounts in the protocols in the encyclopedia, is that the information was set up for a 150 lb person and that you might have to adjust it for your individual weight and activity level. Here is what Heidi has said about this point in her column: " Adjust all portion sizes to reflect your weight and activity level -- the ones given are based on a moderately active 150-pound person. " " Consider that the diet is designed for a 150-pound person. Use the high range of all the frequency tables in Live Right 4 Your Type for secretors, and eat for 150 pounds at the moment. When your weight increases beyond 150, add percentages of the frequencies and portions to match your weight. " " These calculations are on the basis of a 150-pound person, so tweak accordingly for your weight. " Don > In my book, it says: > 2.5oz 6-9 times Rh- increase by 1 -2 servings. (MEAT) > 2.5oz 3-5 times Rh- increases by 2 servings. (FISH) > 1 egg 3-6 times > > Love > > ABO Specifics Inc. - http://www.foodforyourblood.com > protein intake > > So, a 128 pounder should be taking in 128 grams of protein or approx. 17 > oz. > of meat/fish per day.... is this right? But since I'm a secretor/rh- > (neg) > my ounce needs per week may be different. The LR book says 2.5oz 8x/wk > of > meat and 2.5 oz. 6/wk of fish which would be 35 oz/week or 5 oz per > day... ok > now I'm confused! thx for any insight! ,, > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 In a message dated 2/10/2004 12:49:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, lescase@... writes: > So, a 128 pounder should be taking in 128 grams of protein or approx. 17 > oz. > of meat/fish per day.... is this right? But since I'm a secretor/rh- > (neg) > my ounce needs per week may be different. The LR book says 2.5oz 8x/wk of > meat and 2.5 oz. 6/wk of fish which would be 35 oz/week or 5 oz per day... > ok > now I'm confused! thx for any insight! ,, > Why do you insist on keeping it complicated? Stay simple. Let Dr D and his people edit the books or you'll go crazy. None of them agree in some places. The first sentence is right, 128 pounds is 128 grams of protein and there are between 7 and 8 grams of protein per OZ of meat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Remember that the ER4YT diet is for regaining and maintaining your health not weight loss. The weight loss factor is a side effect. To lose weight on the ER4YT diet you have to watch your carbs like you do on Atkins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 , not to be contrary (I really do want to understand and get this right), but according to 40/40/20, on a 1350cal diet that's only 67.5 carbs daily. I know from my own experience (I keep a detailed log of everything I eat, my weight, mood, measurements, etc...) when my carbs dip below 30% I get headaches, dizziness, reduced ability to concentrate, irritablity, etc. (I'm borderline hypoglycemic, maybe that's got something to do with it). Also, when I reduce my carbs, my fat and protein naturally go up...which is good, but when they get above 30% I start gaining weight. I'm in good shape now. I'm strong, healthy (except for my digestive issues) and happy with the way I look. I don't want to lose weight, but I don't want to gain any either. I know I don't take in more calories than my body burns, so it's got to be about the ratios. The strongest correlation I can find in my food journals is that when I take in more fat and protein than I can use, it is stored...not the goal. Maybe 1g/1lb is for people who are very active. My fiance is a body builder and that's what he does, but he's always trying to " gain muscle mass " and he's in the gym 5 nights a week. I'm not. So, wouldn't my dietary needs reflect that? It just doesn't seem sensible that a 5'5 " female student and homemaker would require the same dietary makeup as as a 6'1 " , 205# male bodybuilder. Am I totally missing something??? Sorry to be such a priss, but I just really want to understand (I haven't had my lightbulb moment yet). Thanks again for all the patience and advice, Much Love, Eva > > Don't be confused. If you want to loose fat - consume close to 1 > gr/lbs. > > > > If in great shape, follow the 5 oz of per day suggestion and see > what > > happens? 35 gr of protein = 140 calories. It is not enough. Now > let's > > add fat calories to that since protein always comes with fat in > nature > > (another 140 calories). That gives you 280 calories from protein. 1 > > average fruit is 27 gr of carbs = 108 calorie. > > > > Now read page 53 in ER - the first thing it says that Os strive of > > protein and exercise. So naturally, that is the type of food that > an O > > should consume enough of. > > When protein deprived (regardless of blood types) and most of us are > > (just look at your midsection :-)) we will reach for starches to > > compensate. That is why we are so out of shape. We are ODing on > carbs > > every day and somehow nobody is concerned about it. Why do we all > think > > that we don't have to worry about excess carb intake? > > > > IF YOU DON'T EAT PROTEIN, YOU WILL EAT STARCHES. ACCORDING TO PETER, > > THAT IS THE NO 1 ENEMYOF AN O. > > > > In my book, it says: > > 2.5oz 6-9 times Rh- increase by 1 -2 servings. (MEAT) > > 2.5oz 3-5 times Rh- increases by 2 servings. (FISH) > > 1 egg 3-6 times > > > > Love > > > > ABO Specifics Inc. - http://www.foodforyourblood.com > > protein intake > > > > So, a 128 pounder should be taking in 128 grams of protein or > approx. 17 > > oz. > > of meat/fish per day.... is this right? But since I'm a > secretor/rh- > > (neg) > > my ounce needs per week may be different. The LR book says 2.5oz > 8x/wk > > of > > meat and 2.5 oz. 6/wk of fish which would be 35 oz/week or 5 oz per > > day... ok > > now I'm confused! thx for any insight! ,, > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 40% protein, 40% carb, 20% fat. >> Except for my digestive issues<< did we see what your diet is like already? Since the goal is to be lean, a similar ratio is sound if you ask me. Serving sizes are very different, no? Look at 's books - females of all sizes eating 2.5oz of meat per serving? BTW, being an O you should be very active for HEALTH reasons. Os thrive on it. Love PS: your boyfriend should be able to assist you just fine if he is a bodybuilder. ABO Specifics Inc. - http://www.foodforyourblood.com protein intake > > > > So, a 128 pounder should be taking in 128 grams of protein or > approx. 17 > > oz. > > of meat/fish per day.... is this right? But since I'm a > secretor/rh- > > (neg) > > my ounce needs per week may be different. The LR book says 2.5oz > 8x/wk > > of > > meat and 2.5 oz. 6/wk of fish which would be 35 oz/week or 5 oz per > > day... ok > > now I'm confused! thx for any insight! ,, > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 ....The Optimum amount of protein is about 125 grams (by weight) per day... Bee I beg to differ! Following the Optimum Nutrition protocol set out by Dr J Kwasniewski, the optimum amount of protein is your height in cm minus 100. For example, I am 165 cm tall, so 165-100= 65g of protein per day (that's about 10 eggs or a pound of baked chicken). So, taller people need more protein. Also depending on the amount of exercise you're doing you may need to increase this slightly. Where did you get the 125 grams from? Irene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Hi Irene, OH OH! Sorry about that, and thanks so much the information. My gosh, I thought I got it correct because I got the information from THINCS. Do you have a reference? TIA, Bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Hi Bee I think these two contain the same information. I'm including them both in case you can't open one or the other. http://homodiet.netfirms.com/diet/optimaldiet1.htm http://ahoa.org.au/optimal/optimal_nutrition.html P.S. I do not derive any financial benefit from the above. There are many theories on what the " optimum " amount of protein is. We just have to wait until the experts agree. In the meantime the formula above works great for me (and a few thousand others Irene (sweltering in a 40 degree Celsius heat!) [ ] Re: Protein intake Hi Irene, OH OH! Sorry about that, and thanks so much the information. My gosh, I thought I got it correct because I got the information from THINCS. Do you have a reference? TIA, Bee _____ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 JW, I think that you are correct in saying that each person must determine the right amount of protein because our metabolisms are different. I thought that my weight was steady at around 150 lb on 1900-2000 calories and 30 minutes of exercise. However, keeping the diet fairly constant over the past five months, I now find myself at 147 lb with a BMI of 22.4. My level of energy and strength are as good as ever, and I have not noticed any other physical changes, other than the lower weight. My diet is fairly high in protein, which keeps me from being hungry, although if I am losing weight, it means that the material+energy output is greater than the material+energy input. I probably have a daily deficit of 70 Calories which accounts for my 3 pound loss over 5 months. My fat consumption is about 28% of calories. When my protein consumption is below 30% calories, I can feel the sugar highs and lows as my organism deals with the increased proportion of carbohydrates. Also, at the lower protein levels, I feel lower stamina, and I get a light headed feeling when I am hungry. This never happens when my protein level is between 30% and 39% of calories. I can be hungry, but not lightheaded. It is a very civilized kind of hunger -- I can still eat my next meal politely, and not wolf things down. I suppose this has to do with my body's ability to produce insulin, metabolize fat, and other factors involved in macronutrient metabolism. One week, or even one month, on a different diet will probably not kill you, but it can give you a chance to experiment and determine how the diet makes you feel physically. My normal fare is whole grains, dairy (including whey protein), meats, nuts, lots of berries, fruits, and greens. I have tried high carb diets and I cannot function normally with them. If my calories are to stay in the 1900-2000 range, my protein level has to be at least 30%. Exploring the web site that Jeff posted yesterday, I found an interesting biographical dietary log by Tom Billings, who is a vegetarian, and who finally feels that he has achieved nutritional equilibrium and made peace with his philosophical ideas about diet. http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/bio/billings-t-bio-1a.shtml Each person must determine Optimum Nutrition for their own metabolism. Tony --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > What we need is a way to get the numbers for each of us. And there are known parameters for human health now that argue against the 6% protein for most. > The basic guidelines are if you lose weight, you're not getting enough protein, so to guard against that they skew the number high. > Not talking losing weight,ie, what number maintains the desired weight, best health? > I think it's prudent for each CRer to determine that number, since we dare not rec a number lower than the RDA. A high number was suggested several years ago by Sherm (CRsociety), which was based on extrapolating lines on a chart in MNHD. I doubt that approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 I just went back to a chart I made last year, when I experimented with higher protein levels using whey. Dean, prior to becoming a vegan, used whey and commented that it increased "metabolism" because he lost weight using whey for protein, isocalorically. So I thought I might lose some weight, and I tried 2 levels higher than my 56gms, ie, 90gms/1800 kcals and 156 gms/2300 kcals. I plotted a chart using Sherm's data from 5 yrs ago (same protein discussion), and I added the MNHD data Sherm had used, and I added Dean's data. The curve looks like an "M". Notes I made indicated higher metabolism at 90 and I was "warm" at 156 gms. The MNHD data is from the 8th ed, "Table 1-6, Effect of energy intake...zero nitrogen balance...safe allowance for dietary protein." A good read. In CR, we eat levels below the norm so we might incur a negative nitrogen balance. The 6% protein idea is mostly a nitrogen issue, because even at low intake probably enough essential aminos are gotten. The idea is to not use those for nitrogen which is our largest need. It must be that any protein suffices for that. So MNHD says that Nitrogen is effected by energy intake and protein intake. Well right off, we can't eat a lot of protein without the energy to protect it. So the table gives a protein rec based on a mean plus 2 standard deviations for the domain it covers, which is not the CR domain of 20 - 30 kcals/kg. One thing we know is the body adjusts for nitrogen loss in fasting, ergo, I can assume the same happens at reduced energy intake. The other thing I know is that I exist near the mean protein level, which is not the lowest observed, rather just left of the peak. I really can't say if I achieved that by my weight loss technique in 2000, or if I always had it, but back then as soon as I felt I was losing weight too fast I adjusted the protein intake and leveled out where I am now. Looking at the chart again, I see my two low values simply add data to the curve, and I could eat 300 gms, 3000 kcals and exercise 2000 kcals and really skew the chart. Or I could eat 1800 kcals, 300 gms P and skew it a diff way, IOW, the chart doesn't tell me anything outside the domain for which is was constructed. So the question is why balance/minimize N2 anyway? Some think too much Protein is bad, ref Delaney/Walford, pg 61. My take is I want a lower metabolism for life extension, (there is disagreement there also). Also, I want to eat a diet that has the optimum PFC, whatever that is. It would have the least waste, the least bad byproducts, controlled insulin/BS, and not use muscle tissue for energy. And it might not depend on BMI or BF% at all. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: citpeks Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:40 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Protein intake JW,I think that you are correct in saying that each person must determinethe right amount of protein because our metabolisms are different. Ithought that my weight was steady at around 150 lb on 1900-2000calories and 30 minutes of exercise. However, keeping the diet fairlyconstant over the past five months, I now find myself at 147 lb with aBMI of 22.4. My level of energy and strength are as good as ever, andI have not noticed any other physical changes, other than the lowerweight. My diet is fairly high in protein, which keeps me from being hungry,although if I am losing weight, it means that the material+energyoutput is greater than the material+energy input. I probably have adaily deficit of 70 Calories which accounts for my 3 pound loss over 5months. My fat consumption is about 28% of calories. When my proteinconsumption is below 30% calories, I can feel the sugar highs and lowsas my organism deals with the increased proportion of carbohydrates. Also, at the lower protein levels, I feel lower stamina, and I get alight headed feeling when I am hungry. This never happens when myprotein level is between 30% and 39% of calories. I can be hungry,but not lightheaded. It is a very civilized kind of hunger -- I canstill eat my next meal politely, and not wolf things down. I supposethis has to do with my body's ability to produce insulin, metabolizefat, and other factors involved in macronutrient metabolism.One week, or even one month, on a different diet will probably notkill you, but it can give you a chance to experiment and determine howthe diet makes you feel physically. My normal fare is whole grains,dairy (including whey protein), meats, nuts, lots of berries, fruits,and greens. I have tried high carb diets and I cannot functionnormally with them. If my calories are to stay in the 1900-2000range, my protein level has to be at least 30%. Exploring the web site that Jeff posted yesterday, I found aninteresting biographical dietary log by Tom Billings, who is avegetarian, and who finally feels that he has achieved nutritionalequilibrium and made peace with his philosophical ideas about diet.http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/bio/billings-t-bio-1a.shtmlEach person must determine Optimum Nutrition for their own metabolism.Tony--- In , "jwwright" <jwwright@e...>wrote:> What we need is a way to get the numbers for each of us. And thereare known parameters for human health now that argue against the 6%protein for most. > The basic guidelines are if you lose weight, you're not gettingenough protein, so to guard against that they skew the number high. > Not talking losing weight,ie, what number maintains the desiredweight, best health? > I think it's prudent for each CRer to determine that number, sincewe dare not rec a number lower than the RDA. A high number wassuggested several years ago by Sherm (CRsociety), which was based onextrapolating lines on a chart in MNHD. I doubt that approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 JW, You say that you want " lower metabolism for life extension " . Isn't this backwards? It has been well documented that CR mice eat more per body weight than ad lib mice. They eat about 14% more. (see for example Masoro's classic paper " Action of food restriction in delaying the aging process " Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Vol 79, pp.4239-4241, July 1982. This is also shown in more recent papers by Mattson and others) If CR mice are metabolizing more food per unit of body weight and living longer, shouldn't we be striving for higher metabolism to live longer? Tony === " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: [snip] Dean, prior to becoming a vegan, used whey and commented that it increased " metabolism " because he lost weight using whey for protein, isocalorically. [snip] > My take is I want a lower metabolism for life extension, (there is disagreement there also). Also, I want to eat a diet that has the optimum PFC, whatever that is. It would have the least waste, the least bad byproducts, controlled insulin/BS, and not use muscle tissue for energy. And it might not depend on BMI or BF% at all. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 I want to burn the least energy, consistent with my weight goals, exercise goals, etc. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: citpeks Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 12:47 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Protein intake JW,You say that you want "lower metabolism for life extension". Isn'tthis backwards?It has been well documented that CR mice eat more per body weight thanad lib mice. They eat about 14% more. (see for example Masoro'sclassic paper "Action of food restriction in delaying the agingprocess" Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Vol 79, pp.4239-4241, July 1982. Thisis also shown in more recent papers by Mattson and others)If CR mice are metabolizing more food per unit of body weight andliving longer, shouldn't we be striving for higher metabolism to livelonger?Tony==="jwwright" <jwwright@e...> wrote:[snip]Dean, prior to becoming a vegan, used whey and commented that itincreased "metabolism" because he lost weight using whey for protein,isocalorically.[snip]> My take is I want a lower metabolism for life extension, (there isdisagreement there also). Also, I want to eat a diet that has theoptimum PFC, whatever that is. It would have the least waste, theleast bad byproducts, controlled insulin/BS, and not use muscle tissuefor energy. And it might not depend on BMI or BF% at all. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 Hi Tony: Didn't we have a discussion the upshot of which was that the caloric intake per unit body weight of CR mice was not remarkable if the different body composition of CR mice was accounted for? For example, CR mice have much less body fat which uses many fewer calories per gram than skeletal muscle. So, since lean mass is a greater proportion of the total weight of CR mice, one would expect their caloric expenditure per unit of total body weight to be greater. I do not remember whether the conclusion was that caloric intake of CR mice was assessed to be less than, greater than or the same as ad lib mice after adjustment for the body composition factor. But someone did post data for the different energy intensities of body fat, bone and lean mass, etc.. Rodney. > [snip] > Dean, prior to becoming a vegan, used whey and commented that it > increased " metabolism " because he lost weight using whey for protein, > isocalorically. > [snip] > > > My take is I want a lower metabolism for life extension, (there is > disagreement there also). Also, I want to eat a diet that has the > optimum PFC, whatever that is. It would have the least waste, the > least bad byproducts, controlled insulin/BS, and not use muscle tissue > for energy. And it might not depend on BMI or BF% at all. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2005 Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 Rodney, You are right that different body tissues have different metabolic requirements. As we lose our fat on CR, we are left with a greater proportion of lean tissue which has greater caloric requirements. So as we get leaner, our caloric requirement per unit of body weight should increase, just like the CR mice. This will give the appearance of " increasing " our metabolism. I think this " increased " metabolism is what is associated with longevity in CR mice. Tony > > [snip] > > Dean, prior to becoming a vegan, used whey and commented that it > > increased " metabolism " because he lost weight using whey for > protein, > > isocalorically. > > [snip] > > > > > My take is I want a lower metabolism for life extension, (there is > > disagreement there also). Also, I want to eat a diet that has the > > optimum PFC, whatever that is. It would have the least waste, the > > least bad byproducts, controlled insulin/BS, and not use muscle > tissue > > for energy. And it might not depend on BMI or BF% at all. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2005 Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 Hi All, I beg to differ. I believe that it does come down to the calories that are consumed that is of paramount importance. The energy used per organism decreases with CR and it is balanced with the energy intake. --- citpeks <citpeks@...> wrote: > Rodney, > > You are right that different body tissues have different metabolic > requirements. As we lose our fat on CR, we are left with a greater > proportion of lean tissue which has greater caloric requirements. So > as we get leaner, our caloric requirement per unit of body weight > should increase, just like the CR mice. This will give the appearance > of " increasing " our metabolism. > > I think this " increased " metabolism is what is associated with > longevity in CR mice. > > Tony Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@... __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2005 Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 Not to disagree with anyone, I think the confusion is the rats are reduced in size and less efficient than a larger animal. So it appears to be more calories/kg weight. I think an error to confuse the word metabolism with a higher rate of caloric expenditure that we see if we eat excess calories. The word metabolism has many meanings. The fitness folks (and weight watchers) want to raise "metabolism" to burn more energy, but we have had posted in another group a discussion that indicated we don't change the metabolic rate, because it doesn't change. What I observe is I feel warmer if I eat more calories and especially whey protein. That characteristic may not be true of all proteins. Heretofore, I had thought it was just due to too much fat intake, but when I used whey which had no fat, my body was warmer. I prefer a colder "operating temperature", if you will, in Texas 90+ days. I run my A/C at 78 deg instead of 72, eg., a compromise with my wife's "operating temp" which used to be colder than me. So if I'm colder, I have to assume I'm burning less calories and I got there by eating less calories, and maybe less protein. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Al Pater Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Protein intake Hi All,I beg to differ. I believe that it does come down to the calories that are consumedthat is of paramount importance. The energy used per organism decreases with CR andit is balanced with the energy intake.--- citpeks <citpeks@...> wrote:> Rodney,> > You are right that different body tissues have different metabolic> requirements. As we lose our fat on CR, we are left with a greater> proportion of lean tissue which has greater caloric requirements. So> as we get leaner, our caloric requirement per unit of body weight> should increase, just like the CR mice. This will give the appearance> of "increasing" our metabolism. > > I think this "increased" metabolism is what is associated with> longevity in CR mice.> > TonyAl Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...__________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2005 Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 Al, Higher metabolism and lower energy intake are not mutually exclusive, although it sounds counterintutive. We *know* that 40% CR mice eat 14% more food per unit of body weight (Masoro, Mattson, etc) than ad lib fed mice, which implies higher metabolism, but they are also eating 40% *less* food. So, while they are eating fewer total calories, they are eating more calories per unit of weight compared to ad lib mice. Tony > > > Rodney, > > > > You are right that different body tissues have different metabolic > > requirements. As we lose our fat on CR, we are left with a greater > > proportion of lean tissue which has greater caloric requirements. So > > as we get leaner, our caloric requirement per unit of body weight > > should increase, just like the CR mice. This will give the appearance > > of " increasing " our metabolism. > > > > I think this " increased " metabolism is what is associated with > > longevity in CR mice. > > > > Tony > > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y... > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.