Guest guest Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 Hi folks: I would just like to say that I very much agree with Jeff's comment below, that was addressed to . And I would emphasize that when 'facts' are confidently asserted here no one should be surprised if people who find those facts surprising, ask for references from serious sources. As I have said here before, Walford's chapter in 'Beyond the 120-Year Diet' which covers the nature of different types of evidence, and which of those one should pay very close attention to, and which one should almost certainly ignore, is indispensible knowledge, IMO, especially when trying to find one's way through the field of nutrition and health. Rodney. --- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...> wrote: > I am sure you have much to contribute, we just want to see the >references. No one is saying references are infallable, or all >studies are accurate, but it helps to see them so we can evaluate >them ourselves. > > jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 Good reads. I think you might agree that "whey" (not real whey, but the fitness stuff), which has increased BCAA, is not the amino acid supplements discussed? The article appears to not cover the case for bodybuilders, eg, rather endurance at the time of performance. Not promoting any protein supps for athletic purposes. I do think fitness whey causes weightloss. Interesting phenom - my be some additive. At the point of energy balance - stable weight - it seems to lower my weight about 1/8 to 1/4 # per day. BTW, some fitness wheys have lactose removed, others not. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Novick Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 11:37 AM Subject: RE: [ ] Protein If anyone is interested in the paper that i mentioned, The Role of Protein and Amino Acids in Sustaining and Enhancing Performance (1999)Institute of Medicine ( IOM <http://www.iom.edu/> )you can read the whole paper online here.....http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063469/html/index.htmlFrom Chapter 11 Physical Exertion, Amino Acid and Protein Metabolism, and Protein RequirementsAUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS* Exercise stimulates amino acid catabolism but the extent of the stimulation is too little to have a major effect in contributing to a negative nitrogen balance.* Most food contains sufficient protein such that so long as energy balance is maintained sufficient protein is delivered to meet the requirements for amino acid oxidation and also probably for preservation and even growth of the lean body mass.* There is no evidence that supplementation with individual amino acids is of benefit to physical performance or to maintenance or growth of lean body mass, especially muscle.In summary, therefore, rations for military personnel engaged in a high rate of physical activity should have the following characteristics:* Will be sufficient in delivery of energy.* Contain protein in the range of 0.8 g/kg body weight/day.* Need contain no extra amino acid supplements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 Of course, there are several types of whey available: whey protein isolates, whey protein concentrates, whey protein hydrosylates, etc. An article regarding the whey variants: http://www.brinkzone.com/wheyitis.html >From: " jwwright " <jwwright@...> >Reply- >< > >Subject: Re: [ ] Protein >Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:55:52 -0500 > >Good reads. >I think you might agree that " whey " (not real whey, but the fitness stuff), >which has increased BCAA, is not the amino acid supplements discussed? >The article appears to not cover the case for bodybuilders, eg, rather >endurance at the time of performance. > >Not promoting any protein supps for athletic purposes. >I do think fitness whey causes weightloss. Interesting phenom - my be some >additive. At the point of energy balance - stable weight - it seems to >lower my weight about 1/8 to 1/4 # per day. > >BTW, some fitness wheys have lactose removed, others not. > >Regards. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jeff Novick > > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 11:37 AM > Subject: RE: [ ] Protein > > > > If anyone is interested in the paper that i mentioned, The Role of >Protein and Amino Acids in Sustaining and Enhancing Performance (1999) > Institute of Medicine ( IOM <http://www.iom.edu/> ) > > > you can read the whole paper online here..... > > > http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063469/html/index.html > > > From Chapter 11 > Physical Exertion, Amino Acid and Protein Metabolism, and Protein >Requirements > > > AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS > > > * > Exercise stimulates amino acid catabolism but the extent of the >stimulation is too little to have a major effect in contributing to a >negative nitrogen balance. > > * > Most food contains sufficient protein such that so long as energy >balance is maintained sufficient protein is delivered to meet the >requirements for amino acid oxidation and also probably for preservation >and even growth of the lean body mass. > > * > There is no evidence that supplementation with individual amino acids is >of benefit to physical performance or to maintenance or growth of lean body >mass, especially muscle. > > In summary, therefore, rations for military personnel engaged in a high >rate of physical activity should have the following characteristics: > > * > Will be sufficient in delivery of energy. > > * > Contain protein in the range of 0.8 g/kg body weight/day. > > * > Need contain no extra amino acid supplements. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 I think none of those look like the whey in sr16, which I think is the byproduct of cheese making. Oddly, I don't find the amino acid breakdown of the fitness stuff in sr16. Not that it matters a lot. Those new products could be classified as manufactured, whether that's good or bad was not my point, either. The article dealt with specific amino acid supps in a test before, during and after endurance exercise and the result was no benefit. That doesn't mean that a regimen using "fitness" whey to build muscle over time, is necessarily not beneficial, right? BTW, where in that link do I find technical data, like the amino acid breakdown of any of those "wheys"? I've looked at maybe 100 links with no data. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dowling Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [ ] Protein Of course, there are several types of whey available: whey protein isolates, whey protein concentrates, whey protein hydrosylates, etc.An article regarding the whey variants:http://www.brinkzone.com/wheyitis.html>From: "jwwright" <jwwright@...>>Reply- >< >>Subject: Re: [ ] Protein>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:55:52 -0500>>Good reads.>I think you might agree that "whey" (not real whey, but the fitness stuff), >which has increased BCAA, is not the amino acid supplements discussed?>The article appears to not cover the case for bodybuilders, eg, rather >endurance at the time of performance.>>Not promoting any protein supps for athletic purposes.>I do think fitness whey causes weightloss. Interesting phenom - my be some >additive. At the point of energy balance - stable weight - it seems to >lower my weight about 1/8 to 1/4 # per day.>>BTW, some fitness wheys have lactose removed, others not.>>Regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 How Much Protein? by Herbert M. Shelton Chapter VIII Superior Nutrition by Herbert M. Shelton Published by Dr. Shelton's Health School San , 1970 Ever since it was decided that protein is the most important and most essential part of our food, there has raged a controversy over how much protein a day is required to meet the needs of man. At first, the efforts to determine the amount of protein needed were made by merely striking an average of the amount of protein actually eaten by certain groups of men, who are now known to have been gluttonous eaters. Next, an effort was made to determine the amount of protein needed by experiments on dogs. Imagine, trying to discover the protein needs of man by making tests on dogs! Without going into the matter of these experiments and measurements, suffice it to say that both of them helped to establish a high protein standard, which, although since repeatedly shown to be much too high, is far from dead, both in lay and in professional thought and practice. Indeed, within the last few years, there is apparent a growing tendency to re-affirm the old high-protein standards established by the earlier investigators. More than seventy years ago Liebig conceived the idea that albumens and proteins are needed in direct proportion to a man's or woman's activity. He thought that the human body is run on the substances of which its muscles and viscera are composed. Of this notion, Drinkwater says: "If muscles are worn away by exercise of their normal function, according to the old view, it would be like a locomotive having to have its wheels and machinery renewed at the end of each journey, instead of needing simply water and fuel." (Food in Health and Disease, London, 1906.) Following Liebig, Voight declared in 1881 that man requires twenty percent of his daily diet to be protein. A little later Atwater made it twenty-five percent, and Moleschott and Veirordt made it twenty percent. Voight experimented upon dogs in his effort to determine the protein requirements of man. These standards demanded for the adult, who has ceased growing, 7% to 12% more protein (more tissue building material) than nature herself provides for an infant which doubles its weight in six months and trebles its weight in a year. Not until Lahmann in 1892 appreciated this discrepancy and set about to determine the proportions of protein, carbohydrate, fat and salts in mother's milk, and used this information as a basis for calculation for adult diets, was a really decisive blow struck at the old school of dietetics. Lahmann was an old school physician who had associated himself with Louis Kuhne. He noticed that Kuhne's patients, fed as they were on fruits and vegetables, were not receiving the "required" amounts of protein, but fared well on their low protein diet. Analyzing the ingredients of dried milk, that is water free milk he found that the fat, sugar and minerals amounted to 85.5 percent of the whole; the protein present amounted to only 13.5 percent. Thus for a growing baby, producing more tissue daily than does the adult, nature provides a diet, which, apart from water, contains only 13.5 percent of the tissue building material called protein. But relative to the total bulk of breast milk taken by an infant, the pro-tein is really only 1.6 percent, because it is 88 percent water. Only in relation to the ingredients other than water is the amount 13.5 percent. This is said, however, not to be wholly a reliable basis of calculation, because unless we know the adult's activity as compared with that of the baby, we cannot accurately assess the adult's need. Drinkwater says that "the most strenuous muscular labour does not increase in the smallest degree the metabolism of albuminates (proteins) in the body; it is the non-nitrogeneous alimentary principles, the fats and carbohydrates, whose consumption is increased by muscular activity." It would seem, therefore, that our need in accurately assessing the protein needs of the adult as compared to that of the infant, would be a knowledge of the relative differences in tissue building activity that goes on in the two organisms. In 1887 Hirshfeld made a series of experiments and placed the protein standard at 47 grains, but the "scientists" rejected his standard. A young man of twenty-four years, Hirshfeld performed heavy labor, weight lifting, mountain climbing, etc., on a diet containing less than half the protein thought to be necessary. He lost neither weight nor strength, while the "nitrogen balance" showed that he did not lose body protein. Hindhede says of his work: "It is strange, indeed, that Hirshfeld's investigations have been permitted by science to drift almost into oblivion. He was a young man (twenty-four) who could make little impression upon the weight of Voight's authority." The low protein standard attracted little attention until after Horace Fletcher startled the "scientists" out of their lethargy. Chittenden in 1904 protested against the over-consumption of protein and established three ounces daily as the average adult requirement. It was not, however, until a little later, when it was shown that the amount of urea excreted is by no means proportionate to the activity indulged in, that Liebig and his school, together with the whole of the dietetic conventions that were supported by his ideas, were ultimately shown to be completely false. We must cease to think of the adult's activities as involving chiefly the expenditure of his protein elements, his tissues, but as the expenditure of his fuel. Compared, therefore, with the protein needs of the growing infant, who is making more tissue daily, those of the adult are very small indeed. Therefore, to make 13.5 percent of the diet of the adult, protein, would be ridiculous. Lahmann was in favor of conforming to the proportion of milk. This was too high, particularly as he used cow's milk as his standard. Chittenden maintained that "body-weight, health, strength, mental and physical vigor and endurance can be maintained with at least one-half of the protein food ordinarily consumed." He estimated the proportion of protein for the adult at 3.5 percent lower than for the infant, and thought that health could be maintained much more satisfactorily on about 10 percent of protein in the diet than on 20 percent. It was later found that the estimates of both Lahmann and of Chittenden are much in excess of actual body needs, for active grown men. Boyd, taking flesh as the source of protein, estimated the minimum daily ration of protein requisite to maintain body-weight at 30 grammes, i.e., only 4.65 percent in a total amount of 650 grammes of food. (Vitamins, London, 1923, P. 61.) Ragnar Berg, after making a more accurate investigation, found it to be only 26 grammes, or 4 percent of the total (Vitamins, London, 1923); while Rose, after providing a better supply of bases, found it to be only 24 grammes, or only 3.7 percent. (Vitamins, London). After carefully surveying all previous estimates and after conscientious experimentation of his own, Berg came to the conclusion that the adult body's need of protein should be calculated on a basis of .58 grammes per kilogramme of body weight (Vitamins). Berg concluded that "a supply equivalent to 1 gramme of protein per kilogramme of body-weight, when a mixed diet is taken . . . provides a margin of safety of from 50 to 100 percent." Thus a fully grown adult, of say 140 lbs. should consume not more than 2.2 ounces of protein a day—i.e., if he is taking his protein in the form of meat or cheese, he should not take more than half a pound of beef or curd cheese altogether; or if he is taking it in the form of cod-fish, not more than 7/8 of a pound. (14 oz) It is obvious that the average full-grown man, even of moderate habits, allows himself a much larger proportion of protein. If he has eggs and bacon for breakfast, these alone, apart from the bread he consumes with them, will provide 3/5 of his daily quota of 2.2 ounces of protein, leaving only 1.6 ounces for his lunch an dinner. Thus, by the time he has his lunch, consisting of a cut from a joint, a chop or a steak, he has consumed more than his quota, and the rest is all excess as far as protein is concerned, quite apart from the bread, potatoes, milk or cereals he may also have had. Ragnar Berg allows a small increase of protein for reproduction, and in this case proteins of high biological value are essential. But when reproduction is allowed for, it is obvious from the previous figures that the average man who has ceased growing, indulges to excess in those kinds of foods which are body building and which he does not require, and thus, not only deprives his body of other important elements, such as mineral salts and vitamins, but also impedes the combustion of his running fuel. Hindhede reared four athletic and wide-awake children on a diet so low in protein that it has been said "it would frighten a school teacher into blind staggers." Nixon, who is no vegetarian and has no bias in favor of vegetarianism, writing in January 1934 said that 100 grams of protein daily (i.e., 3.527 ounces or nearly 1/4 lb.) is average requirement for physical and mental activity and for fertility, 50 grams of which should be "first class protein" by which he means meat, eggs, cheese, including fish. This is the amount of protein he regards as sufficient for a young man in his prime when reproductive powers are at their zenith. This means that one-half the young adult's daily protein consumption should be high grade proteins. Vegetarians would use as proteins of high biologic value - nuts, peanuts, avocadoes, soy beans, bananas, and green vegetables. In my own work, I have watched hundreds of men, women and children make steady (often rapid) gains in weight and strength following lengthy fasts, while consuming less than half the protein daily that is supposed to be required. I have reared children and supervised the rearing of many more on a diet containing far less protein than the prevailing standards call for and the healthiest and finest developed children I have seen have been these very children. My feeding program comforms closely to the standard established by the Swiss experiment, an account of which follows. Some recent experiments made in Switzerland should go far to settle a long-sought-for solution to the problem of how much protein is required daily for an individual. Unlike most experiments that have been made in an effort to solve this problem, this experiment was made on human beings and on large numbers of them. If its conclusions do not agree with the findings of the rat-pen dietitians, this will merely be hard on the boys in the rat-pens. The British Association for the Advancement of Science was addressed at its regular meeting about two years ago by a Swiss speaker, Prof. A. Fleisch. He told the assembled scientists that experiments carried out with scientific thoroughness on 4,000,000 people in Switzerland showed that the amounts of calories, proteins and fats formerly considered essential in civilized countries were utterly unnecessary. He asserted, on the basis of these experiments, that the United Nations minimum standard of 2,400 calories a day is too much and that 2,160 is sufficient for all except heavy manual workers. The conclusion reached through their experiments is that one gramme of protein per kilo (0.035 oz. per 2 1/4 lb.) of body weight is correct. Before the war the protein requirements were supposed to be 100 grammes (3 1/2 oz.). This amount he asserted, was not only unnecessary, but was actually harmful. He said that a large part of the meat and eggs eaten before the war and a large part of the refined fats, sugar and white bread and macaroni could have been replaced by vegetables, fruits and darker bread, Finally, be said that today, when great nations of the world are suffering from hunger, it is absolute waste to convert large quantities of wheat into eggs, thus losing 90 percent of the nutritive value of the wheat, and to convert tremendous amounts of maize (corn) and barley into fodder (food for cows) and thus lose 75 percent of the calories and proteins. This is a direct stab at our traditional but nonetheless foolish agriculture which first raises huge quantities of food for animals, feeds it to the animals, and then feeds man a small percentage of the food value thus converted into animal foods. It will seem amazing to most of my readers that only about one-half the amount of protein considered necessary before the war is needed daily by the individual for health and strength. The old high protein standards thus go glimmering through the things that were. No doubt the packers and the poultry men will not like this and a great howl will go up from the rat pens. The radio touts who look after the interests of the meat packing industry will shout themselves hoarse denying the validity of these tests made on men and women instead of rats. Nonetheless, there is but one way to determine the nutritive requirements of man. In dealing with the young, the requirements of a rapidly growing animal and those of an animal of slow growth are very different. While the efforts of most investigators seem to have been directed to ascertaining minimum protein requirements, it may be debatable as to whether or not this can establish a valid standard for protein intake. It is quite clear, however, that greater sobriety in the matter of nitrogen (protein) ingestion is essential not only to achieve a return to health, but also in order to maintain health at its highest peak at all times and for all purposes. Reinheimer truly says that "nitrogen, the chief ingredient of protein, is universally a good servant, but a bad master." It is well known to physiologists that both fat and protein metabolism depend upon carbohydrate metabolism. There is a delicate balance between carbohydrates and proteins, to which we have to conform - disease and degeneration resulting from failure to conform. It has been shown that excess nitrogen is detrimental to the capacity for work, while very generally, it is the accumulation of a nitrogen product, kinotoxin, in the muscles that is the cause of fatigue. Men are poisoned by excessive protein ingestion. More than any other food factor, excesses of protein foods fill the body with toxins. Indeed, the whole system becomes overcharged with poisonous products of protein metabolism, which the eliminative functions eventually fail to cope with. The calamitous moribundity of a body poisoned by unsuitable and excessive protein is similar to the case of alimentary anaphylaxis. In middle aged adults, perfectly normal kidneys are the exception rather than the rule. By a careful selection of a low nitrogen diet, it is possible to reduce the amount of work required of the kidneys to a level at which they are able to keep the waste products in the blood within normal limits. We can say, without fear of successful contradiction, that a disproportionately increased amount of protein in the diet, due to the arbitrary addition to the diet of foods rich in protein, such as flesh, eggs, cheese, etc., proves harmful, as a continual excess of protein results in severe disturbances of health. Yet these are the very foods that the advocates of much "high-grade" protein place greatest stress upon. An excess of protein thus provided, (this improperly prepared and wrongly combined), is the source of much trouble. Herbert M. Shelton "Men are poisoned by excessive protein ingestion. More than any other food factor, excesses of protein foods fill the body with toxins." -- Peace be with you, Don "Quai" Eitner "Spirit sleeps in the mineral, breathes in the vegetable, dreams in the animal and wakes in man." Nearly all men die of their remedies, and not of their illnesses. ~Baptiste Molière, Le Malade Imaginaire The obstacle is the path. ~Zen Proverb In compliance with the highest standards of Universal Law, this email has been thoroughly disinfected and purified in the solar flares of the sun. Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.336 / Virus Database: 267.8.16/50 - Release Date: 7/15/05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Hello Rodney, Your feeling that we may not have all the key info regarding dietary proportions of carbs, protein and fat as well as ideal nutrient intake is keenly shared by myself and others here, I'm sure. But given the accepted idea that cr produces a low metabolic rate, does it really matter? Since animals who are made to metabolize faster than normal, as has been shown when defficiencies in " essential " fatty acids are induced in rats on an otherwise standard, unenriched diet, use up available nutrients much more quickly, does is not make sense that in animals with lower than normal metabolism, a small quantity of quality nutrients would go a long way? Remember, impressive longevity is achieved when the animals are fed a restricted standard diet. Is there any evidence that they do better on diets with better nutrient profiles? The inference may only be a property of logic. Regards, > > Hi folks: > > Over the past week or so I have been giving some thought to the issue > of dietary protein. This eruption of grey matter activity was > provoked by a couple of posts a few weeks ago. One, posted by Jeff > I believe, provided data which showed that among a group of > centenarians in China protein intake amounted to about 40 grams a > day. The second was a study which indicated that rats whose intake > was 80% restricted in one particular amino acid lived 40% longer than > those whose intake was not similarly restricted. > > Now these studies do not prove much. The chinese study did not show > how much protein was consumed by those among the local population who > died early. Perhaps everyone in the region, including those who > dropped dead at age 50, had also been consuming 40 grams of protein a > day. In which case the low protein intake of the centenarians would > be of no significance. The rat study has not, as far as I know, been > replicated. So this could perhaps all be shown, by future studies, > to be irrelevant to us. > > OTOH, it certainly does seem to suggest that consuming a mere 40 > grams of protein daily is not harmful. In addition, if 40 grams of > protein permits substantial longevity, it is conceivable that 30 > grams might be even better, since there is no reason to believe > those centenarians just happened to be consuming precisely the ideal > amount of protein. At this stage we simply do not know. But for the > remainder of this post I will speculate about what the implications > may be if these findings turn out to be confirmed by future > studies .................. that is, if further study confirms that > protein restriction is a significant contributor to increased maximum > lifespan. > > Over the years I have not paid much attention to my protein intake. > I have checked occasionally to make sure I am getting enough, in > total, and I have eaten at least a little fish or lean meat regularly > to make sure I am not deficient in any specific amino acid. As > regards quantities, I have worked hard to reduce my intake of all > fats, especially saturated and hydrogenated fats, but haven't paid > close attention to the quantities of total protein or individual > amino acids. > > So in the past few days I have logged my protein intake with some > care, and what did I find? Well most days, while consuming a rather > modest number of calories, I eat at least double the protein of the > chinese centenarians, and sometimes three times as much. Is this > likely to be a good idea, if I am hoping to live to 120 in order to > be still around to take advantage of the life extension possibilities > science will discover during the next sixty years? [Kurzweil is > predicting that within fifteen years science will be extending > remaining lifespans by ***more than a year as each year passes***.] > It may be less than constructive to consume double, triple or perhaps > even four times the optimal protein intake. But it would be helpful, > first, to know that the optimal level of protein intake is(!) > > With the above in mind I decided to take a look at how I could reduce > my protein intake, in case at some future time that appears > desirable. With the general idea that I might possibly need to drop > protein calories to, for a number, around 10% of total. > > First I looked at my fish consumption - mostly salmon, herring, > mackerel, sardines, sole and tuna. According to nutritiondata.com > the protein calories as a percent of total for these foods are > between 40% and 50% for the high fat varieties, and over 80% for the > lower fat types like tuna and sole. The conclusion seems to be that > it would be very very difficult to eat a diet averaging 10% of > calories from protein if one consumed pretty much ANY of these. This > may be an argument in favor of fish oil that I had not previously > considered. So next I turned to green vegetables .............. > > ............ romaine, bok choy, kale, broccoli and spinach. For > these, protein accounted, respectively, for the following percentages > of total calories: 18%, 28%, 16%, 20%, 30%. Clearly, these numbers > are a little more encouraging than those for fish. But they are > hardly going to help bring down my average to anywhere near 10%. If > I want to eat a fair amount of green vegetables and still average 10% > overall I would need to consume a lot of stuff that contains zero > protein. So next I took a look at legumes .................... > > ................. canned baked beans, lentils, chick peas, peas, > peanuts are a few classic examples from the legume family, all or > most of which are generally considered to be healthy. The protein > percentages for them are: 22%, 27%, 14%, 23%, 14%. A couple of > these are getting a little closer to the 10% threshold. But again, > if one is going to be eating anything with a higher protein content > one will need some foods with a lot less than 10% to end up with an > average of 10% protein overall. So we need to look elsewhere. How > about fruits? ...................... > > .................. apples, oranges, bananas, peaches, > apricots ................... 2%, 6%, 4%, 8%, 10%. These numbers, > clearly, are much more encouraging. But most of the calories in > these are from sugars, and these foods for the most part are far from > dense with micronutrients. > > I also looked at cereals. Many of which have a lowish protein > percentage. For example, 9% of the calories in Multi-Grain Cheerios > are from protein. But when I saw that a 200g serving of it daily > would, it alone, supply 2.5 times the upper safe limit for iron, I > discarded that as an idea worth considering. > > So how did the chinese centenarians manage to eat so little > protein? Half their daily calories came from eating dried sweet > potato slices! Just 5% of the calories of which are derived from > protein. > > As I said at the outset, it is not known to what extent, if any, the > longevity of these chinese centenarians may be attibutable to low > protein intake, or to their consumption of sweet potatoes - which may > or may not be the same variety eaten in north America. But this is > an issue that may bear some thinking about while the scientists work > on determining what particular dietary component it is, that is the > most important to restrict. It does seem to have been established > that, at least for fruit flies, restriction of carbohydrates > contributes only marginally to longer lifespan. So this suggests the > longevity benefits of CR may mostly derive from restriction of either > total fat, total protein, or some specific types of either fat or > protein. > > If it turns out that protein restriction is of major importance, then > the numbers above suggest it will be necessary for me to make radical > changes to my diet in comparison with what I have been eating up > until now. > > But as I noted at the outset, all the above is speculation based on > information we do not yet know. Nevertheless, it certainly raises > questions about the desirability of taking any kind of protein > supplements. > > Input, especially any containing alternative viewpoints, will be much > appreciated. > > Rodney. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Hi Rodney, Thanks for your thoughtful treatise on protein consumption. One thing that occurred to me when you mentioned sweet potatoes is that they are often mentioned in articles about preventing breast cancer. They have lots of phytochemicals and have estrogenic effects. In fact, my oncologist warned me away from sweet potatoes and soy for exactly this reason because I had an estrogen-sensitive breast cancer a few years ago. (Interestingly, this is the opposite conclusion of most of the literature I read about it.) I found a pubmed study at http://tinyurl.com/kk4v6 that discusses the glucose-lowering effect of sweet potato phytochemicals and recommends encouraging Fijians to resume their traditional diets to prevent diabetes, so perhaps the sweet potato diet confers an additional protective effect due to its phytochemicals. When you discussed how to reduce protein and were mentioning the high iron content in Multigrain Cheerios, I wondered why you didn't look at non-fortified cereals instead. I recommend Nature's Path Heritage Flakes multigrain cereal. A 30 gm serving has 100 calories, 1 gm fat, 6 gm fiber and 4 gm protein. Total iron intake is 10% of RDA. You can do the math for 200 gm, although I certainly wouldn't want to eat over 600 calories of my daily allotment in cereal. www.naturespath.com. Diane > > Hi folks: > > Over the past week or so I have been giving some thought to the issue > of dietary protein. This eruption of grey matter activity was > provoked by a couple of posts a few weeks ago. One, posted by Jeff > I believe, provided data which showed that among a group of > centenarians in China protein intake amounted to about 40 grams a > day. The second was a study which indicated that rats whose intake > was 80% restricted in one particular amino acid lived 40% longer than > those whose intake was not similarly restricted. > > Now these studies do not prove much. The chinese study did not show > how much protein was consumed by those among the local population who > died early. Perhaps everyone in the region, including those who > dropped dead at age 50, had also been consuming 40 grams of protein a > day. In which case the low protein intake of the centenarians would > be of no significance. The rat study has not, as far as I know, been > replicated. So this could perhaps all be shown, by future studies, > to be irrelevant to us. > > OTOH, it certainly does seem to suggest that consuming a mere 40 > grams of protein daily is not harmful. In addition, if 40 grams of > protein permits substantial longevity, it is conceivable that 30 > grams might be even better, since there is no reason to believe > those centenarians just happened to be consuming precisely the ideal > amount of protein. At this stage we simply do not know. But for the > remainder of this post I will speculate about what the implications > may be if these findings turn out to be confirmed by future > studies .................. that is, if further study confirms that > protein restriction is a significant contributor to increased maximum > lifespan. > > Over the years I have not paid much attention to my protein intake. > I have checked occasionally to make sure I am getting enough, in > total, and I have eaten at least a little fish or lean meat regularly > to make sure I am not deficient in any specific amino acid. As > regards quantities, I have worked hard to reduce my intake of all > fats, especially saturated and hydrogenated fats, but haven't paid > close attention to the quantities of total protein or individual > amino acids. > > So in the past few days I have logged my protein intake with some > care, and what did I find? Well most days, while consuming a rather > modest number of calories, I eat at least double the protein of the > chinese centenarians, and sometimes three times as much. Is this > likely to be a good idea, if I am hoping to live to 120 in order to > be still around to take advantage of the life extension possibilities > science will discover during the next sixty years? [Kurzweil is > predicting that within fifteen years science will be extending > remaining lifespans by ***more than a year as each year passes***.] > It may be less than constructive to consume double, triple or perhaps > even four times the optimal protein intake. But it would be helpful, > first, to know that the optimal level of protein intake is(!) > > With the above in mind I decided to take a look at how I could reduce > my protein intake, in case at some future time that appears > desirable. With the general idea that I might possibly need to drop > protein calories to, for a number, around 10% of total. > > First I looked at my fish consumption - mostly salmon, herring, > mackerel, sardines, sole and tuna. According to nutritiondata.com > the protein calories as a percent of total for these foods are > between 40% and 50% for the high fat varieties, and over 80% for the > lower fat types like tuna and sole. The conclusion seems to be that > it would be very very difficult to eat a diet averaging 10% of > calories from protein if one consumed pretty much ANY of these. This > may be an argument in favor of fish oil that I had not previously > considered. So next I turned to green vegetables .............. > > ............ romaine, bok choy, kale, broccoli and spinach. For > these, protein accounted, respectively, for the following percentages > of total calories: 18%, 28%, 16%, 20%, 30%. Clearly, these numbers > are a little more encouraging than those for fish. But they are > hardly going to help bring down my average to anywhere near 10%. If > I want to eat a fair amount of green vegetables and still average 10% > overall I would need to consume a lot of stuff that contains zero > protein. So next I took a look at legumes .................... > > ................. canned baked beans, lentils, chick peas, peas, > peanuts are a few classic examples from the legume family, all or > most of which are generally considered to be healthy. The protein > percentages for them are: 22%, 27%, 14%, 23%, 14%. A couple of > these are getting a little closer to the 10% threshold. But again, > if one is going to be eating anything with a higher protein content > one will need some foods with a lot less than 10% to end up with an > average of 10% protein overall. So we need to look elsewhere. How > about fruits? ...................... > > .................. apples, oranges, bananas, peaches, > apricots ................... 2%, 6%, 4%, 8%, 10%. These numbers, > clearly, are much more encouraging. But most of the calories in > these are from sugars, and these foods for the most part are far from > dense with micronutrients. > > I also looked at cereals. Many of which have a lowish protein > percentage. For example, 9% of the calories in Multi-Grain Cheerios > are from protein. But when I saw that a 200g serving of it daily > would, it alone, supply 2.5 times the upper safe limit for iron, I > discarded that as an idea worth considering. > > So how did the chinese centenarians manage to eat so little > protein? Half their daily calories came from eating dried sweet > potato slices! Just 5% of the calories of which are derived from > protein. > > As I said at the outset, it is not known to what extent, if any, the > longevity of these chinese centenarians may be attibutable to low > protein intake, or to their consumption of sweet potatoes - which may > or may not be the same variety eaten in north America. But this is > an issue that may bear some thinking about while the scientists work > on determining what particular dietary component it is, that is the > most important to restrict. It does seem to have been established > that, at least for fruit flies, restriction of carbohydrates > contributes only marginally to longer lifespan. So this suggests the > longevity benefits of CR may mostly derive from restriction of either > total fat, total protein, or some specific types of either fat or > protein. > > If it turns out that protein restriction is of major importance, then > the numbers above suggest it will be necessary for me to make radical > changes to my diet in comparison with what I have been eating up > until now. > > But as I noted at the outset, all the above is speculation based on > information we do not yet know. Nevertheless, it certainly raises > questions about the desirability of taking any kind of protein > supplements. > > Input, especially any containing alternative viewpoints, will be much > appreciated. > > Rodney. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Here are some interesting calculations on the amount of various foods needed to meet complete protein requirements (RDA). I can't vouch for the source, nor the accuracy of the calculations. It's not complete. The list seems to be merely a selection of meats, grains, vegetables, dairy and fruits. The author calculates the amount of food neeeded to meet the RDA for the limiting amino acid. For instance, it takes 0.7 lb of rice (brown), another staple of the Chinese diet, to provide 1264 mg of leucine per day, the RDA for that amino acid for a 79 kg male. What's interesting is that this amount of rice very likely would result in too much protein overall. Lacking Dr. Walford's diet program, I can't easily go through the numbers, but it would be an interesting exercise to do for these foods and others. If we are striving to achieve " sufficiency and no more, " (whatever that is) maybe choosing complementary proteins would be " in " again. Is it possible that too much of certain amino acids is not a good thing, while too much of others is not a problem? For fear of igniting a firestorm, I hesitate to mention the name of T. Colin , but his China Study drew the conclusion that diets that contained meat led to greater incidences of cancer and heart disease. Meat, of course, has a different amino acid profile than sweet potatoes or rice. In any case, here is the link: http://waltonfeed.com/omega/protein.html One final thought: I wonder if these are the purple sweet potatoes of the Okinawans? Mike --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@...> wrote: > > Hi folks: > > Over the past week or so I have been giving some thought to the issue > of dietary protein. This eruption of grey matter activity was > provoked by a couple of posts a few weeks ago. One, posted by Jeff > I believe, provided data which showed that among a group of > centenarians in China protein intake amounted to about 40 grams a > day. The second was a study which indicated that rats whose intake > was 80% restricted in one particular amino acid lived 40% longer than > those whose intake was not similarly restricted. > > Now these studies do not prove much. The chinese study did not show > how much protein was consumed by those among the local population who > died early. Perhaps everyone in the region, including those who > dropped dead at age 50, had also been consuming 40 grams of protein a > day. In which case the low protein intake of the centenarians would > be of no significance. The rat study has not, as far as I know, been > replicated. So this could perhaps all be shown, by future studies, > to be irrelevant to us. > > OTOH, it certainly does seem to suggest that consuming a mere 40 > grams of protein daily is not harmful. In addition, if 40 grams of > protein permits substantial longevity, it is conceivable that 30 > grams might be even better, since there is no reason to believe > those centenarians just happened to be consuming precisely the ideal > amount of protein. At this stage we simply do not know. But for the > remainder of this post I will speculate about what the implications > may be if these findings turn out to be confirmed by future > studies .................. that is, if further study confirms that > protein restriction is a significant contributor to increased maximum > lifespan. > > Over the years I have not paid much attention to my protein intake. > I have checked occasionally to make sure I am getting enough, in > total, and I have eaten at least a little fish or lean meat regularly > to make sure I am not deficient in any specific amino acid. As > regards quantities, I have worked hard to reduce my intake of all > fats, especially saturated and hydrogenated fats, but haven't paid > close attention to the quantities of total protein or individual > amino acids. > > So in the past few days I have logged my protein intake with some > care, and what did I find? Well most days, while consuming a rather > modest number of calories, I eat at least double the protein of the > chinese centenarians, and sometimes three times as much. Is this > likely to be a good idea, if I am hoping to live to 120 in order to > be still around to take advantage of the life extension possibilities > science will discover during the next sixty years? [Kurzweil is > predicting that within fifteen years science will be extending > remaining lifespans by ***more than a year as each year passes***.] > It may be less than constructive to consume double, triple or perhaps > even four times the optimal protein intake. But it would be helpful, > first, to know that the optimal level of protein intake is(!) > > With the above in mind I decided to take a look at how I could reduce > my protein intake, in case at some future time that appears > desirable. With the general idea that I might possibly need to drop > protein calories to, for a number, around 10% of total. > > First I looked at my fish consumption - mostly salmon, herring, > mackerel, sardines, sole and tuna. According to nutritiondata.com > the protein calories as a percent of total for these foods are > between 40% and 50% for the high fat varieties, and over 80% for the > lower fat types like tuna and sole. The conclusion seems to be that > it would be very very difficult to eat a diet averaging 10% of > calories from protein if one consumed pretty much ANY of these. This > may be an argument in favor of fish oil that I had not previously > considered. So next I turned to green vegetables .............. > > ............ romaine, bok choy, kale, broccoli and spinach. For > these, protein accounted, respectively, for the following percentages > of total calories: 18%, 28%, 16%, 20%, 30%. Clearly, these numbers > are a little more encouraging than those for fish. But they are > hardly going to help bring down my average to anywhere near 10%. If > I want to eat a fair amount of green vegetables and still average 10% > overall I would need to consume a lot of stuff that contains zero > protein. So next I took a look at legumes .................... > > ................. canned baked beans, lentils, chick peas, peas, > peanuts are a few classic examples from the legume family, all or > most of which are generally considered to be healthy. The protein > percentages for them are: 22%, 27%, 14%, 23%, 14%. A couple of > these are getting a little closer to the 10% threshold. But again, > if one is going to be eating anything with a higher protein content > one will need some foods with a lot less than 10% to end up with an > average of 10% protein overall. So we need to look elsewhere. How > about fruits? ...................... > > .................. apples, oranges, bananas, peaches, > apricots ................... 2%, 6%, 4%, 8%, 10%. These numbers, > clearly, are much more encouraging. But most of the calories in > these are from sugars, and these foods for the most part are far from > dense with micronutrients. > > I also looked at cereals. Many of which have a lowish protein > percentage. For example, 9% of the calories in Multi-Grain Cheerios > are from protein. But when I saw that a 200g serving of it daily > would, it alone, supply 2.5 times the upper safe limit for iron, I > discarded that as an idea worth considering. > > So how did the chinese centenarians manage to eat so little > protein? Half their daily calories came from eating dried sweet > potato slices! Just 5% of the calories of which are derived from > protein. > > As I said at the outset, it is not known to what extent, if any, the > longevity of these chinese centenarians may be attibutable to low > protein intake, or to their consumption of sweet potatoes - which may > or may not be the same variety eaten in north America. But this is > an issue that may bear some thinking about while the scientists work > on determining what particular dietary component it is, that is the > most important to restrict. It does seem to have been established > that, at least for fruit flies, restriction of carbohydrates > contributes only marginally to longer lifespan. So this suggests the > longevity benefits of CR may mostly derive from restriction of either > total fat, total protein, or some specific types of either fat or > protein. > > If it turns out that protein restriction is of major importance, then > the numbers above suggest it will be necessary for me to make radical > changes to my diet in comparison with what I have been eating up > until now. > > But as I noted at the outset, all the above is speculation based on > information we do not yet know. Nevertheless, it certainly raises > questions about the desirability of taking any kind of protein > supplements. > > Input, especially any containing alternative viewpoints, will be much > appreciated. > > Rodney. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 I question the 1264 mg of leucine, based on IOM data. http://newton.nap.edu/openbook/0309085373/html/589.html at the bottom of page. "55 mg leucine/gram of protein" Above that "0.8 gram of good quality protein per kilogram body weight". For 79 kg body, that's 63.2 grams P, 3476 mg leucine. Correct me if wrong, please. That's not considering rice is not considered a "good quality" source. Not my opinion, BTW, I eat a lot of rice. It's also not my opinion I need the IOM number for CRON. The MNHD, page 41, 1999, number is 14 mg per kg. That's more like 1114. Regards. [ ] Re: Protein Here are some interesting calculations on the amount of various foods needed to meet complete protein requirements (RDA). I can't vouch for the source, nor the accuracy of the calculations. It's not complete. The list seems to be merely a selection of meats, grains, vegetables, dairy and fruits. The author calculates the amount of food neeeded to meet the RDA for the limiting amino acid.For instance, it takes 0.7 lb of rice (brown), another staple of the Chinese diet, to provide 1264 mg of leucine per day, the RDA for that amino acid for a 79 kg male.What's interesting is that this amount of rice very likely would result in too much protein overall. Lacking Dr. Walford's diet program, I can't easily go through the numbers, but it would be an interesting exercise to do for these foods and others.If we are striving to achieve "sufficiency and no more," (whatever that is) maybe choosing complementary proteins would be "in" again.Is it possible that too much of certain amino acids is not a good thing, while too much of others is not a problem?For fear of igniting a firestorm, I hesitate to mention the name of T. Colin , but his China Study drew the conclusion that diets that contained meat led to greater incidences of cancer and heart disease. Meat, of course, has a different amino acid profile than sweet potatoes or rice.In any case, here is the link: http://waltonfeed.com/omega/protein.htmlOne final thought: I wonder if these are the purple sweet potatoes of the Okinawans?Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Hi folks: There is also the issue of how all these RDAs were decided upon. Did they decide how much should be eaten of each amino acid, and of protein overall, based on studies where they exhaustively tested monkeys to determine the amount which resulted in the longest lifespan? Of course not. Or did they make some carefully reasoned argument (that tricky 'logic' creeping in here again!) for how much the average (i.e. huge) person might need, and then grossed it up by 50% or 100% just to be on the safe side? I don't know how they really did it. But I very much doubt that the terms 'caloric restriction', 'survival curve', and 'species maximum lifespan' were forefront in their minds at the time. LOL. Correction requested if someone is familiar with the procedure. Rodney. --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@...> wrote: > > I question the 1264 mg of leucine, based on IOM data. > http://newton.nap.edu/openbook/0309085373/html/589.html > at the bottom of page. > > " 55 mg leucine/gram of protein " > Above that " 0.8 gram of good quality protein per kilogram body weight " . > For 79 kg body, that's 63.2 grams P, 3476 mg leucine. Correct me if wrong, please. > > That's not considering rice is not considered a " good quality " source. > Not my opinion, BTW, I eat a lot of rice. > > It's also not my opinion I need the IOM number for CRON. > > The MNHD, page 41, 1999, number is 14 mg per kg. That's more like 1114. > > Regards. > > [ ] Re: Protein > > > Here are some interesting calculations on the amount of various > foods needed to meet complete protein requirements (RDA). I can't > vouch for the source, nor the accuracy of the calculations. It's not > complete. The list seems to be merely a selection of meats, grains, > vegetables, dairy and fruits. > > The author calculates the amount of food neeeded to meet the RDA for > the limiting amino acid. > > For instance, it takes 0.7 lb of rice (brown), another staple of the > Chinese diet, to provide 1264 mg of leucine per day, the RDA for > that amino acid for a 79 kg male. > > What's interesting is that this amount of rice very likely would > result in too much protein overall. Lacking Dr. Walford's diet > program, I can't easily go through the numbers, but it would be an > interesting exercise to do for these foods and others. > > If we are striving to achieve " sufficiency and no more, " (whatever > that is) maybe choosing complementary proteins would be " in " again. > > Is it possible that too much of certain amino acids is not a good > thing, while too much of others is not a problem? > > For fear of igniting a firestorm, I hesitate to mention the name of > T. Colin , but his China Study drew the conclusion that > diets that contained meat led to greater incidences of cancer and > heart disease. Meat, of course, has a different amino acid profile > than sweet potatoes or rice. > > In any case, here is the link: > > http://waltonfeed.com/omega/protein.html > > One final thought: I wonder if these are the purple sweet potatoes > of the Okinawans? > > Mike > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 They were based on tests by Young and El-Koury based on obligatory amino acid losses determined in part by amino acid tracer studies. Proc Nat'l Acad Sci USA, 1995;92:300-4. The kicker, IMO, is the span of the data. Take a number like 27.3 =/- 17.6. Where do I fit into that span is the question I ask, and since I tend to be precise about what I eat, I had to find out the number for me, myself. Also that span is so large, I can't imagine testing on monkeys would prove anything for humans AFA longevity is concerned. I.e, if I obligated to eat extra protein for nitrogen and I get too many aminos, what then for lifespan, or reducing methionine, eg. I've often thought that span, may be the reason some live longer than others. A good description how the IOM determined the RDA is in the ref I posted. I recall the outliers existed well outside the bell curve to the right like 240 gms protein, whereas if I looked at where I fit in it was just to the left of the peak of the bell. They have to provide an RDA to fit everyone so the RDA is shifted. That said, most days, even at 1800kcals, I get the RDA for each essential Amino acid. The one thing I don't do is compensate for each plant food's absorption (lack of). I've seen too many people live of plants just fine although they weren't CR'ed. Regards. [ ] Re: Protein> > > Here are some interesting calculations on the amount of various > foods needed to meet complete protein requirements (RDA). I can't > vouch for the source, nor the accuracy of the calculations. It's not > complete. The list seems to be merely a selection of meats, grains, > vegetables, dairy and fruits. > > The author calculates the amount of food neeeded to meet the RDA for > the limiting amino acid.> > For instance, it takes 0.7 lb of rice (brown), another staple of the > Chinese diet, to provide 1264 mg of leucine per day, the RDA for > that amino acid for a 79 kg male.> > What's interesting is that this amount of rice very likely would > result in too much protein overall. Lacking Dr. Walford's diet > program, I can't easily go through the numbers, but it would be an > interesting exercise to do for these foods and others.> > If we are striving to achieve "sufficiency and no more," (whatever > that is) maybe choosing complementary proteins would be "in" again.> > Is it possible that too much of certain amino acids is not a good > thing, while too much of others is not a problem?> > For fear of igniting a firestorm, I hesitate to mention the name of > T. Colin , but his China Study drew the conclusion that > diets that contained meat led to greater incidences of cancer and > heart disease. Meat, of course, has a different amino acid profile > than sweet potatoes or rice.> > In any case, here is the link: > > http://waltonfeed.com/omega/protein.html> > One final thought: I wonder if these are the purple sweet potatoes > of the Okinawans?> > Mike> .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 Hi JW: I have put forth before here the point that the mechanism accounting for the life-extension benefits of CRON may ***possibly*** be simply that the restriction of nutrients causes the body to slow down its cell replication rate because of a limited availability of the nutrients that are required for that purpose. If the body's cell replication/replacement rate is reduced by 25%, for a number, then the Hayflick limit will not be reached until 25% later. So cells will maintain longer telomeres, and continue to perform effectively, for a whole lot longer than in a body that is doing cell replication at a rate that is unrestrained by limited nutrient availability. This line of thought may also have relevance to cancer incidence, since cancer is all about cell replication. This hypothesis is consistent with the fruit fly data which show little effect from carbohydrate restriction - carbohydrates are not in huge demand for cell replication purposes, I believe. It could be a shortage of fat and protein that slows down the cell replication rate, since both are needed to build new cells. Or it could be that a pronounced restriction of either will do - since a supply of both is required. But my point is that protein requirements that are determined from the 'wastage' of protein observed among today's average (fat) americans, may have limited usefulness for us. The protein requirement for greatest extension of maximum lifespan may be considerably less than the wastage/excretion of the subjects studied. Rodney. > > > > I question the 1264 mg of leucine, based on IOM data. > > http://newton.nap.edu/openbook/0309085373/html/589.html > > at the bottom of page. > > > > " 55 mg leucine/gram of protein " > > Above that " 0.8 gram of good quality protein per kilogram body > weight " . > > For 79 kg body, that's 63.2 grams P, 3476 mg leucine. Correct me if > wrong, please. > > > > That's not considering rice is not considered a " good quality " > source. > > Not my opinion, BTW, I eat a lot of rice. > > > > It's also not my opinion I need the IOM number for CRON. > > > > The MNHD, page 41, 1999, number is 14 mg per kg. That's more like > 1114. > > > > Regards. > > > > [ ] Re: Protein > > > > > > Here are some interesting calculations on the amount of various > > foods needed to meet complete protein requirements (RDA). I can't > > vouch for the source, nor the accuracy of the calculations. It's > not > > complete. The list seems to be merely a selection of meats, > grains, > > vegetables, dairy and fruits. > > > > The author calculates the amount of food neeeded to meet the RDA > for > > the limiting amino acid. > > > > For instance, it takes 0.7 lb of rice (brown), another staple of > the > > Chinese diet, to provide 1264 mg of leucine per day, the RDA for > > that amino acid for a 79 kg male. > > > > What's interesting is that this amount of rice very likely would > > result in too much protein overall. Lacking Dr. Walford's diet > > program, I can't easily go through the numbers, but it would be > an > > interesting exercise to do for these foods and others. > > > > If we are striving to achieve " sufficiency and no more, " > (whatever > > that is) maybe choosing complementary proteins would be " in " > again. > > > > Is it possible that too much of certain amino acids is not a good > > thing, while too much of others is not a problem? > > > > For fear of igniting a firestorm, I hesitate to mention the name > of > > T. Colin , but his China Study drew the conclusion that > > diets that contained meat led to greater incidences of cancer and > > heart disease. Meat, of course, has a different amino acid > profile > > than sweet potatoes or rice. > > > > In any case, here is the link: > > > > http://waltonfeed.com/omega/protein.html > > > > One final thought: I wonder if these are the purple sweet > potatoes > > of the Okinawans? > > > > Mike > > > > > > . > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 Can't disagree with that, Rodney, There are about 5 different ways that protein req'ts have been determined in the past. I can also question the extent of their investigation - I don't think they assessed ALL essential aminos, eg. But the one thing I believe is undisputed, is that if you eat too little protein, you WILL lose weight. And the big question in my mind is do I want to take a chance? Possible organ damage is no small thing. I don't think the ref to "fat" Americans is applicable, but I do have a ref before a lot were "fat", 1953, Applied physiology, Samson wright, oxford press. pg 901, "Nitrogen excretion during the first week of starvation averages about 10 gm daily". I would add to that about 10 gms of essentials. But I would hesitate to rec to anyone to go that low without having human data that shows it extends lifespan. The WHO 1985 estimates are leucine 14mg, for adults, Table 6 in my favorite AA pub now in full text: http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/7/1841S Also look at: http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/7/1835S Dispensable and Indispensable Amino Acids for Humans "In my opinion, four systems are critical for the body to be "maintained in condition": the intestine, to maintain absorptive and protective function; the immune system and other aspects of defense; the skeletal musculature system; and the central nervous system. Within each system, critical metabolic roles for some specific amino acids can be identified (Table 6 ). " Another related article in the same series: Quantifying the digestibility of dietary protein.http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/7/1850S Also: J AOAC Int. 2005 May-Jun;88(3):988-94. The Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS)--a concept for describing protein quality in foods and food ingredients: a critical review. Also: http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/7/1865S The protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score.Finally: Criteria and significance of dietary protein sources in humans. Summary of the workshop with recommendations.J Nutr. 2000 Jul;130(7):1874S-6S. http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/7/1874S All you never wanted to know about AAs. And I think I see the slowdown just restricting calories. I do feel more heat generated if I eat more P. (lose weight easier). Regards. [ ] Re: Protein> > > > > > Here are some interesting calculations on the amount of various > > foods needed to meet complete protein requirements (RDA). I can't > > vouch for the source, nor the accuracy of the calculations. It's > not > > complete. The list seems to be merely a selection of meats, > grains, > > vegetables, dairy and fruits. > > > > The author calculates the amount of food neeeded to meet the RDA > for > > the limiting amino acid.> > > > For instance, it takes 0.7 lb of rice (brown), another staple of > the > > Chinese diet, to provide 1264 mg of leucine per day, the RDA for > > that amino acid for a 79 kg male.> > > > What's interesting is that this amount of rice very likely would > > result in too much protein overall. Lacking Dr. Walford's diet > > program, I can't easily go through the numbers, but it would be > an > > interesting exercise to do for these foods and others.> > > > If we are striving to achieve "sufficiency and no more," > (whatever > > that is) maybe choosing complementary proteins would be "in" > again.> > > > Is it possible that too much of certain amino acids is not a good > > thing, while too much of others is not a problem?> > > > For fear of igniting a firestorm, I hesitate to mention the name > of > > T. Colin , but his China Study drew the conclusion that > > diets that contained meat led to greater incidences of cancer and > > heart disease. Meat, of course, has a different amino acid > profile > > than sweet potatoes or rice.> > > > In any case, here is the link: > > > > http://waltonfeed.com/omega/protein.html> > > > One final thought: I wonder if these are the purple sweet > potatoes > > of the Okinawans?> > > > Mike> >> > > > .> 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.