On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:41:30 -0400, Peter Brandt <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:


>Please clarify how this study was different.  Was it
>published, has it been replicated and is there an abstract
>that can be accessed?

The nitrogen balance test I referred to I've mentioned some time ago at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind9807&L=paleofood&P=R4764
I repeatedly found quotes of it in the literature, but unfortunately no
net-available or english source.

The test persons were contracted for 4-6 months and often were students.
The primary goal was to measure the protein quality from various
kombinations in paraxis.
This was done by establishing a protein balance, and measuring the how much
the persons ate. The less protein they needed, the better the quality of the
protein (a small table in the above posting).

The balance was achieved in the following way.
THe diet was given a certain combination of only two proteins, but in a big
quantity. Nitrogen output was measured.
Then the protein eaten was reduced, and watched if the nitrogen output was
smaller as well. At some level the nitrogen output remains constant, that's
the moment the body comes into a nitrogen loss.

At the very moment the input and output are kept for two weeks, to verify
that constant point.
The nitrogen balance was established at 0.371g protein per kg bodyweight for
the best protein found. This has been cheched several times with several
persons.

>Amadeus:
>>The test persons must "deliver" all of their waste (even when not
>>in the lab). They said that cheating it was very easy to discover.
>
>How so?

Because so small amounts of nitrigen have been measured, that a single
cheating would have had serious impact on the graph. And discovered
therefore.

>What is the significance of this?  How was it established that
>"the exact balance point" is optimal?

Optimal, well ... it was the level to which the recycling of amino acids
(which is usual of body proteins) is unefficient, plus growth of
hair/nail/muscle.
In the given test presons.

It's not ment to be a optimum, just the amount of best quality protein
necessary for "maintenance" and what we think of when thinking of
protein.
Anything more of protein resulted in more excretion, suggesting usage as
fuel. Where I can't see a advantage from - but more work for the kidney.
Or, from more protein maybe more short-lived derivates from certain amino
acids could be made. Like NO or serotonin.

Imagine you ate double of what was measured.
Don't you think that from every amino acid abundance should be there?
Double from what was measured would be 0.74g per kg bodyweight.

Note that I do see problems in resolving the RDA (which is about this
double) from various plants alone, like wheat.
This would mean to eat 500g wheat (which in addition has a low biological
value).
The roman legioners ate 600-900 grams daily, every day.
I never managed to eat more than, estimated, 200-400g, but from other
grains like quinoa, rhye, millet, rice.

>Do you know what percentage of nitrogen loss is reflected in sweat?
>I would think it would vary with the activity level.

Whoever sweats very much would sweat out more of sweat proteins.
And should eat more of it.
The volumes are small however.
I can't imagine to sweat out one single gram of protein.


>By low energy is meant low calorie?
>
>Amadeus:
>>The MaxPlanck study used enough of calories by a base
>>of starch, fat and vitamins which provided enough energy
>>but no nitrogen.
>
>Which showed that...?

Calorie. Nothing of the amino acids eaten *had* to be fueled to gain glucose
but of course the excess is always made to glucose.

>I suspect that the MaxPlanck institute is influenced by
>vegetarica. ;-)

Most studies were made on meat/milk combinations.
E.g. with various combinations of milk/wheat or meat/gelatine.
What has it to do with vegetarica anyway?
It's just a common misconception that plants have so few protein and humans
needed so much, that meat was necessary to deliver this.

I think to get the protein from plants wouldn't be a problem at all, at
any desried level.
*But* plant proteins are accompanied with stuffs which cause allergies in
many. Particularly the most common ones, wheat (and for lactos milk).

A vegan or vegetarian, has to take care if the source where he or she gets
his protein from isn't one that causes allergies for him or her.
This isn't obvious in the first place, but can cause problems in the long
run. The task is to choose the right one in the right time.

Meat eaters must be careful of allergies too of course, but meat is much
less allergy prone (though I myself am allergic to one of it).

Btw, Don and Rachel, digestive problems like you described are of course an
indication of incomplete digestion and disturbed gut flora
- and possibly allergy/sensibility.
Adding anything *sweet* to a nutrition of grains causes exactely what you
described from your veg* time. For example from my observation.
Also mixing many items (protein types) into a single meal or day is *deadly*
bad for allergies. Rotational nutrition (= anti-allergic) demands to pause
with each food item for 3 days after once eaten. This isn't easy to do if
you eat many items in a single meal - you run out of items.

I take the Essene teaching as a rule of thumb (not more than 3 items in one
meal). I hardly reach it, but I think it serves me well.

Regards, Amadeus