Tom Billings wrote:

>now for comments on the original post:
>My post was a followup to a post by [log in to unmask]
>In my followup, I gave an argument explaining why adults might need
>more protein than a growing baby (which contradicts Laurie's claims).
>In that argument, food intake was considered on an adjusted basis, but
>I didn't adjust cell production/ protein requirement on a weight basis.
>That is, we should divide total cell production by body weight also for
>a more accurate comparison.

This argument tends to agree with orthodox nutrition. But adults
metabolise at 1/5 the rate of baby, see my other post, therefore the
potential for repair will be 1/5 the babies rate. Metabolic rate must be
used in all calculations of bodily requirements.

Your case provided few numbers, my case has numbers & tends to agree
with Lauries 1/3 of a babies protein intake required, and is based I
think, on a more scientific basis. Just me HO, what do you think?

TTFN
J.C