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