On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:05:20 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>> I think, 93g is not little if you have to piss is out...
That was about our example with 125g protein.
Actually what you piss or sweat out (ammonia, urea) is only the nitrogen
part of the amino acids. The bigger part is the carbohydrate - ordinary
glucose. Some people claim btw that they can smell the special odor of this
urea in the sweat.
>http://www.zonehome.com/zlib0001.htm
>
>Roughly, Lemon recommends between 5.g and 1g of protein per pound
>of LBM (or about 1-2g/kg), depending on activity levels.
I reread this article (it's one of my 4 protein links at paleolix).
What I noted this time is:
He (Kurilla) references studies of Lemon, who makes recommendations as you
noted. For people on "heavy resistance training" they found "larger gains"
(how much??) in groups with higher protein intake (23 g/day more or much
more). Ok, larger gains.
But persons in a "heavy resistance training program" were also found to be
in negative nitrogen balance at the RDA for protein.
What increases the nitrogen turnover in weight training persons?
Added repair/maintenance need-- I think that's possible, because a bigger
energy demand in the cells produces more free radicals, which would make
more cells die and destroy more enzymes - which had to be replaced indeed.
The recycling mechanism isn't 100% perfect, so some of the protein to be
recycled will be lost.
I don't know if this could *double* the nitrogen loss of a training person,
compared to a sedentary person. At last the gut cells are replaced all 4
days. Skin cells, many other cells are renewed and replaced (this makes up
the sedentary protein need).
I guess the increased protein loss comes more from the same effect as the
next chapter ("endurance exercise") describes. Just fuelling more protein.
Exercise increases glucose derivation from protein.
Then of course more nitrogen waste is excreted and it would be easy to come
into a negative nitrogen balance. 1/2 RDA protein (=27g for a 70kg man)
serves only 100 kcal. Pretty little.
It would be easy to consume that much protein for fuel if glucose supply is
short (high impact muscle will use glucose not fat).
I note that Kurillas notes are specially for people on a low carb diet,
which would be likely to have little glucose reserves. I doubt that a body
with a good glucose supply would rely on the slower gluconeogenesis pathway
instead of the normal glycogen activation.
What I found interesting is that leucine seems to be used at first
for energy needs. People low on glucose supply could easily run into a
protein deficit this way. Leucine is necessary to complement the other
essential AAs for protein synthesis (as Kurilla notes).
It might be an idea to test food items high in leucine for increased
efficiency of persons on low glucose supply.
And here I would include not only low-carbers but also ordinary sugar
addicts, as sugar is mostly unusable except for gaining fat.
> For me
>this comes to about 140g/day, and I routinely consume this much,
>without any difficulty at all.
>If I had to get it from seeds, I
>would have problems.
Truely that much protein is more difficult to obtain from seeds.
However most seeds are a very good "native" īsource of glucose, so it is
likely that the protein turnover would be drastically reduced by the glucose
alone.
>So if we accept Lemon's protein recommendations, the prospects
>for satisfying them by eating paleo plant foods are very poor.
If we insist to have glucose derived from the protein.
>> To my information *any* protein changes the acidity more to the acid
>>side.
>> Do you have different information?
>
>According to every physiology text I have looked at, the pH of
>blood is maintained within a *very* narrow range, no matter what
>is eaten.
The blood pH is buffered withing the necessary range, surely, but at a cost.
The buffering substances must come from somewhere.
This may be bone calcium or other tissues, as the acidose literature
describes. Or very much vegetables or fruit, which has the opposite PRAL.
>I understand that, and like many quests your has a sacrificial
>aspect.
This was the case for the first months, 15 years ago.
I did it as a test and because of an immediate payback in health
and feeling well.
In the meantime it turned out opposite. It would be sacrificial for me to
start eating meat again. And several times I was happy not to be betrayed by
the various scandals.
>.. "Bambi cheese" .. It still makes sense to me that the
>same principle of victim selection would apply to human hunters.
>Therefore, availability of cheese did not have to wait for
>domestication and pastoralism.
That's the paleo aspect of my source of animal protein.
It's even the kind of cheese I prefer (fresh white).
And that humans are mammals.
Cheers and happy holidays,
Amadeus
|
