On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 07:54:37 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Because of the over-protein. It would cause you nausea to live on meat only
>> (read about the only-meat-experiment in the 30ies).
>This means that lean meat is poorly tolerated as the only or main
>source of calories.
Yes, it is, exactely, and of Vitamins. 1500 grams per day .. ergh.

>I'm not sure what that comes to in actual protein yield.  I do
>think, however, that it is a mistake to suppose that there is
>some fixed amount of protein that is adequate for all humans.
>Lean body mass and activity levels can vary widely, and they have
>a lot to do with how much protein is optimal.
>It depends on the plants, and on what you take to be adequate
>protein.
It can be measured, how much of the ingested protein a human
eats, is kept (and used), and how much is excreted immediately, or
is even left untouched to the bacteria in the gut.
This is the nitrogen balance test.
On many weeklong tests it had been shown, that of an ideal protein
(that is for example that of  1.5 kg potatoe and 1 1/2 egg)
an adult human _uses_ about 0.371 grams protein
per day per kg of his body weight.
From less ideal proteins (like egg, meat/milk , wheat)
more is needed (up to about double).
In times of infections, or strong growth (childs) more protein
will be needed.
If you relate that to  the proposed caloric needs of a human,
than you get how much protein per caloric you will need, or how
much percentage of calories is as protein.

These measures, and also considering the human milk
don't lead me to very high protein needs. They lead me to very high
caloric needs, and btw high _vitamin_ needs.

>...I think the 30% level of protein is best.
>I base this on a number of things, such as Mike Kurilla's
>arguments at www.zonehome.com,
I'll take a look. Can You reference the exact page?
The "why"-section doesn't contain such an argument.

>> Our dependance on B1 leads to grains or nuts mushrooms or pigs.
>> But only grains and nuts look plausible to me on the long run.
>
>There has been discussion of this on the evolutionary-fitness
>list recently.  Nuts are a good source of calories, primarily
>from fats, which tend to be a mixture of saturated,
>monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats.  Their advantage over
>grains is that humans have been eating them forever, and so they
>are less likely to challenge the immune system.
Yes, nuts seem to be ideally suited for humans. IMHO Nuts and seeds are
the main human adaption after leaving tropic fruit-environments.
But also grains _have_ been around since ever, and they _are_ used by wild
primates, especially by the baboon (also the ramapithecus).

>> >Why is 30% crazy? Where do you get 11%? Eaton found an average of 33%
>> >calories from protein among todays HGs.
>
>> Because human mothers milk is 6% protein, and a baby should be the human with
>> the biggest protein need.
>
>Is that 6% by volume, weight, or calories?
Can anybody explain how to compute that right? I have the impression that
all that percentages are mixed up rather often here...

Human mothers milk has per 100 grams 1.2 grams protein and 70 kcal.
The 70 kcal are from 4 grams of fat and from 7.1 grams of carbohydrate
(and from the protein).
Isn't that a nice nature made measure of nutrition for a human?

Let see.. a little test....
If I need 2400 kcal per day (35 year old male)
So that would be 2400/70 = 3.4 kilograms of mothers milk per day,
to get the energy...
The milk had... 3.4 *1.2*10 = 40 grams of protein.
My weight is 70 kg... makes 0.58 grams of protein per gram of my body.
This doubles almost the measured need of 0.371 for an adult.
But I am adult and don't grow anymore.
So what would be a good protein percentage? 6%, 3%, 11%, 30%?

regards

Amadeus