Todd Moody wrote:
>We've discussed this before, Amadeus, but once again I'd like you
>to consider that dietary protein may be valuable for reasons
>beyond anabolism.  First of all, since we use 58% of dietary
>protein as fuel anyway, the body isn't all that averse to using
>it for this purpose.
I do consider this contributions of protein. Its' just for my
personal choice to prefer other things (1.fats 2.carbs) as a mere
caloric fuel, for the reasons i mentioned.
They are more easyer available as a fuel, they don't produce
nitrogen "waste" and they don't create the problem of ammonia
toxicity especially for the brain (search for "Ammonia Toxicity" in
 http://medtstgo.ucdavis.edu/endo/lecture/metProtNit.htm )

I don't know where you get the 58% from, but it looks similar to
the protein quality measures.
If meat has a protein quality of 67% (maybe a little less because
the 100% was the best found in one experiment, ideal maybe better)
then 33% of the amino acids aren't used for (own protein) anabolism
and have to be "digested" to glucose anyway.
After that RDA computes with a safety factor of about 2, and
after that most people already have well over 100% RDA protein,
there is a big percentage of protein used as fuel anyway.

>  Second, and more important, protein is the
>only significant dietary factor causing the pancreas to secrete
>glucagon, an important hormone that balances insulin. ....

Eating protein as fuel (giving glucose) still needs insulin to permit
*usage* of that glucose as fuel or for anabolisms.
Usage of fat as fuel is therefore somehow different from protein
and carbohydrate which are similarily functioning through glucose.

During each night we all (? :-) ) have the overnight fast
where our body has to live on its storage (glycogen and fat).
This requires glucagon, we all use it everyday heavily.
Do we need protein to promote "more" glucagon?
I do wellcome the protein in food (.. not too much as fuel..).
Well any diet of whole animals or plants i tested (except fruit only)
results in protein ingestion well over the RDA recommendation.

>The assumption that protein that is not anabolically into cells
>is wasted and therefore "excessive" is unwarranted.
>.... as far as I know there is no evidence that amounts even
>in the range of 35% of calories cause any health problems at all.

The percentage may be each individual choice and POV. I only know of
real health problems from high protein for kidney diseased.
Still I consider it helpful to get less ammonia or urea waste in the
body. Provided your other fuel doesn't create other problems.
Fuel from meat has the advantage that you need such high amounts,
that it then *can* supply adequate vitamins.
Vitamins that are needed for the fuel usage (noteably vitamin b1).
Much better than sugar or refined carbohydrates.

Whole plant seeds have to live themselves from their fuel storage
for the first time of growth. They function on the same
Krebs' cycle for living as we humans do.
Therefore plant seeds are self-sufficient in containing and supplying
all the micronutrients required for usage of the fuels they contain.
So nuts and and grains are a complete package.
Any "refined" seed (flour..) result in micronutrient depletion.

Nice idea, isn't it?

regards

Amadeus

--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net