On Sat, 25 Jul 1998 08:30:23 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>That's not an appropriate comparison. For one thing, in
>numerical terms we would have to say that rice farmers have done
>very well indeed. The success of grain farmers probably has more
>to do with crop yield than general population health,
>particularly if they are about as unhealthy!
Farming, carrots for example yields abt. 40 tons of harvest (per ha)
where potatoes yield 10 tons barley 4 tons and spelt 1.8 tons(all organic).
Compute that to crop yeald in terms of calories or protein:
spelt 1800 *120g = 216 kg protein and 5.7 million calories
karrot 40000 * 10g = 400 kg protein and 11.2 million calories
potatoe 10000 * 20g = 200 kg prot
ein and 8.5 million calories
So crop yield is best in terms of protein and calories for the _root_
carrot and least with the grain.
So root farmers should have succeeded if crop yeald was the key.
Grains succeeded,
may it be for other reasons(durability), may it be that grains are healthy.
>I posted the URL in a separate message. Here it is again:
>http://www.zonehome.com/zlib0001.htm
Thanks, it did'nt load right now, i'll try later.
>Kurilla points out that the studies that are supposed to show
>that protein need is low are based on studies that show that
>people on a no-protein diet will lose about 30g of protein from
>their body each day. Thus, the inference is made that 30g is all
>we need. As Kurilla points out, this ignores the body's ability
>to retain protein under conditions of scarcity and does not
>demonstrate *optimum* intake levels.
The studies at the 2Max Plank Institut fuer Ernaehrungsphysiologie"
(and others i've heard of) work different.
They begin with a high protein diet, and lower it slowly until the point
is reached where protein intake _equals_ protein excretion.
Then you can measure the exact amount of protein _used_.
Then this point is held for a couple of weeks to ensure results.
Result with optimum quality protein is 0.371 grams per kg weight.
>Every cell in the body makes proteins, and to do so they need
>amino acids, which they get either from dietary protein or by
>cannibalizing the body's own tissues. Muscle tissue uses more
>protein than other tissue because it is constantly active,
>"vibrating" to maintain tone even when supposedly "relaxed." If
>a person is physically active, the protein demand of muscle
>tissues is even greater, of course. Therefore it makes sense
>that one's protein need should be a function
of lean body mass
>and activity levels. The more muscle you have, the more you need
>to feed it, if you want to keep it. The more work those muscles
>are doing, the more protein they need to stay in good repair.
If a person/muscle is physically active, then it needs
more _energy_, not more protein.
I understand that muscle and other protein of the body from dying cells
is perfectely recycled (what you mention with cannibalizing).
So regardles how much muscles you have, you will not loose protein from
them, you only need it to build up more, they are a protein reservior.
Protein need increases if infections are present
or wounds have to heal, or if you grow, since then extra protein is used.
This is why a baby has the maximum protein need, and this is why
mothers milk protein content is meaningful.
>While we're on the subject of articles, I would enjoy reading the
>source material that
your low-protein arguments are based on.
The scientific article mentioned above is in german and out of print,
i'm afraid. I'll try to translate it once or get annother version.
I also know of similar tests made in the US and am trying to get
information about and will post the references then.
Some ideas on _really_ low protein diets i got from these references:
1st tries to proove humans as frugivore (like 2 to 40 millions years back)
http://www.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/protein.htm
second is much shorter and argues a little common sense.
http://www.dsiegel.com/wiwd/diet/protein.html
regards
Amadeus
|
