On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:15:45 -0400, matesz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>This appears to me to be anecdotal, not clinical. Sorry, I'm still not
>satisfied.
I must say , I didn't read these references myself - I don't have this
journals. I rely on the work of Loren Cordaine. He is a professor *on* the
topic and I think it's reasonable to follow his findings.
His quotes, which can be found over the last years every now and again
repeat protein toxicity as topic, and to my impression this isn't just based
on opinion, but on real work.
As scientific reasoning, so far I encountered 2 cases:
1. the depletion on fat soluble vitamins - vitamins are essential for life.
2. the effect of ammonium toxicity which comes after gluconeogenesis.
Which hampers the citric acid cycle, therefore the energy supply of all body
tissues particularly the brain.
Gaining more thatn the essential 500 kcal as glucose from protein would be
a very mild case of gluconeogenesis, compared to the case of having to gain
*most energy* from this pathway.
>Especially not satisfied since recent studies of Aussie Aborigines
>returning
>to the bush have shown them to be eating diets providing 50 to 80 percent
of
>calories from protein for five or more weeks, with no apparent ill effects;
I took a look on this short paragraph, you mentioned. (It is too one single
event with 7 weeks and only 14 people from which 10 were diseased).
I found it not to be exactely as you reported.
Ok, lets assume they counted right.
The high protein group had
"mostly seafood ..and was approximately 80% protein, 20% fat, and less than
5% carbohydrate. "
That would be indeed contradicting if it was bent by calories, but it sounds
as by amount. Protein has much less energy than fat.
So the protein by calories would be around 50% I estimate.
For a limited period for people which were protein depleted
that could be reasonable.
"westernized" natives which consume heavy on zero protein items like
alcohol, sugar, white flour items are likely to be protein depleted.
Diabetics even more if they fall into ketosis (protein munching for energy).
The other group to the more so:
"the macronutrient content of which was 54% protein, 13% fat, and 33%
carbohydrate".
By calories that would be well inside the range.
>in fact the authors of the study stated:
>
>"The three most striking metabolic changes that occurred in this study,
>namely the reductions in fasting glucose, insulin, and triglyceride
>concentrations to normal or near-normal levels, were certainly
>interrelated."
Such results are to be expected for diabetics, I think most readers here
would tend to agree to that. Particularly it's the way Ray Audette treats
his own diabetes.
>Thus the "most striking" metabolic changes observed from a diet of 50 to 80
>percent of calories from protein were positive.
Well, It seems that was not the case.
Take a second look.
>> Stefanssons free choice was 80% fat and 20% meat calories. Because of
>> "nausea".
>
>Again, anecdote, and one individual.
And what Inuit tend to eat.
>The rabbit starvation thing is also ambiguous and anecdotal. Rabbits don't
>provide many calories, so rabbit starvation might be nothing other than
>hunger from inadequate food/calories.
Shure, rabbits are nutritionally only as dense as tubers.
2kg per day.
> Starvation usually also leads to
>death within a few months, you know, regardless of whether the individual
>is
>starving on meager portions of rabbit, or meager portions of potatoes.
You seem to assume that the phenomena of Rabbit Starvation is related
to overall "meager protions". I think this is not the case of rabbit
starvation. If you have *plenty* of rabbits, 2-3kg per day you would still
suffer from rabbit starvation.
Meager portions of potatoes would never lead to "death within a few months".
A human can stand 40 days without food, but not with rabbits.
>>
>> Anyway Philip obviously lives at the upper end of the possible.
> If protein toxicity is real, and
>so simple to produce (just feed some people a diet containing more than 50%
>protein with adequate calories) we should be able to produce it in
>experimental situation, and identify all of its characteristics.
Philip reported us his symptoms, when he's increasing the protein/fat ratio.
I think you'll hardly ever find people willing to eat such huge amounts of
meat, as among the inuit-style paleodieters here on the list.
For good reasons, I presume.
That's pretty much experience.
What happens, if you eat a little more protein and a little less fat?
...
>Okay, so what is 3.6% of 500 pounds (total carcass weight of small steer)?
>18 pounds (8172 grams) of fat, most of it not in muscle, but in the mostly
>fat areas I mentioned. That is 63,000 calories. How much fat can one
>person eat in a day? Allow a very generous 100 grams (900 calories) of
>animal fat per person,
I doubt 100 grams (900 calories) to be generous.
Only 1/3 of all calories is not enough.
Better look to Inuit (and Stephansson) who ate 200-250 grams/day.
Or assume a huge amount of calories from carbohydrates, which in turn
increases the protein got from the plants.
> you end up with a fair size serving of animal source
>fats for 81 people for one day, or for 20 people for 4 days, from one
>rather
>small steer. Lets say that only half of what I calculate is
>available--still you have enough for 40 people for one day, or for 10
people
>for 4 days.
>
>Seems kind of generous to me.
Ok one steer 40 people one day.
How many steers live on a ha (about 4 acres) of land?
I've read on good productive land there live 4-5 bigger animals per ha.
About 10%-20% can be hunted per year without killing of the populations.
Makes (less than) one steer per ha.
So, these 40 people need 365 ha of 900 acres of good land to live on.
Tubers, nuts , seeds and berries grow in unbelievable higher amounts in the
same area. (For stone age cereals it would be about 1200fold).
This is why the gathering makes up so much of a living for the gatherhunting
people.
>Perhaps this is why as Weston Price observed, natives who hunted ungulates
>often ate all the organ meats, marrow, etc. but left the muscle meats to
>the dogs.
And middle age hunters.
That's whats worth of an animal. As a perversion of this the westernized
society eats the opposite - only the muscles.
> H-Gs show that humans
>are natural omnivores and naturally seek out both plant and animal foods,
I agree.
>and many lines of investigation show that both animal source and plant
>source foods are important to human nutrition in some amount.
Avoiding most animal sources I look suspicious on what might be essential in
them.
So far I found only Vitamin B12, which I tend to more and more see as not
really essential (the very good B12-summary URL I posted recently).
Regards, Amadeus
|
