 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2006Protein Suppresses Hunger
ZEIST, Netherlands--Protein is more satiating than carbohydrate, according to a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (83, 2:211-20, 2006). In the single blind, crossover study, researchers administered an isocaloric high-protein breakfast (58.1 percent of energy from protein and 14.1 percent of energy from carbohydrate) or high-carbohydrate breakfast (19.3 percent of energy from protein and 47.3 percent of energy from carbohydrate) to15 healthy men. Blood samples and subjective measures of satiety were assessed frequently for three hours after consumption. The high-protein breakfast decreased secretion of postprandial ghrelin (a hormone that stimulates hunger) more than did the high-carbohydrate breakfast. Appetite ratings were not significantly different between the two groups, and the high-protein breakfast did not significantly affect ad libitum energy intake. The researchers concluded the high-protein breakfast decreased postprandial ghrelin concentrations more strongly over time than did the high-carb breakfast, and noted high associations between ghrelin and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon suggest stimulation of these peptides may mediate the postprandial ghrelin response. In addition, the high-protein breakfast also reduced gastric emptying, probably through increased secretion of cholecystokinin and glucagon-like peptide 1, the researchers said. =>ZEIST, Netherlands--Protein is more satiating than carbohydrate, according =>to a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (83, =>2:211-20, 2006). => =>In the single blind, crossover study, researchers administered an isocaloric =>high-protein breakfast (58.1 percent of energy from protein and 14.1 percent =>of energy from carbohydrate) Should we presume the rest is Fat 100-58.1-14.1=27.8 =>or high-carbohydrate breakfast (19.3 percent of =>energy from protein and 47.3 percent of energy from carbohydrate) to15 100-19.3-47.3=33.4 =>healthy men. Blood samples and subjective measures of satiety were assessed =>frequently for three hours after consumption. The high-protein breakfast =>decreased secretion of postprandial ghrelin (a hormone that stimulates =>hunger) more than did the high-carbohydrate breakfast. Appetite ratings were =>not significantly different between the two groups, and the high-protein =>breakfast did not significantly affect ad libitum energy intake. => =>The researchers concluded the high-protein breakfast decreased postprandial =>ghrelin concentrations more strongly over time than did the high-carb =>breakfast, and noted high associations between ghrelin and glucose-dependent =>insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon suggest stimulation of these =>peptides may mediate the postprandial ghrelin response. In addition, the =>high-protein breakfast also reduced gastric emptying, probably through =>increased secretion of cholecystokinin and glucagon-like peptide 1, the =>researchers said. => Since there are Fat. Protein and Carb all in the foods, we will never know what is what from this study. It would be best to test diets like this 1. Protein only 2. Carb only 3. Fat only 4. Protein+Fat 5. Protein+Carb 6. Carb+Fat Then we will really know what is what. On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:31:44 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in <news:43fdfeea$0$563$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : > ZEIST, Netherlands--Protein is more satiating than carbohydrate, What "charbohydrate"? Whole grains and some fruits are very satiating. Candies, sodas and white bread are not. http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a long time. Your kidneys might complain... As the Harvard Public School of Health reminds us on http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/protein.html high-protein foods *ARE* indeed satiating, because "chicken, beef, fish, beans, or other high-protein foods slow the movement of food from the stomach to the intestine. Slower stomach emptying means you feel full for longer and get hungrier later." BUT "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the exclusion of everything else." X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition =>Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a =>long time. Your kidneys might complain... => =>As the Harvard Public School of Health reminds us on =>http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/protein.html =>high-protein foods *ARE* indeed satiating, because =>"chicken, beef, fish, beans, or other high-protein foods slow the =>movement of food from the stomach to the intestine. Slower stomach =>emptying means you feel full for longer and get hungrier later." => =>BUT =>"There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the =>exclusion of everything else." => =>X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition Try a chicken noodle soup with chicken breast and try chicken noodle soup with chicken breast and 3 to 4 tbs of vegetable oil in another day. If you are in low carb, you can try Chicken breast vegetable soup. Chicken breast vegetable soup with 3 to 4 tbs sun flower seed oil(or your favorite veg oil) in another day. One half chicken breast should be enough(one day's need of protein) for an adult around 200lbs. You should be able to tell the difference between the one with oil and the one w/o oil. Conclusion, protein along just can not make it. Fat is an important element in any diet, so as Vitamins/Mineral complex pill and fiber and water. DUH! This is what Dr. Atkins said 30 + years ago > DUH! This is what Dr. Atkins said 30 + years ago He said carbs can increase or decrease hunger depending on glycemic index/load and depending on a person's level or insulin resistance. And that protein suppresses hunger better than carbs. And that fat suppresses hunger better than either protein or carbs. So the next study should be holding the carb intake fixed and varying the fat and protein percentages to see which is better at suppressing hunger - protein or fat. They'll discover that calorie for calorie fat does it even better than protein. Likely because excess protein gets burned as fuel at around 50% conversion to carbs while fat gets burned as fuel at around 10% conversion to carbs. On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:31:44 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in <news:43fdfeea$0$563$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : > ZEIST, Netherlands--Protein is more satiating than carbohydrate, What "charbohydrate"? Whole grains and some fruits are very satiating. Candies, sodas and white bread are not. http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a long time. Your kidneys might complain... As the Harvard School of Public Health reminds us on http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/protein.html high-protein foods *ARE* indeed satiating, because "chicken, beef, fish, beans, or other high-protein foods slow the movement of food from the stomach to the intestine. Slower stomach emptying means you feel full for longer and get hungrier later." BUT "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the exclusion of everything else." X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition > On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:31:44 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in > <news:43fdfeea$0$563$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a > long time. Your kidneys might complain... No they probably won't, actually. > As the Harvard School of Public Health reminds us on > http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/protein.html [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the > exclusion of everything else." Why not? > > Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a > > long time. Your kidneys might complain... > > No they probably won't, actually. In fact you can tell someone's level of ignorance about low carb from it. Without one single case ever of kidney damage from a low-carb medium-protein high-fat damage any mention of that means the person hasn't looked up their facts. > > BUT > > "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the > > exclusion of everything else." > > Why not? That's a different topic since it discusses high-protein low-carb medium/low-fat which isn't a part of current well designed low carb plans. A couple of decades ago there were plans that called for eating the highest protein doable and lowest carb and fat. Scarsdale and such. Some people actually died from doing those plans. Going extremely high protein without either complementing fat or carbs does become harmfull. The low carb side stresses that protein complemented with fat works great. The low fat side stresses that protein complemented with carb works great. Both sides are correct in their own way. It isn't a good idea to go overboard in any of the three main macronutrients to the exclusion of all the others. A 90% protein diet is bad. So is a 90% carb diet or a 90% fat diet. >> > Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a >> > long time. Your kidneys might complain... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > medium/low-fat which isn't a part of current well designed low > carb plans. Well, protein power emphasizes lean protein. I do that too, dunno how much fat I'm eating, except that I try to eat the leaner proteins. And I lose more weight than doing full fat protein. > A couple of decades ago there were plans that called for > eating the highest protein doable and lowest carb and fat. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > complemented with carb works great. Both sides are > correct in their own way. I think you might be talking about the Last Chance diet, which was essentially a fast with about 400 calories of a low quality protein. > It isn't a good idea to go overboard in any of the three main > macronutrients to the exclusion of all the others. A 90% > protein diet is bad. So is a 90% carb diet or a 90% fat > diet. Of course you're right. I just try to do lean protein and veggies at most meals. > >> > BUT > >> > "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > fat I'm eating, except that I try to eat the leaner proteins. And I lose > more weight than doing full fat protein. PP teaches you your minimum grams of daily protein. Mine is 77. It does not encourage eating far beyond that personalized amount. And so I suggest that if you think PP says you should go overboard on protein I suggest you missed some of what it was trying to teach. Also PP gives quite generous carb counts and that too is not the same as eating protein to the exclusion of all else. I think the PP plan is a good counterexample of EC's comment. > I just try to do lean protein and veggies at most meals. Isn't it grand that a system so simple and easy works so well for both loss and health. On 24 Feb 2006 10:34:47 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in <news:1140806087.394945.35720@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : >>> Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a >>> long time. Your kidneys might complain... >> No they probably won't, actually. "Probably". > In fact you can tell someone's level of ignorance about > low carb from it. From what? I said that kidneys "might" complain... Joe said "probably" not. We are speaking of probabilities. Do you know *for sure* your kidneys will be fine? > Without one single case ever of kidney > damage from a low-carb medium-protein high-fat damage > any mention of that means the person hasn't looked up > their facts. http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/4/886?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&R ESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=kidney+high-protein&searchid=1119660946899_6054&stored_sea rch=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&journalcode=nutrition#B59 Journal of Nutrition. 2000;130:886-889.) Metabolic Consequences of a High Dietary-Protein Intake in Adulthood: Assessment of the Available Evidence Cornelia C. Metges1 and Christian A. Barth [...] "In a 50- to 75- y-old Caucasian population, a daily increment of 0.1 g protein · kg-1 was associated with an increased risk for microalbuminuria, which is a predictor of renal and cardiovascular disease (Hoogeveen et al. 1998 ). " [...] "It has been reported that a chronic high-protein intake is associated with a range of functional and morphological changes such as increased urinary nitrogen excretion, vasopressin plasma levels, creatinine clearance, glomerular filtration rate, kidney hypertrophy, renal hemodynamics and eicosanoid production in renal tubules (Bankir and Kriz 1995 , Brändle et al. 1996 , Yanagisawa and Wadi 1998 ). In addition, increased risk of renal cell cancer has been linked to high-protein intake (Chow et al. 1994 ) (Table 1) , while among white males with indicators of kidney disease an increased relative risk of total mortality with an additional 15 g of protein per day [1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.09, 1.42] was observed (Dwyer et al. 1994 ). Patients with moderate renal insufficiency benefit from a low-protein diet by slowing the deterioration of renal functions (Klahr et al. 1994 , Maroni and Mitch 1997 ). In addition, epidemiological evidence suggests a relationship between high-protein intake and prostate cancer (Vlajinac et al. 1997 ) (Table 1) ." [...] A further indication that the high intake of protein may have adverse effects can be taken from studies investigating lifestyle changes (i.e., adopting Westernized dietary habits) in Japanese men and schoolchildren. A higher incidence of noninsulin-dependent diabetes (NIDDM) correlated with increased animal protein and animal fat intakes while total energy intake was not different from controls (Kitagawa et al. 1998, Tsunehara et al. 1990 ). http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content-nw/full/130/4/886/T1 Table 1. Undesirable metabolic effects of high dietary-protein intakes in adult humans: experimental and epidemiological evidence [...] [...] > It isn't a good idea to go overboard in any of the three main > macronutrients to the exclusion of all the others. That's it. > A 90% > protein diet is bad. So is a 90% carb diet or a 90% fat > diet. I guess the same can be said about a 70% carb, protein or fat diet. X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition > >>> Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a > >>> long time. Your kidneys might complain... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > From what? I said that kidneys "might" complain... Joe said "probably" > not. We are speaking of probabilities. And the probability from following Atkins is zero. > Do you know *for sure* your kidneys will be fine? Certainly. Over 30 years without a single case. > > Without one single case ever of kidney > > damage from a low-carb medium-protein high-fat damage [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Metabolic Consequences of a High Dietary-Protein Intake in Adulthood: > Assessment of the Available Evidence Atkins is high fat not high protein, so that study is not relevant to Atkins. But thanks for playing. It's an okay warning against people who can't be bothered to actually read the book and end up not following the directions, though. > http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content-nw/full/130/4/886/T1 > > Table 1. Undesirable metabolic effects of high dietary-protein intakes > in adult humans: experimental and epidemiological evidence Second study, same comment about it not applying. On 25 Feb 2006 14:47:42 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in <news:1140907662.508040.256820@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : [...] > Atkins is high fat not high protein, so that study is not relevant to > Atkins. Did I mention Atkins in my first post? I don't think so. Here's what I wrote: | Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a | long time. Your kidneys might complain... and here's what I reported from the Harvard web site: | "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the | exclusion of everything else." Did you notice that the subject of this thread is about "protein", BTW? So, that study *is* relevant. >> Table 1. Undesirable metabolic effects of high dietary-protein intakes >> in adult humans: experimental and epidemiological evidence > > Second study, same comment about it not applying. Not "second study". Table 1 of the same study. X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition > > Atkins is high fat not high protein, so that study is not relevant to > > Atkins. > > Did I mention Atkins in my first post? Threads morph. Replies are about the part of the thread that is quoted. > I don't think so. It's called reading comprehension. > | Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a > | long time. Your kidneys might complain... Which is against the directions of every low carb plan currently out there. And hence not relevant to the newsgroup ASDLC. > | "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the > | exclusion of everything else." > > Did you notice that the subject of this thread is about "protein", > BTW? Sure. That was the starting point for the thread. It was mention of the fact that protien is more sating than carb. Next studies need to compare fat and carb, fat and protein. > So, that study *is* relevant. Since no current low carb plans are high protein it's only relevance on ASDLC is to demonstrate how illiterate people are about low carb groups. Is it you won't read the books or you can't? Since no current low carb plans are high protein but there were some in the 1980s that were it's only relevance on SMN is how much better the current plans are than those old ones and the problems that occured back then when those old plans where popular. If someone ever goes on one of those obsolete plans, there are dangers. On 26 Feb 2006 09:04:46 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in <news:1140973486.924226.41110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : >>> Atkins is high fat not high protein, so that study is not relevant to >>> Atkins. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It's called reading comprehension. >>| Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a >>| long time. Your kidneys might complain... > > Which is against the directions of every low carb plan currently > out there. And hence not relevant to the newsgroup ASDLC. The study quoted in the original post was about "High-protein" and I commented on that. >>| "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the >>| exclusion of everything else." [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > popular. If someone ever goes on one of those obsolete plans, > there are dangers. Tell Mr Prehistoric Man, who "descended from prehistoric man whose diet was EXTREMELY high in protein" X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition > > Atkins is high fat not high protein, so that study is not relevant to > > Atkins. > > Did I mention Atkins in my first post? > I don't think so. Threads morph. It's called reading comprehension. > | "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the > | exclusion of everything else." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So, that study *is* relevant. To the start of the study, not to the point in the discussion where you posted it. Threads morph and it takes reading comprehension to be able to tell that. The study you cited are not relevant to low carbing as it is actually described in the directions of any low carb plan as written in books. As such it's only use on ASDLC is to show how folks are willing to deflect the topic and on SMN to show what can happen if folks utterly ignore the directions of low carb plans. It's use is in the breech of topic. > From what? I said that kidneys "might" complain... Joe said > "probably" not. We are speaking of probabilities. Do you know *for > sure* your kidneys will be fine? Just as sure as I know I won't be struck by lightning today because the sky is clear. Besides, since when is 'might' a basis for an argument? You might kill someone some day; should we go ahead and lock you up now to prevent it? 'Might' without some numbers behind it isn't probabilities; it's politics.  SignatureAaron -- aaron_baugher@yahoo.com -- 285/245/200 http://360.yahoo.com/aaron_baugher On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:32:55 -0600, Aaron Baugher wrote in <news:86fym6197s.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : >> From what? I said that kidneys "might" complain... Joe said >> "probably" not. We are speaking of probabilities. Do you know *for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > prevent it? 'Might' without some numbers behind it isn't > probabilities; it's politics. I did provide some evidence. http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/4/886?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&R ESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=kidney+high-protein&searchid=1119660946899_6054&stored_sea rch=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&journalcode=nutrition#B59 Journal of Nutrition. 2000;130:886-889.) Metabolic Consequences of a High Dietary-Protein Intake in Adulthood: Assessment of the Available Evidence X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition > On 24 Feb 2006 10:34:47 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in > <news:1140806087.394945.35720@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> on [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > not. We are speaking of probabilities. > Do you know *for sure* your kidneys will be fine? Do you? On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:52:29 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in <news:440349c6$0$565$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : >> On 24 Feb 2006 10:34:47 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in >> <news:1140806087.394945.35720@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> on [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Do you? Nope! Of course... :) But I believe chances will be higher if I don't go extremely high-protein ;) X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:52:29 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in > <news:440349c6$0$565$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > But I believe chances will be higher if I don't go extremely > high-protein ;) I believe that's the silly. The human body is made to subsist on all sorts of food. I suppose if by "extremely" high protein you mean 500-1000 g of protein then ok, but the average low carb dieter will take in a bit more protein than is recommended with, in my opinion, no detriment to his kidney health. And he'll be a lot happier and stronger from the protein. > > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:52:29 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in > > <news:440349c6$0$565$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > protein than is recommended with, in my opinion, no detriment to his kidney > health. And he'll be a lot happier and stronger from the protein. The max. recommended comes to about 120 grams per day for an average male. I am average and I eat a lot of meat and I rarely get over 100 grams per day. TC On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:05:38 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in <news:4403770a$0$580$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : >> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:52:29 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in >> <news:440349c6$0$565$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > protein then ok, but the average low carb dieter will take in a bit more > protein "A bit more protein" is fine for me... :) Mine was just a word of caution about going very high-protein. > than is recommended with, in my opinion, no detriment to his kidney > health. And he'll be a lot happier and stronger from the protein. I guess it depends on the individual. Again, http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/4/886?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&R ESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=kidney+high-protein&searchid=1119660946899_6054&stored_sea rch=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&journalcode=nutrition#B59 http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content-nw/full/130/4/886/T1 X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:05:38 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in > <news:4403770a$0$580$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition Mmmhmmm, ok and there are plenty of studies that show that increasing protein can help people out with a whole slew of protein. You find one study and post it like it's the answer to any questions on protein intake. And in terms of carbohydrate restriction, we know that all the hoopla about kidneys spontaneously erupting in fire and exploding out of your body are complete nonsense. On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:47:37 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in <news:440461e2$0$558$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : >> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:05:38 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in >> <news:4403770a$0$580$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >> http://www.nutrition.org/c gi/content/full/130/4/886?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=kidney+high-protein&searchid=1119660946899_6054&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&journalcode=nutrition#B59 >> http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content-nw/full/130/4/886/T1 > Mmmhmmm, ok and there are plenty of studies that show that increasing > protein can help people out with a whole slew of protein. I gather that the recommended intake (RDA) is some 0.8 g/kg/day for normal adults (higher for young people and for pregnant and lactating women). http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/7/300/0.pdf but an intake up to the double is generally considered safe... http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309046335/html/52.html page 73 "Habitual intakes of protein in the United States are substantially above the requirement, and although there is no firm evidence that these intake levels are harmful, it has been deemed prudent to maintain an upper bound of no more than twice the RDA for protein" And the acceptlable range (AMDR) for protein actually allows 10 up to 35 percent of caloric intake! > You find one study > and post it like it's the answer to any questions on protein intake. [...] Well, http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/4/886?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&R ESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=kidney+high-protein&searchid=1119660946899_6054&stored_sea rch=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&journalcode=nutrition#B59 is not just "one study", it's an "Assessment of the Available Evidence" on the "Metabolic Consequences of a High Dietary-Protein Intake in Adulthood". X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:04:09 +0100, Enrico C wrote in <news:y6s80n8slh1k$.dlg@news.lillathedog.net> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : > but an intake up to the double is generally considered safe... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > these intake levels are harmful, it has been deemed prudent to > maintain an upper bound of no more than twice the RDA for protein" http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/4/886?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&R ESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=kidney+high-protein&searchid=1119660946899_6054&stored_sea rch=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&journalcode=nutrition#B15 "high-protein intakes must be considered in relationship to the possible untoward consequences mentioned. Due to the lack of systematic data, a specific TUL cannot yet be set for a healthy adult population. However, it would be prudent not to increase protein intakes above those consumed habitually by well-nourished populations in the technically advanced nations (2 g · kg-1 · d-1). This is in accordance with the recent recommendation by the International Dietary Energy Consultative Group (Durnin et al. 1999 ). 15. Durnin J. V., Garlick P., Jackson A. A., Schurch B., Shetty P. S., Waterlow J. C. Report of the IDECG Working Group on lower limits of energy and protein and upper limits of protein intakes. International Dietary Energy Consultative Group. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1999;53(Suppl 1):S174-S176[Medline] === X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :: On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:05:38 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in :: <news:4403770a$0$580$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] :: :: Mine was just a word of caution about going very high-protein. My personal experience suggest that is is VERY hard to eat really high amounts of protein on a day-to-day basis. Just try getting 200 g of protein everyday for a week. It's hard, hard work. Going beyond that *consistently* boggles the mind. ::: than is recommended with, in my opinion, no detriment to his kidney ::: health. And he'll be a lot happier and stronger from the protein. :: :: I guess it depends on the individual. Well, it does depend...some people claim to not tolerate high amounts of protein well, but for people with normal kidney function, there is supposedly no ill effects. On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:39:38 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote in <news:1209nprrc3dum3b@news.supernews.com> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : >:: On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:05:38 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in >:: <news:4403770a$0$580$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Well, it does depend...some people claim "claim"? > to not tolerate high amounts of > protein well, Indeed, I gather that a low-protein diet is recommended for people with renal insufficiency. > but for people with normal kidney function, there is > supposedly no ill effects. Agreed, not from a moderate increase at least. But a standard Western diet provides that increase already, doesn't it? http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/4/886?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&R ESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=kidney+high-protein&searchid=1119660946899_6054&stored_sea rch=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&journalcode=nutrition#B15 "In Western Europe and the United States, protein consumption amounts to about 1.5 to 2 times (Adolf et al. 1994Citation ) the recommended intakes (WHO 1985 )" X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :: On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:39:38 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote in :: <news:1209nprrc3dum3b@news.supernews.com> on [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] :: Agreed, not from a moderate increase at least. But a standard Western :: diet provides that increase already, doesn't it? Who knows. Don't put all your faith in nutrition research. They've been so awfully wrong so many times. http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/4/886?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&R ESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=kidney+high-protein&searchid=1119660946899_6054&stored_sea rch=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&journalcode=nutrition#B15 :: "In Western Europe and the United States, protein consumption amounts :: to about 1.5 to 2 times (Adolf et al. 1994Citation ) the recommended :: intakes (WHO 1985 )" :: X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition On 24 Feb 2006 10:34:47 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in <news:1140806087.394945.35720@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : >>> BUT >>> "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's a different topic since it discusses high-protein low-carb > medium/low-fat Actually, it discusses "high-protein, low-carb diets", compared to "low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets". May as it be, here is what Harvard says about Atkins-like diets: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates.html Some popular diets, particularly the Atkins diet, treat carbohydrates as if they are evil, the root of all body fat and excess weight. While there is some evidence that a low-carbohydrate diet may help people lose weight more quickly than a low-fat diet (12, 13), no one knows the long-term effects of eating little or no carbohydrates. Equally worrisome is the inclusion of unhealthy fats in some of these diets. If you want to go the lower carb route, try to include some fruits, vegetables, and whole-grain carbohydrates every day. They contain a host of vitamins, minerals, and other phytonutrients that are essential for good health and that you can't get out of a supplement bottle. === X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition On 24 Feb 2006 10:34:47 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in <news:1140806087.394945.35720@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : >>> BUT >>> "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's a different topic since it discusses high-protein low-carb > medium/low-fat Actually, it discusses "high-protein, low-carb diets", compared to "low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets". Be as it may, here is what Harvard says about Atkins-like diets: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates.html Some popular diets, particularly the Atkins diet, treat carbohydrates as if they are evil, the root of all body fat and excess weight. While there is some evidence that a low-carbohydrate diet may help people lose weight more quickly than a low-fat diet (12, 13), no one knows the long-term effects of eating little or no carbohydrates. Equally worrisome is the inclusion of unhealthy fats in some of these diets. If you want to go the lower carb route, try to include some fruits, vegetables, and whole-grain carbohydrates every day. They contain a host of vitamins, minerals, and other phytonutrients that are essential for good health and that you can't get out of a supplement bottle. === X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition > Be as it may, here is what Harvard says about Atkins-like diets: > > http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates.html > Some popular diets, particularly the Atkins diet, treat carbohydrates > as if they are evil, the root of all body fat and excess weight. In other words Harvard hasn't read the book or can't read the book. Got it. Folks write all sorts of clueless stuff about Atkins, especially folks who can't be bothered to actually read any of those nasty book things. I don't normally think of such folks being at Harvard. That bit came as a disappointment. Atkins teaches that carbs are a tool to be used to control stored body fat. Very much not the same thing as calling carbs evil. If you actually read the book, that is. Funny how folks with bad stuff to say about Atkins never seem to actually read the book and never actually seem to know what's in them. > While > there is some evidence that a low-carbohydrate diet may help people > lose weight more quickly than a low-fat diet (12, 13), no one knows > the long-term effects of eating little or no carbohydrates. What with Eskimos and such never having gotten any study whatsoever. Uhm, okay, here's another example of someone having a problem reading those nasty book things. > Equally > worrisome is the inclusion of unhealthy fats in some of these diets. Finally undergoing studies that don't compare high carb eating plans against high carb eating plans. We are currently seeing the results flow in on that. Guess what, those fats aren't actually unhelathy when not mixed with a high carb eating plan. > If you want to go the lower carb route, try to include some fruits, > vegetables, and whole-grain carbohydrates every day. You were doing great up until you included the grains. > They contain a > host of vitamins, minerals, and other phytonutrients that are > essential for good health and that you can't get out of a supplement > bottle. Grains don't have anything that aren't found in veggies. Suggesting that grains are automatically healthy is like suggesting that dairy is automatically healthy. There are plenty of people who have problems with grain and/or dairy. I've yet to encounter anyone who has problems with brocolli, but I figure I just might someday. For comparison I know a fair number of folks with grain oriented problems. On 25 Feb 2006 14:33:59 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in <news:1140906839.369214.253220@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : >> Be as it may, here is what Harvard says about Atkins-like diets: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In other words Harvard hasn't read the book or can't read the > book. Got it. Folks write all sorts of clueless stuff about Atkins, For starters, let me point out that the study discussed in the original post was about "high-protein vs high-carbohydrate", not about Atkins, which is neither high-protein nor high-carb, AFAIK. Then, in this sub-thread, we moved to discussing Atkins, and Harvard point of view on the Atkins diet. I thus think we had better change the subject consequently. > especially folks who can't be bothered to actually read any of > those nasty book things. I don't normally think of such folks > being at Harvard. That bit came as a disappointment. > Atkins teaches that carbs are a tool to be used to control > stored body fat. Very much not the same thing as calling > carbs evil. I see your point. Still, don't you think many Atkins followers just think of carbs as "evil"? > If you actually read the book, that is. Funny how > folks with bad stuff to say about Atkins never seem to actually [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What with Eskimos Good point. Even if Eskimos are not known for longevity, indeed it's remarkable how man can live on completely different diets and adapt to hostile environments. I doubt there is one single diet definitely better or healthier than any other, or ideal for everyone and any environment. > and such never having gotten any study > whatsoever. Uhm, okay, here's another example of someone > having a problem reading those nasty book things. >> Equally >> worrisome is the inclusion of unhealthy fats in some of these diets. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > aren't actually unhelathy when not mixed with a high carb > eating plan. I tend to agree with you in that there isn't such a thing as "unhealthy" natural fat. Any food can be "healthy" or "unhealthy" depending on quantities. In my view, people should rather focus on the diet as a whole and on exercise. >> If you want to go the lower carb route, try to include some fruits, >> vegetables, and whole-grain carbohydrates every day. > > You were doing great up until you included the grains. Harvard did. Whole grains and plant oils are at the base of their food pyramid. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.html >> They contain a >> host of vitamins, minerals, and other phytonutrients that are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > brocolli, but I figure I just might someday. For comparison > I know a fair number of folks with grain oriented problems. If you have specific problems with some foods, be it wheat or milk, that's a different kettle of fish. X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition > On 24 Feb 2006 10:34:47 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in > <news:1140806087.394945.35720@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> on [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > essential for good health and that you can't get out of a supplement > bottle. Well you've convinced me. Time to give up the diet I've lost 60 pounds on and embrace alfalfa sprouts! On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:53:13 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in <news:440349f1$0$21728$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : > Well you've convinced me. I didn't even try. > Time to give up the diet I've lost 60 pounds on > and embrace alfalfa sprouts! You can lose 60 pounds on any diet, as long as you eat less and burn more. X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:53:13 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in > <news:440349f1$0$21728$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You can lose 60 pounds on any diet, as long as you eat less and burn > more. Indeed, and I could do calorie restriction to do such as I was doing before I switched to low carb. The thing is life wouldn't be as good for me as it on this diet, I'd have to maintain a zen-like state to ignore my hunger, I'd be constantly worrying about getting enough protein and losing muscle. On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:13:23 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in <news:440378db$0$573$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : >> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:53:13 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in >> <news:440349f1$0$21728$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > on this diet, I'd have to maintain a zen-like state to ignore my hunger, I'd > be constantly worrying about getting enough protein and losing muscle. "One diet approach does not fit all patients." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=16207641&query_hl=47&itool=pubmed_docsum Nutr Clin Pract. 2005 Feb;20(1):3-12. Low carbohydrate diets, pro: time to rethink our current strategies. Bloch AS. The Dr. Robert C. Atkins Foundation, New York, NY 10021, USA. BlochA@aol.com Obesity-attributable medical expenditures in the United States are estimated at 75 billion dollars annually, half of which are financed by Medicare and Medicaid. In 2002, the estimated 80,000 bariatric surgical procedures cost between 15,000 to 30,000 dollars per patient. It is now believed that poor diet and physical inactivity may soon overtake tobacco as the leading cause of death. These findings, along with escalating health care costs and an aging population, are compelling reasons for US health care and public health systems to create more effective preventive approaches than have been used to date to reverse this epidemic. According to current trends, obesity will become the #1 cause of death by 2005, with the toll surpassing 500,000 deaths a year, rivaling the annual deaths from cancer. Conditions of overweight and obesity are associated with diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, asthma, arthritis, and poor health status. The successful experiences by many individuals who have limited their carbohydrate intake and mounting scientific studies supporting low- or controlled-carbohydrate diets' physiologic and metabolic action warrant a closer look at this dietary regimen as a potentially viable option to current conventional approaches. For individuals with high serum triglyceride and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels, truncal obesity, or insulin resistance (metabolic syndrome or hyperinsulinemia), reducing carbohydrate intake has been shown to improve these parameters without adverse clinical effects. Studies are beginning to validate the benefit of controlling carbohydrate intake for individuals with type 2 diabetes. The controlled-carbohydrate regimen could be a viable alternative dietary approach for weight management used by clinicians managing patients who are failing with conventional approaches. This can be achieved by either restricting carbohydrates initially and then adding back healthy carbohydrate choices until the individual's carbohydrate threshold is achieved or by eliminating carbohydrate foods one at a time from the diet until carbohydrates are limited enough to achieve weight loss and improve clinical parameters. One diet approach does not fit all patients. Some individuals might do best on a very-low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, whereas others may respond to lowering carbohydrate intake. Identifying specific needs and health conditions of each individual is key to successful application of the best approach and management for long-term success of weight loss in conjunction with improved health. Publication Types: Review PMID: 16207641 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition > Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a > long time. Your kidneys might complain... Dont know about you, but I'm descended from prehistoric man whose diet was EXTREMELY high in protein (if the hunt was successful, its likely the kill was a very lean mean beastie, not todays super-market 20% fat content animal. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:29:39 GMT, David Frank wrote in <news:DPjMf.3900$S25.401@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : > Dont know about you, but I'm descended from prehistoric man whose diet was > EXTREMELY high in protein How do you know? > (if the hunt was successful, its likely the kill was a very lean mean > beastie, not todays super-market 20% fat content animal. X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition > > Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a > > long time. Your kidneys might complain... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (if the hunt was successful, its likely the kill was a very lean mean > beastie, not todays super-market 20% fat content animal. Carnivores in the wild selectively eat the fatty portions of their prey first, and this partially offsets your point. So if you have marbled meat, trimming off the visible chunks of fat will roughly compensate for the higher fat content of farmed animals. Where your high protein concept would work better is on the shoreline - Fin fish and shellfish tend to be higher protein and lower fat than grass feeding herd animals. Fishing cultures would have had low fat diets of plants growing near the shore plus high protein diets of fin fish and shell fish. So consider the cultures in the world that eat the highest portion of fish - Do those cultures get kidney problems? It's known that in the 1980s there were high protein diets that were also low fat and low carb. Those diets did trigger deaths and that's why they are now obsolete. They are also why current low carb diets are higher in fat to correct for that mistake. The question becomes if there's a fishing culture that comes close to any of those diets from the 1980s and thus where kidney problems would start. portion of fish - Do those cultures get kidney problems? > It's known that in the 1980s there were high protein diets that > were also low fat and low carb. Those diets did trigger deaths But prehistorics didnt have access to non-animal incomplete protein crap like soy > Where your high protein concept would work better is on the > shoreline - Fin fish and shellfish tend to be higher protein and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > current low carb diets are higher in fat to correct for that > mistake. Is there data or is this a "conclusion". > The question becomes if there's a fishing culture > that comes close to any of those diets from the 1980s and > thus where kidney problems would start. Recent theories of the origin of the large brain of man suggest that early abundance of fatty sea fish (and possibly freshwater fish) were the/a main factor in the rapid evolution of the human brain to such a large size. It is hypothesized that the FAT availability was what helped drive the growth of the brain, and from that larger brain flowed human or prehuman brains that eventually led to the modern couch potato fueled by a diet of carbohydrate starches and grains and french fries fried in vegetable oil ... You can probably dig this up from a Google News seach on evolution or fish oil and brain. I read an article on this recently from either Science Daily or New Scientist or Scientific American on the web in the last couple of weeks. Fish oils now come in bottles and capsules. Maybe that is why our brains seem to be in decline in terms of knowing how to eat. Just a "conclusion" of mine ... not a real fact. Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) "David Frank" <dave_frank@hotmail.com> wrote in part: >> Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a >> long time. Your kidneys might complain... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >(if the hunt was successful, its likely the kill was a very lean mean >beastie, not todays super-market 20% fat content animal. Actually, researchers say that prehistoric man ate the entire animal, not just the meat. The meat was leaner, but after including the brain, liver, etc., the fat content was higher. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@alum.mit.edu> wrote in part: >"David Frank" <dave_frank@hotmail.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >just the meat. The meat was leaner, but after including the brain, liver, >etc., the fat content was higher. Also, carbohydrate intake was much lower. See for example: 1: Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Mar;56 Suppl 1:S42-52. The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet non-atherogenic. Cordain L, Eaton SB, Miller JB, Mann N, Hill K. Department of Health and Exercise Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. cordain@cahs.colostate.edu OBJECTIVE: Field studies of twentieth century hunter-gathers (HG) showed them to be generally free of the signs and symptoms of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Consequently, the characterization of HG diets may have important implications in designing therapeutic diets that reduce the risk for CVD in Westernized societies. Based upon limited ethnographic data (n=58 HG societies) and a single quantitative dietary study, it has been commonly inferred that gathered plant foods provided the dominant energy source in HG diets. METHOD AND RESULTS: In this review we have analyzed the 13 known quantitative dietary studies of HG and demonstrate that animal food actually provided the dominant (65%) energy source, while gathered plant foods comprised the remainder (35%). This data is consistent with a more recent, comprehensive review of the entire ethnographic data (n=229 HG societies) that showed the mean subsistence dependence upon gathered plant foods was 32%, whereas it was 68% for animal foods. Other evidence, including isotopic analyses of Paleolithic hominid collagen tissue, reductions in hominid gut size, low activity levels of certain enzymes, and optimal foraging data all point toward a long history of meat-based diets in our species. Because increasing meat consumption in Western diets is frequently associated with increased risk for CVD mortality, it is seemingly paradoxical that HG societies, who consume the majority of their energy from animal food, have been shown to be relatively free of the signs and symptoms of CVD. CONCLUSION: The high reliance upon animal-based foods would not have necessarily elicited unfavorable blood lipid profiles because of the hypolipidemic effects of high dietary protein (19-35% energy) and the relatively low level of dietary carbohydrate (22-40% energy). Although fat intake (28-58% energy) would have been similar to or higher than that found in Western diets, it is likely that important qualitative differences in fat intake, including relatively high levels of MUFA and PUFA and a lower omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio, would have served to inhibit the development of CVD. Other dietary characteristics including high intakes of antioxidants, fiber, vitamins and phytochemicals along with a low salt intake may have operated synergistically with lifestyle characteristics (more exercise, less stress and no smoking) to further deter the development of CVD. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:30:48 GMT, Jim Chinnis wrote in <news:ibp302h2atfehr9ndv393413hqn5loih34@4ax.com> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition : > Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@alum.mit.edu> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>Actually, researchers say that prehistoric man ate the entire animal, not >>just the meat. The meat was leaner, but after including the brain, liver, And he got vitamins from those. >>etc., the fat content was higher. Yet, according to Cordain, the paleodiet was low in saturated fat, for most months of the year... http://www.thepaleodiet.com/faqs/ "Our results (in press) show that for 9 months or more of the year, it would have been impossible to obtain >10 % of the total carcass energy as saturated fats." > Also, carbohydrate intake was much lower. See for example: > 1: Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Mar;56 Suppl 1:S42-52. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > societies, who consume the majority of their energy from animal food, have > been shown to be relatively free of the signs and symptoms of CVD. I guess they also managed to get away with gout, even if they ate a diet rich in game meat, as gout only occurs at older age, right? > CONCLUSION: The high reliance upon animal-based foods would not have > necessarily elicited unfavorable blood lipid profiles because of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (more exercise, less stress and no smoking) to further deter the development > of CVD. Ok. But, question: did they also die too young to develop CVD? X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition >Actually, researchers say that prehistoric man ate the entire animal, not >just the meat. The meat was leaner, but after including the brain, liver, >etc., the fat content was higher. But, the animals most probably fed on greens and other plant materials low in omega-6 compared to omega-3 and monounsaturates. And definitively not fed a diet consisting only of wheat, maize and barley as pig and chicken are today, giving them a tremendous omega-6 to omega-3 ratio and a tremendous high PUFA to MUFA ratio :-) (Those fats hide in the membranes of the cells of the white breast muscle in chicken, not in the soluble fat consisting mainly of saturated fats) Two fat analysis I reviewed once in our labs some year ago had the very highest AA content in turkey and chicken, then, having less than 1/3 of that, came pig muscles. Triglycerides from the same animal had less than 0.5 % (detection limit of report) of AA, while turkey had 2.5% AA in the muscle. Alf Christophersen <alf.christophersen@medisin.uio.no> wrote in part: >>Actually, researchers say that prehistoric man ate the entire animal, not >>just the meat. The meat was leaner, but after including the brain, liver, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >less than 0.5 % (detection limit of report) of AA, while turkey had >2.5% AA in the muscle. I don't disagree with that, only with the assertion that the prehistoric diet was low fat. It was relatively high in protein and fat and low in carbohydrate. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu "Joe the Aroma" <schizam2001@yahoo.com> wrote in part: >Appetite ratings were >not significantly different between the two groups, and the high-protein >breakfast did not significantly affect ad libitum energy intake. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu > "Joe the Aroma" <schizam2001@yahoo.com> wrote in part: > >>Appetite ratings were >>not significantly different between the two groups, and the high-protein >>breakfast did not significantly affect ad libitum energy intake. Indeed... but that wasn't the intention was it? > -- > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.