Protein alternatives? - Page 3

Well, I would be a bit concerned that Gravelmuncher's good cholesterol result was a genetic abnormality like the 95 yr old heavy smoker one hears about occasionally.

You'll get nothing but pure agreement from me. I'm thinking if he dies of a heart attack at 65, he'll go still thinking he was right.

I had a discussion like that with a co-worker a few weeks ago. They assured me that both of their grandfathers were perfectly healthy up until the day they died. I asked what they died of; "One died of a heart attack and the other from cancer."

You just can't tell some people anything even when it's sitting right under their nose.

Now that is hilarious coming from the person who just wrote the following:

The figures I gave you were conservative. Read them again.

A baby consumes at least 8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight!!!! That is far more than the vast majority of adults. So, your argument that "a baby has a low protein intake so therefore everyone should" makes no sense, because the first part is not true. You seem to be forgetting that baby's milk constitutes their fluid intake as well, which again is a higher per kg amount in babies than adults.

i reckon as long as one sticks to natural foods you will be OK, i mean eggs vs big macs hmmmm

the study you cited was from 1970 has there been no research since then?

gotts agree on the useless fiber supps - you don't need a chef to grab and eat an apple!

I assure you though that they work well, IF you decide you want the convenience.

Though this sounds good at first glance, you first have to decide what a "natural" food is. And while that might sound simple, before you can do that you have to determine the "natural" food for the species in question. You might consider eggs to be a natural food but they're certainly not natural for say... rabbits.

So you have to start by classifying the "natural" diet of the species and for that you have to turn to digestive physiology. Then you run into the problem of where humans fall when the human digestive physiology is compared to other species in the carnivorous, omnivorous and herbivorous categories. And like it or not, when such a process is utilized, humans fit squarely within the monogastric herbivore category. Then if you look at eggs again, you find they're no more "natural" for a human than they are for a rabbit. But if you decide to ignore that evidence and go ahead consuming eggs as though they were a natural food for humans, you start to find the same health issues cropping up in humans that you see in other herbivores when eggs are added to their diet -- namely, atherosclerosis leading to heart attacks and strokes.

Back to square one.

There likely has been but I certainly can't lay claim to possessing or reading every study ever performed.

Well, I certainly can't and wouldn't argue with that. My point was mainly that if your diet is causing you to have to resort to supplements in order to get the nutrients/fiber you need, then obviously it's not a very appropriate diet. So rather than choking down mountains of protein and then having to supplement your fiber intake to make up for the fact that much of the protein-containing foods contain little or no fiber, it makes sense to eat adequate amounts of protein but not so much that it crowds the fiber out of your diet. Of course there are foods that contain both protein and fiber but most people seem to recognize protein only when it comes from non-plant sources.

(Sorry, I was editing while you were posting.)

put it this way if people haven't been eating it for a lifeeimte i won't look at hyrdigenated fats we has been eating them for a long time before we realised they weren't too smart. Basically if someon made in a lab in the last 50 years im not so keen (there are exceptions (energy gels and sometimes whey) but for MEALS i stick to real food.

Are you sure you're considering all of the factors when you conclude that they "work well"? If you're consuming unhealthy amounts of other nutrients and that's what is causing you to need to supplement your fiber, does the fiber make up for the over-consumption of other things? (Part of the answer to that is, "yes" but not all of it.)

apples are cheaper easier and tastier

Some roughage is better than no roughage especially if you have the OP's problem and require the convenience of a powder. Plus there's some truth to the commercial of the lady pulling broccoli spears out of her purse at all hours because there's an awful lot of fiber in the RDA.

Here is what I suggest if you sense a need for more and different proteins:
eat some of the following, or something similar.

(fyi - amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, and by eating large amounts of them you can do better workouts/races/whatever. Just make sure you use them in moderation and not as a substitute for all of your protein needs.)



http://www.gnc.com/family/index.jsp?...08321&view=all




Japheth

__________________
"Practise what you know, and it will help to make clear what now you do not know."

- Rembrandt von Rijn

I can't be bothered arguing this ridiculous point with you again, but would like to ask you a different question.

Are you as evangelical about your religion as you are about your diet?

The "evidence" you keep producing is about on the same level of evidence as a preacher telling his/her flock that religion X is the only path to enlightenment.

There is just as much low level evidence refuting what you believe but you choose to ignore that and only mention the low level evidence that suits your point.

So rather than trying to force everyone to follow your religious belief that protein is the work of the devil and vegetarianism the path to God, why not just accept that this is just a belief rather than an immaculate truth? Sure it suits you, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to worship at your temple.

Even if you continue this diet for ever, you will still die too. And if it is so right, why is it damn near impossible for an adult female to go through a pregnancy and 6 - 12 months of breast feeding and not become severely deficient in iron when following it? Why do even careful vegetarians still frequently need supplementation in iron or B12?

I think there may be some confusion. The body has a limit when it comes to how much of any given nutrient it can utilize. That's why people choking down supplemental calcium still end up with osteoporosis if they eat too much protein on a continual basis. No matter how much calcium you ingest, your body can only assimilate a small amount. And the same holds true for protein. If you eat less protein than your body can use, then recovery, rebuilding tissues and forming new tissues will be retarded. But there is a limit as to how much protein your body can use. If you exceed that limit, you're not going to build tissues faster, you're just going to deplete your skeletal system of calcium, stress the lumen in your kidneys and urinate away the extra protein. And study after study has concluded that 98% of the population are unable to utilize more than 10% of their recommended caloric intake as protein.

The body is designed to get the protein in bursts, 2.2g per kilo of lean body weight (subtract the fat), divide it by 6 and have it every 3 hours.

__________________
Training Log

I think the specific amino pills are targeted at specific purposes, not just sports nutrition. For example, Arginine is supposed to help with ED, and Lysine is supposed to support herpes patients somehow. There's really nothing in there which an athlete couldn't get elsewhere, even if it's from a concentrated protein powder like soy or whey (milk). You're better off, in fact, with balanced protein.