Protein alternatives?



garage sale GT said:
Back to the rock hard doggy dump issue: Why not add some fiber to that protein? Have a piece of fruit. Or if it's gotta be in shake form, get a powder like Metamucil to add to your protein powder.

Just don't bust a hernia straining!
That's almost exactly what I was going to say. As a lifter-turned-cyclist and a big-time studier, I know a decent bit about sports nutrition...well, supplementing fiber, however you choose to do it-I find the powders to be positively offensive and prefer bran cereal for breakfast, though-is a great thing to do whether or not you are having trouble going to the bathroom. It's just good for your body. When I was really working my chest I was cramming down 200+ grams of protein a day, along with a couple other supps, and the fiber was a great addition in general.
 
zCat said:
That's almost exactly what I was going to say. As a lifter-turned-cyclist and a big-time studier, I know a decent bit about sports nutrition...well, supplementing fiber, however you choose to do it-I find the powders to be positively offensive and prefer bran cereal for breakfast, though-is a great thing to do whether or not you are having trouble going to the bathroom. It's just good for your body. When I was really working my chest I was cramming down 200+ grams of protein a day, along with a couple other supps, and the fiber was a great addition in general.
I think the Benefiber is a bit different. Slightly chalky, but it's basically not ground up plant husks.
 
patch70 said:
Perhaps you missed the point.

A 5kg baby consumes about 5 x 250 ml of breast milk per day. Breast milk contains roughly 4 - 5 g of protein per 100 ml.

Thus the 5 kg baby consumes about 40 grams of protein per day. That is about 8 g per kg of body weight. i.e. much more than adults who generally have 0.5 - 2 g per kg.

So your argument about breast milk being only 5% protein is not a valid argument.
I would suggest that the one who missed the point is you. No matter how you play with the numbers, the infant is still only receiving 5% of it's calories as protein. If the only food ingested contains only five percent, five percent is all there is. Five percent is obviously enough for the time at which growth is faster than any other time in a human life.
 
zCat said:
That's almost exactly what I was going to say. As a lifter-turned-cyclist and a big-time studier, I know a decent bit about sports nutrition...well, supplementing fiber, however you choose to do it-I find the powders to be positively offensive and prefer bran cereal for breakfast, though-is a great thing to do whether or not you are having trouble going to the bathroom. It's just good for your body. When I was really working my chest I was cramming down 200+ grams of protein a day, along with a couple other supps, and the fiber was a great addition in general.
I assure you I don't own stock in the company. I am nursing a GNC soy shake with a tablespoon of benefiber and I can't tell it's there at all.
 
gravelmuncher said:
The cholesterol in eggs is what some nutritionists refer to as "good cholesterol". They claim that the cholesterol consumed through eggs in the diet actually reduces the amount of cholesterol produced by the body. It is the cholesterol produced by the body that blocks arteries. Just as there is good fat and bad fat, the introduction of soft cholesterol to the system of a healthy individual as a part of a balanced diet is beneficial in controlling healthy cholesterol levels.
I can only suggest that someone has been feeding you a lot more than eggs. Take, for example the study "Regression of Coronary Atheromatosis in Rhesus Monkeys" performed under the direction of Dr. Mark Armstrong at the University of Iowa in 1970. The study centered around the effects of diet on Rhesus monkeys. A group of Rhesus monkeys were fed a diet rich in saturated fat and cholesterol. Testing showed that the arteries of these monkeys rapidly became encrusted with atherosclerosis. After the arteries had become over half closed, the amount of saturated fat and cholesterol in the monkey's diet was markedly reduced. Eighteen months later the atherosclerosis was less than half what it had been at the conclusion of the diet rich in saturated fat and cholesterol. The only thing done to produce the diet rich in saturated fat and cholesterol was the inclusion of egg yolk in the diet. To reverse the progress of the atherosclerosis, the egg yolk was removed from the diet.

gravelmuncher said:
I eat eggs every day and have done so since I was a kid. I have had my cholesterol levels tested a couple of times in the past few years, and each time have fallen well within the healthiest range. As for the quality of the protien - apparently the only form of protien more beneficial to the human body than that found in eggs, is that of which is contained within human flesh. Since the consumtion of human flesh is generally frowned upon in most societies, eggs prove to be a far more user-friendly option.
Please understand that some people smoke 3-4 packs of cigarettes a day for 50-years and never contract lung cancer, heart disease or any of the other diseases associated with cigarette smoking. Such anecdotal information does not suggest that smoking is other than unhealthy. The same must be applied to such anecdotal information as your personal cholesterol levels and your health.

As concerns the "quality" of the protein in eggs, this is a long-standing misconception driven by the egg industry which has its foundation in testing performed by Osborne and Mendel clear back in 1914. The operational standard was that the kind of protein which resulted in the fastest growth was deemed to be the most beneficial. Today it is recognized that faster growth is not necessarily indicative of being the most healthful. And within a few decades, it was recognized that the test subjects used by Osborne and Mendel were not the best substitute for research data applied to humans. Their test subjects were rats which have substantially different needs when compared to humans. It should be noted that while human breast milk contains 5% protein, the breast milk from rats contains 49%. This doesn't make it a preferable alternative for human babies.
Additional studies in the 1940s took on the laborious task of determining the proportions of 10 essential amino acids (for rats) which lead to the fastest growth. As noted in "Nutritive Value of Selected Proteins and Protein Combinations", (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition / Director, Sanchez, A.) this lead to knowledge of the optimal amino acid pattern for rat growth but not to any equivalent information for human beings. Some investigators then adopted this as a working hypothesis for what might be optimum for human beings. The amino acid combination and proportions found to be most beneficial for the fastest growth in rats was most closely mimicked in natural sources by eggs. This prompted the National Egg Board to begin suggesting that eggs were the optimal protein source for humans.

Since these early days of research into protein needs, erroneously merged into human nutrition information, a number of highly respected sources and studies have shown that humans fare just as well, and often better, on other sources of protein including plant sources. These include Lancet, The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences, studies under the direction of Hegsted, D. on the nutritive value of plant based sources of protein, ("The Vegetarian Diet"), published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association; "Nutritional Studies of Vegetarians: Part V, Proteins": Journal of the American Dietetic Association and statistical finding by Nathan Pritikin, founder of the Pritikin Longevity Centers to name a few.

Eggs may provide an adequate source of protein for human consumption but whether or not it is best is arguable to be sure. Whether or not the levels of saturated fat and cholesterol ingested through eggs are dangerous to human health is beyond rebuttal. Heart disease is the number one killer of people in developed nations following the standard western diet and eggs are the major contributor to the saturated fat and cholesterol which are the major culprits in development of atherosclerosis/heart disease.

There is a lot of information used to cloud the waters when it comes to cholesterol and the idea that people need to consume "good cholesterol" is among the hype used to promote some rather poorly evidenced ideas. The human body produces all of the cholesterol it needs. Any additional cholesterol is unnecessary and likely detrimental. As mentioned, if you're eating naturally available sources, you simply can't get a more concentrated dose of cholesterol than that obtained through eggs. Whole eggs contain 550 milligrams of cholesterol per 100 grams. Compare that to beef liver at 300 milligrams for the same portion or cream cheese at 120 milligrams per 100 gram serving. Even lard which is often seen as the symbol of saturated fat and cholesterol has less than one-fifth the cholesterol found in whole egg at 95 milligrams per 100 gram portion.

If you choose to eat eggs as your protein source then I wish you the best of luck. But a rational assessment of the available data strongly suggests that they not be promoted as a healthy protein source. Best of luck to you and your health.
 
From where does the idea come that humans have naturally evolved to need or benefit from artificially produced and highly concentrated supplements such as those being recommended for protein and fiber? In a purely natural setting, such doses would be unattainable and yet humans have flourished as a species. Perhaps if we're not getting enough fiber, it's because such a large part of the food we eat contains no fiber. And our digestive physiology as well as our medical statistics bear out the fact that our digestive systems require a significant amount of fiber to operate properly. So maybe the best idea is to consume the foods which contain what we need and avoid those that don't. In the hunt to consume obscene portions of protein, fiber has been all but lost from the diet. And yet none of the major and most respected organizations set to define nutritional guidelines even begin to recommend the levels of protein now being ingested under the assumption that it will be beneficial. Rather than supplementing fiber to replace that lost through a diet extremely high in protein, it makes more sense to me to consume adequate protein as well as foods which contain adequate fiber. And that can easily be done without exceeding healthful caloric intake.
 
Beastt said:
If you choose to eat eggs as your protein source then I wish you the best of luck. But a rational assessment of the available data strongly suggests that they not be promoted as a healthy protein source. Best of luck to you and your health.
Be careful, Muncher! Your future could be in an oblong box!
 
garage sale GT said:
Be careful, Muncher! Your future could be in an oblong box!
If there is anyone here for which that isn't the future, I'd love you to point them out. The hope is to not reach that fate before our time.

I'm not sure if your post is intended as sarcasm or not. If it is, I'll look upon this as an assertion that good, solid, testable, repeatable dietary information is of less value than anecdotes and advertisements. I do not concur.

If you're being serious, then I applaud your conclusion.
 
Beastt said:
If there is anyone here for which that isn't the future, I'd love you to point them out. The hope is to not reach that fate before my time.

I'm going to assume you're well above the typical internet threat so I'll look upon this as an assertion that good, solid, testable, repeatable dietary information is of less value than anecdotes and advertisements. I do not concur.

"Muncher"?
It's an in-joke. BTW, if you want to follow me around and cook, I will be more than happy to give up my protein and benefiber.
 
garage sale GT said:
It's an in-joke, chief.
Sorry, I was a bit slow on the uptake. I was in mid-Edit when you posted so my comments now are perhaps more appropriate to your intent.
 
Beastt said:
Sorry, I was a bit slow on the uptake. I was in mid-Edit when you posted so my comments now are perhaps more appropriate to your intent.
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.
 
garage sale GT said:
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.
 
Beastt said:
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:

Beastt said:
I would suggest that the one who missed the point is you. No matter how you play with the numbers, the infant is still only receiving 5% of it's calories as protein. If the only food ingested contains only five percent, five percent is all there is. Five percent is obviously enough for the time at which growth is faster than any other time in a human life.
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.
 
garage sale GT said:
It's an in-joke. BTW, if you want to follow me around and cook, I will be more than happy to give up my protein and benefiber.
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!
 
jamesstout said:
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.
 
jamesstout said:
i reckon as long as one sticks to natural foods you will be OK, i mean eggs vs big macs hmmmm
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.

jamesstout said:
the study you cited was from 1970 has there been no research since then?
There likely has been but I certainly can't lay claim to possessing or reading every study ever performed.

jamesstout said:
gotts agree on the useless fiber supps - you don't need a chef to grab and eat an apple!
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.)
 
Beastt said:
Though this sounds good at first glance, you first have to decide what a "natural" food is. And while that might seem simple, you first 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.
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.
 
garage sale GT said:
I assure you though that they work well, IF you decide you want the convenience.
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.)
 
Beastt said:
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
 
jamesstout said:
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.
 

Similar threads