RE: does excess protein *increase* metabolism?

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>also, does anyone know the order in which the body uses gluconeogenic

>molecules? is it carbs...amino acids..glycerol in that order as a general

>rule?

Yup, that's the correct order.

-

[Guest guest]

> Some folks in primaldiet and live-food groups say that after having

> started eating significantly more flesh (raw) than they used to,

> they

> have built muscle mass, even without exercise. So that seems to

> contradict what you said. For one of stories like that, go to

> http://www.rawpaleodiet.org/rvaf-8-month-physical-1.html

Then they were probably deficient in either total protein, a specific

amino acid, or some other nutrient that's well absorbed from meat,

and the deficiency was keeping them from developing the muscle mass

that their exertion level called for.

The issue of whether simply consuming protein adds muscle is one that

has been extremely heavily studied. No benefit from protein alone

has been found. What I find to be really convincing is that there is

plenty of money behind finding that it *does* build muscle mass, and

it's still been shown to not do it.

Another thing that I suspect might be at play, however, is simply an

increased activity level as meat consumption increases. They're

getting more carnitine, more short and medium chain fatty acids, more

iron, zinc, reliable amounts of b vitamins (especially b12) and they

simply get a bit more active from the improved metabolism as their

general nutrition improves, and they put on some extra muscle as a

result.

[Guest guest]

-

>The issue of whether simply consuming protein adds muscle is one that

>has been extremely heavily studied. No benefit from protein alone

>has been found. What I find to be really convincing is that there is

>plenty of money behind finding that it *does* build muscle mass, and

>it's still been shown to not do it.

Perhaps, but it's not inconceivable that there's something different about

raw meat which causes the body to put on muscle, while cooked meat and

isolated amino acids and protein powders fails to do so. I doubt any of

those studies involved a partly or all raw meat diet.

-

[Guest guest]

> Suze-

>

>>also, does anyone know the order in which the body uses

>>gluconeogenic molecules? is it carbs...amino acids..glycerol in

>>that order as a general rule?

>

> Yup, that's the correct order.

I think there's a caveat in there though. As the body breaks apart

certain triglycerides to make use of their component fatty acids, the

glycerol " backbone " of the triglyceride is freed up. I believe I

recall from a paper on the physiology of starvation that those

glycerol molecules form a certain base level of glucose generation

regardless of whether the body is carb-starved or not. So there

would always be some conversion of glycerol to glucose just as a

basic part of metabolism. I recall it being a really small number

though. Small enough, at any rate, so that even in the presence of

ketone bodies, it's insufficient for the brain's needs and requires

conversion of protein to make up the deficit. That's why the muscle

and organ wasting of extreme starvation kicks in even before the fat

stores have been depleted.

[Guest guest]

-

>I believe I

>recall from a paper on the physiology of starvation that those

>glycerol molecules form a certain base level of glucose generation

>regardless of whether the body is carb-starved or not.

Now that you remind me, I have read that. Still, you'd have to be awfully

protein-starved to change the order. I suppose it's not impossible on some

of the more extreme modern diets, but I expect it's nonetheless at least

extraordinarily rare short of genuine starvation.

-

[Guest guest]

> Now that you remind me, I have read that. Still, you'd have to be

> awfully protein-starved to change the order. I suppose it's not

> impossible on some

> of the more extreme modern diets, but I expect it's nonetheless at

> least extraordinarily rare short of genuine starvation.

> -

Actually, I don't think it was that it occurred during starvation.

It was that it occurs all the time as a basic metabolic by-product of

fatty acid utilization. The process of actively breaking down a

triglyceride for the express purpose of getting the glycerol molecule

in order to convert it to glucose is a separate issue...and is

definitely related to starvation. This referred, I believe, to the

simple process of taking a triglyceride that's composed of linoleic

acid, for example, and stripping off the linoleic acid molecules for

use in a prostaglandin, cell membrane or whatever. When that process

is done, the glycerol portion is left sitting there not doing

anything, so the body converts it to glucose. Like I mentioned

though, it's extremely small, virtually insignificant amounts

compared to other sources.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/1/02 1:58:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, scott@...

writes:

> The issue of whether simply consuming protein adds muscle is one that

> has been extremely heavily studied. No benefit from protein alone

> has been found.

By the way, I should have added to my statement on gaining arm strength w/o

exercise that I consumed just as much protein and fat when I was vegeterian,

and even vegan, than I do now-- just, of course, different _kinds_ of such.

chris

p.s. And I did have very good strength gaining rates when I was vegeterian

and working out, I think above average, but if I would stop working out, I

would lose strength rather than gain it, as seems typical and sensible.

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

At 05:57 AM 8/1/2002 +0000, you wrote:

>The issue of whether simply consuming protein adds muscle is one that

>has been extremely heavily studied. No benefit from protein alone

>has been found. What I find to be really convincing is that there is

>plenty of money behind finding that it *does* build muscle mass, and

>it's still been shown to not do it.

>

>Another thing that I suspect might be at play, however, is simply an

>increased activity level as meat consumption increases. They're

>getting more carnitine, more short and medium chain fatty acids, more

>iron, zinc, reliable amounts of b vitamins (especially b12) and they

>simply get a bit more active from the improved metabolism as their

>general nutrition improves, and they put on some extra muscle as a

>result.

>

>

I think that is very true. I also think a lot of people are not getting

enough protein --

at any rate, I've been making a concerted effort to get more meat, less

carbs and

have noticed a huge difference, even though I still sit at a keyboard for

most hours

on the day.

I've also noticed, since eating more meat and fats, that I do not LOSE

muscle fast

at all. I went for a workout at the gym for the first time in months and

was essentially

at the same place. In the past, going a few days without excercise would cause

a noticable loss of strength.

Heidi Schuppenhauer

Trillium Custom Software Inc.

heidis@...

[Guest guest]

>>I think there's a caveat in there though. As the body breaks apart

certain triglycerides to make use of their component fatty acids, the

glycerol " backbone " of the triglyceride is freed up. I believe I

recall from a paper on the physiology of starvation that those

glycerol molecules form a certain base level of glucose generation

regardless of whether the body is carb-starved or not. So there

would always be some conversion of glycerol to glucose just as a

basic part of metabolism.

--->yep! i read this recently too. as tryalglycerols are being used, (which

is basically all the time), i thinkt he glycerol molecules are transported

to the liver to be converted to glucose. i *think* it takes 2 glycerol

molecules to make 1 glucose molecule...does anyone know if that's right?

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>>>>...Protein is not 'stored' like excess fat, but is utilized for building

tissues and protein tissues are considered reserves that can be drawn on if

needed for more urgent purposes - in fact there is continual turnover. But,

unlike fat stores, if you use protein reserves for building other tissues

you can impair the physiological function of that tissue. (I'm looking at my

old textbook) If you consume excess protein the body has to deal with it in

another way, either burning it for energy or if excess calories are consumed

it would ultimately end up at fat stores.

---->thanks, kris, for taking the time to look this up. i appreciate it

> anecdotally, i noticed that as i increased both of my dogs' protein

intake,

> their muscle mass also increased. i assumed there was a direct connection

to

> the increase in protein in their diet. is that a reasonable assumption?

>>>That is because your dogs were active and could use the extra protein

for

muscle building. If a typical 'couch potato' eats a lot of excess protein it

will ultimately end up at stored fat, one the body's needs for protein are

met. To utilize extra protein for body building you must exercise the

muscles.

---->well, the funny thing is, my dogs are couch potatoes, more or less. and

i think they were getting more than adequate protein previously (certainly

more than kibble-fed dogs). when i altered the components of their diet

(it's a raw diet, btw) and increased the meat portion, their muscles bulked

up. in fact my chihuahua has little arnold schwarzenegger legs - well, not

quite. but they're VERY muscular.

> my original question about protein causing an 'increase in metabolism' is

> because, as i think i mentioned, a friend mentioned on another list that

> 'excess' protein might be the cause of excess panting (someone had

mentioned

> her dog was panting excessively). i've heard about this from other dog

> owners - unexplained excessive panting, that is. but i'm trying to figure

> out whether excess protein might translate into excessive panting...one

The panting may just mean that the increased calorigenic effect of protein

is generating more body heat, so the dog has to pant more to get rid of that

heat (remember dogs don't sweat like we do).

--------->right...i know that's the way they sweat.

thanks for your detailed response. and thanks to scott too! (i thought i

saved your email to reply to but can't find it.)

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>The issue of whether simply consuming protein adds muscle is one that

>has been extremely heavily studied. No benefit from protein alone

>has been found. What I find to be really convincing is that there is

>plenty of money behind finding that it *does* build muscle mass, and

>it's still been shown to not do it.

>>>>>>>Perhaps, but it's not inconceivable that there's something different

about

raw meat which causes the body to put on muscle, while cooked meat and

isolated amino acids and protein powders fails to do so. I doubt any of

those studies involved a partly or all raw meat diet.

------->that's exactly what i was wondering!

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

True, Roman, but remember he had been on the deficient Ornish diet before,

so now he's getting the good fat nutrients he was missing before, so his

body can build to what nature intended. If he also continued with his weight

training he'd probably start to look like one of those Atlas ads in the

sports magazines (which I never read, so I'm not sure if that reference if

correct). It sounds like he does lead a pretty active life.

Peace,

Kris , gardening in northwest Ohio

If you want to hear the good news about butter check out this website:

http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/know_your_fats.html

> skroyer wrote:

> >

> > No, *excess* protein is never stored, only converted energy. In

> > order for protein to wind up in muscle, the muscle must be worked

> > hard enough to stimulate muscle growth...at which point the protein

> > *need* increases slightly.

>

> Some folks in primaldiet and live-food groups say that after having

> started eating significantly more flesh (raw) than they used to, they

> have built muscle mass, even without exercise. So that seems to

> contradict what you said. For one of stories like that, go to

> http://www.rawpaleodiet.org/rvaf-8-month-physical-1.html

>

> Roman

>

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>---->well, the funny thing is, my dogs are couch potatoes, more or less. and

>i think they were getting more than adequate protein previously (certainly

>more than kibble-fed dogs).

Well, as this phenomenon seems to be observed by many BARFers without

regard to their dogs' activity levels, and since Primal Dieters and their

like make similar claims for themselves, I'm inclined to think there may be

something to it. Perhaps there's some hormone (or complex of hormones, or

hormone precursors) in raw muscle meat that is (or are) destroyed by

cooking which, when consumed, tell the body to build muscle. Or perhaps

the body is hard-wired by evolution to pack on muscle during times of

plenty, i.e. times when plenty of meat is available and being eaten, and

whatever signal or trigger the body responds to in meat is destroyed by

cooking. This is all just speculation -- perhaps is right and it's

the increased activity resulting from a healthier diet -- and I'd certainly

like to see some studies done, but I imagine the RAF movement (such as it

is) will have to grow quite a bit larger for that to happen.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Actually, I don't think it was that it occurred during starvation.

>It was that it occurs all the time as a basic metabolic by-product of

>fatty acid utilization.

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, just that fatty acid utilization is

unlikely to provide more glucose than protein utilization except under

starvation conditions.

-

[Guest guest]

What's BARF?

Peace,

Kris , gardening in northwest Ohio

[Guest guest]

Kris-

>What's BARF?

Either Bones And Raw Food or Biologically Appropriate Raw Food. It's a

raw-meat pet food movement.

-

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 12:38:14 -0400, you wrote:

>What's BARF?

Bones And Raw Food

or

Biologically Appropriate Raw Diet

if you have pets and are interested, www.barf.com is a good starting place on

the web to get basic info and links to other pages

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: <meuritt@...>

< >

Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 12:48 PM

Subject: Re: Re: does excess protein *increase*

metabolism?

> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 12:38:14 -0400, you wrote:

>

> >What's BARF?

>

> Bones And Raw Food

> or

> Biologically Appropriate Raw Diet

>

> if you have pets and are interested, www.barf.com is a good starting place

on

> the web to get basic info and links to other pages

This website came up not accessable. Could you be referring to

www.barfers.com?

Kris