Re: U-shaped BMI/mortality curve

February 17, 2006

The recent report " Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber,

Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients)

(2005)Food and Nutrition Board (FNB)NAS on protein showed that .8g/kg is

adequate for most all populations across the bell curve (from the couch potato

to the athele).

http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309085373/html/589.html

The FAU/WHO/UNU recommendation is .60 g/kg/day and then add in a 25% " buffer " to

cover any variability and then the NAS and FNB (above) round off to .8,

Even several bodybuilding scientist/reseachers (Ellington Darden) report it is

adequate.

I dont see where more than that has been conclusively shown to be beneficial to

health or to longevity.

MREs only have around 110 grams of protein for 2500 calorie.

Walford, with all due respect, was wrong on the amino acid and protein

complementing theories, which he supported and I showed here in Oct 04 were

inaccurate and based on long standing outdated myths

Some of us might find this interesing

Vernon Young and the development of current knowledge in protein and amino acid

nutrition.

http://www.iuns.org/features/vernon_young_contribution.pdf

Regards

jeff

February 17, 2006

The recent report " Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber,

Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients)

(2005)Food and Nutrition Board (FNB)NAS on protein showed that .8g/kg is

adequate for most all populations across the bell curve (from the couch potato

to the athele).

http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309085373/html/589.html

The FAU/WHO/UNU recommendation is .60 g/kg/day and then add in a 25% " buffer " to

cover any variability and then the NAS and FNB (above) round off to .8,

Even several bodybuilding scientist/reseachers (Ellington Darden) report it is

adequate.

I dont see where more than that has been conclusively shown to be beneficial to

health or to longevity.

MREs only have around 110 grams of protein for 2500 calorie.

Walford, with all due respect, was wrong on the amino acid and protein

complementing theories, which he supported and I showed here in Oct 04 were

inaccurate and based on long standing outdated myths

Some of us might find this interesing

Vernon Young and the development of current knowledge in protein and amino acid

nutrition.

http://www.iuns.org/features/vernon_young_contribution.pdf

Regards

jeff

February 17, 2006

Yes. He's been posted on " Quackwatch " although I just took a quick look there and didn't see him at present. We've discussed him and he's affiliated with PETA and some other radical pro- animal rights groups. He' has an agenda and is hardly objective.

It would behoove you to be suspicious of anyone ruling out ALL animal products, especially including fish, which in study after study has proven itself to be enormously health promoting.

That said, he must have a very persuasive book out because two people I know read it and became vegetarians. From what they told me he uses scare tactics.

on 2/17/2006 10:02 AM, A Houle at ph18@... wrote:

Anyone familiar with 's work? Any thoughts?

February 17, 2006

Yes. He's been posted on " Quackwatch " although I just took a quick look there and didn't see him at present. We've discussed him and he's affiliated with PETA and some other radical pro- animal rights groups. He' has an agenda and is hardly objective.

It would behoove you to be suspicious of anyone ruling out ALL animal products, especially including fish, which in study after study has proven itself to be enormously health promoting.

That said, he must have a very persuasive book out because two people I know read it and became vegetarians. From what they told me he uses scare tactics.

on 2/17/2006 10:02 AM, A Houle at ph18@... wrote:

Anyone familiar with 's work? Any thoughts?

February 17, 2006

Hi :

Colin 's name has come up here a number of times in the past.

Here is one post relating to him:

" A friend of mine has become a vegetarian after reading Neil

Barnard's book FOOD FOR LIFE. While researching Neil Barnard and his

book, I came upon his name on QUACKWATCH and another Quackwatch-like

site: NCAHF or the NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST HEALTH FRAUD. In the

writeup debunking Neil Barnard, our old friend Colin showed

up:

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/pcrm.html

................. T. Colin , PhD, Associate Professor of

Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University also appeared at the press

conference. had done a survey of Chinese dietary intakes. He

did not do a medical study. In his report he linked the Chinese

people's high intake of vegetables with their comparatively low rates

of heart disease without pointing out that the more important

statistic of life expectancy in China is only 66 years compared to

the USA's 75 years [13]. 's pictures showing throngs of

Chinese walking everywhere, and others with a small truckload of

goods on the bicycles they were peddling, betrayed his emphasis on

diet as the factor mostly responsible for lower heart disease rates.

Obviously exercise and low body weights play a significant role. "

If you wish to see more of these previous discussions, an archive

search of this site for " " will turn them all up.

Rodney.

> >Hi JW:

> >

> >I know quite a few Seventh Day Adventists. (No, I am not one of

> >them. I enjoy joking with them about religion!).

>

> I attended a book signing of " The China Study " by T. Colin

> , a Cornell Prof, a few months ago.

>

> Quite a few Seventh Day Adventists showed up, looking

glowing and

> beatific. Dr. sees the good health of Seventh Day

Adventists as

> supporting his theory that animal proteins are a poision, and that

> vegetarians (particularly vegans) are healthier than others.

>

> has written a series of papers where he observes

bad

> outcomes in mice that are fed whey protein (casein) as compared to

mouse

> that have protein withdrawn. He claims that casein is a tumour

> promoter, and that, conversely, protein starvation protects

against the

> effects of carcinogens such as benzopyrene.

>

> I haven't seen his work replicated by others, in fact,

I've seen

> some papers where people get the opposite result; Dr. ,

of

> course, will tell you that those studies are funded by the same

people who

> run those " milk mustache " ads.

>

> told me that he'd done experiments with soy

protein, and

> found that soy protein didn't have the same toxic effect. I asked

him if

> he had any idea why, and he thought it was that soy was a much

less

> complete protein than casein. Usually you hear it claimed that the

amino

> acid efficiency of soy protein powder is about 80% compared to

> casein, which is a difference, but not much of a difference.

>

> Bodybuilders have the same kind of superstition, but I

think

> they're afraid that the phytoestrogens in soy are going to turn

them into

> girls. (Meanwhile they take tamoxifen to block the estrogrenic

affects of

> high-dose anabolic steroids...)

>

> Anyone familiar with 's work? Any thoughts?

>

February 17, 2006

Hi :

Colin 's name has come up here a number of times in the past.

Here is one post relating to him:

" A friend of mine has become a vegetarian after reading Neil

Barnard's book FOOD FOR LIFE. While researching Neil Barnard and his

book, I came upon his name on QUACKWATCH and another Quackwatch-like

site: NCAHF or the NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST HEALTH FRAUD. In the

writeup debunking Neil Barnard, our old friend Colin showed

up:

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/pcrm.html

................. T. Colin , PhD, Associate Professor of

Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University also appeared at the press

conference. had done a survey of Chinese dietary intakes. He

did not do a medical study. In his report he linked the Chinese

people's high intake of vegetables with their comparatively low rates

of heart disease without pointing out that the more important

statistic of life expectancy in China is only 66 years compared to

the USA's 75 years [13]. 's pictures showing throngs of

Chinese walking everywhere, and others with a small truckload of

goods on the bicycles they were peddling, betrayed his emphasis on

diet as the factor mostly responsible for lower heart disease rates.

Obviously exercise and low body weights play a significant role. "

If you wish to see more of these previous discussions, an archive

search of this site for " " will turn them all up.

Rodney.

> >Hi JW:

> >

> >I know quite a few Seventh Day Adventists. (No, I am not one of

> >them. I enjoy joking with them about religion!).

>

> I attended a book signing of " The China Study " by T. Colin

> , a Cornell Prof, a few months ago.

>

> Quite a few Seventh Day Adventists showed up, looking

glowing and

> beatific. Dr. sees the good health of Seventh Day

Adventists as

> supporting his theory that animal proteins are a poision, and that

> vegetarians (particularly vegans) are healthier than others.

>

> has written a series of papers where he observes

bad

> outcomes in mice that are fed whey protein (casein) as compared to

mouse

> that have protein withdrawn. He claims that casein is a tumour

> promoter, and that, conversely, protein starvation protects

against the

> effects of carcinogens such as benzopyrene.

>

> I haven't seen his work replicated by others, in fact,

I've seen

> some papers where people get the opposite result; Dr. ,

of

> course, will tell you that those studies are funded by the same

people who

> run those " milk mustache " ads.

>

> told me that he'd done experiments with soy

protein, and

> found that soy protein didn't have the same toxic effect. I asked

him if

> he had any idea why, and he thought it was that soy was a much

less

> complete protein than casein. Usually you hear it claimed that the

amino

> acid efficiency of soy protein powder is about 80% compared to

> casein, which is a difference, but not much of a difference.

>

> Bodybuilders have the same kind of superstition, but I

think

> they're afraid that the phytoestrogens in soy are going to turn

them into

> girls. (Meanwhile they take tamoxifen to block the estrogrenic

affects of

> high-dose anabolic steroids...)

>

> Anyone familiar with 's work? Any thoughts?

>

February 18, 2006

One more on Protein in athletes involved in strength...

" At present there is no evidence to suggest that supplements are required for

optimal muscle growth or strength gain. Strength-trained athletes should consume

protein consistent with general population guidelines, or 12% to 15% of energy

from protein "

Protein requirements and supplementation in strength sports.

Nutrition. <javascript:AL_get(this, 'jour', 'Nutrition.');> 2004

Jul-Aug;20(7-8):689-95.

SM

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Search & itool=pubmed\

_Abstract & term=%22+SM%22%5BAuthor%5D> .

Exercise Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster

University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. phillis@...

Daily requirements for protein are set by the amount of amino acids that is

irreversibly lost in a given day. Different agencies have set requirement levels

for daily protein intakes for the general population; however, the question of

whether strength-trained athletes require more protein than the general

population is one that is difficult to answer. At a cellular level, an increased

requirement for protein in strength-trained athletes might arise due to the

extra protein required to support muscle protein accretion through elevated

protein synthesis. Alternatively, an increased requirement for protein may come

about in this group of athletes due to increased catabolic loss of amino acids

associated with strength-training activities. A review of studies that have

examined the protein requirements of strength-trained athletes, using nitrogen

balance methodology, has shown a modest increase in requirements in this group.

At the same time, several studies have shown that strength training, consistent

with the anabolic stimulus for protein synthesis it provides, actually increases

the efficiency of use of protein, which reduces dietary protein requirements.

Various studies have shown that strength-trained athletes habitually consume

protein intakes higher than required. A positive energy balance is required for

anabolism, so a requirement for " extra " protein over and above normal values

also appears not to be a critical issue for competitive athletes because most

would have to be in positive energy balance to compete effectively. At present

there is no evidence to suggest that supplements are required for optimal muscle

growth or strength gain. Strength-trained athletes should consume protein

consistent with general population guidelines, or 12% to 15% of energy from

protein

February 18, 2006