Re: Protein isolates

[Guest guest]

Speaking of protein powders,

Does anyone believe for any reason that so-called " undenatured " protein

powders are any different than real whey?

I've been using Designer Whey (not as the bulk of my protein source), which

claims to be undenatured, not cross-linked, and pre-digested. It also happens

to be about 8 times cheaper than Goat-tein. I would just drink whey, but I

don't have the equipment to make it in a way that isn't a total pain in the ass

for me.

Sally's opinion is that all protein powders will create vitamin A deficiency

regardless of processing, and I assume she means because there's no fat. But

this doesn't strike me as very sound logic. Obviously if one consumes nothing

but protein powders one will get vitamin A deficiency, but if one's diet

consists of enormous amounts of raw cream, liver, and cod liver oil, this seems

unlikely. Even if there's any reason you need *dietary* vitamin A simultaneous

to the protein, rather than using stored A, you can solve the problem by

taking butter oil or CLO with the protein. Besides, muscle meat doesn't have

significant vitamin A to my knowledge anyway.

Any thoughts?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/03 1:31:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> Why consume protein powders in place of the real thing? Processing of any

> kind removes nutrients and, I'm sure whole food contain nutrients that we

> have not yet discovered.

NT is founded on the principle that much processing increases nutrient value.

For example sprouting, soaking, and cooking, and fermenting. If something

is low-temperature dehydrated it should preserve the nutrients just fine.

Also, I don't know how they " pre-digest " the protein, but if it actually

involves

any fermenting, this could theoretically increase the nutrient value.

The reason I use it is because it is vastly more convenient for me, and I've

had some bad luck recently with making whey successfully. I'm going to try to

buy some cheap off a cheese-making farmer soon.

It also takes up less room, and it also contains less carbs, so it is ideal

for a pre-exercise drink.

I'm not completely sure of the processing and will try to look into it

further, but they claim it is undenatured. If anyone has any information about

the

possibility that this term is a marketing ploy and does not fully distinguish

between a healthy and harmful supplement, please let me know.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/03 1:56:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I'm rather skeptical of the value of DW due to its hydrolized state.

>

In what way? Regular ol' whey is hydrolized through the fermenting, isn't

it?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/03 2:16:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >NT is founded on the principle that much processing increases nutrient

> value.

> > For example sprouting, soaking, and cooking, and fermenting.

>

> Yes, but these kinds of processing are fundamentally different from most of

> the mechanisms used in agribusiness, so it's a pretty good rule of thumb to

> avoid any modern processing.

According to their website, the hydrolyzing is done by the addition of

protease enzymes, the powdering is done at low temperatures that do not denature

the

proteins and do not produce cross-linking.

> Also, none of the NT-style forms of processing involve such a great degree

> of refining.

That's true, but if there are no neurotoxins or otherwise toxic byproducts of

the processing, the refining would be a good thing, since it eliminates the

carbs and makes the protein more quickly absorbed.

> >The reason I use it is because it is vastly more convenient for me, and

> I've

> >had some bad luck recently with making whey successfully.

>

> Whey protein isolate and liquid whey aren't at all the same thing

> anyway. I don't know exactly what the protein content of liquid whey is,

> but it also has a high carb content -- and both are dissolved in liquid,

> which means you'd have to drink vast volumes of whey to get a meaningful

> amount of whey protein.

Really? I figured whey had a similar protein content to milk. It's between

6 and 7% by weight. Wouldn't a quart of whey have a pretty large amount of

protien? I don't consider that a vast volume to drink.

> >I'm not completely sure of the processing and will try to look into it

> >further, but they claim it is undenatured.

>

> " Undenatured " and " hydrolized " are at least somewhat mutually exclusive.

I think that's true if by " undenatured " you mean general destruction of the

structure of the protein, but by their use they mean it isn't cross-linked. I

have only a vague understanding of it, actually barely any at all, but it's my

understanding that cross-linking is the primary harmful effect on proteins

that pasteurization produces. Hydrolysis is technically a form of denaturing,

but not a harmful one, since we need to hydrolyze the protein to use it in the

first place.

Their website claims there is no MSG present in their product also.

If there's anything harmful about it, I want to know, but if we can't figure

out anything harmful, then other folks might be interested to know that

Designer Whey goes for $10 retail at Trader Joe's versus $44 for the same size

can

of Goat-Tein and Bread and Circus, and I just got a larger container of DW for

40% of the price per serving at a store called Supplement Zone.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Why consume protein powders in place of the real thing? Processing of any

kind removes nutrients and, I'm sure whole food contain nutrients that we

have not yet discovered.

Judith Alta

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

Speaking of protein powders,

Does anyone believe for any reason that so-called " undenatured " protein

powders are any different than real whey?

I've been using Designer Whey (not as the bulk of my protein source), which

claims to be undenatured, not cross-linked, and pre-digested. It also

happens

to be about 8 times cheaper than Goat-tein. I would just drink whey, but I

don't have the equipment to make it in a way that isn't a total pain in the

ass

for me.

Sally's opinion is that all protein powders will create vitamin A deficiency

regardless of processing, and I assume she means because there's no fat.

But

this doesn't strike me as very sound logic. Obviously if one consumes

nothing

but protein powders one will get vitamin A deficiency, but if one's diet

consists of enormous amounts of raw cream, liver, and cod liver oil, this

seems

unlikely. Even if there's any reason you need *dietary* vitamin A

simultaneous

to the protein, rather than using stored A, you can solve the problem by

taking butter oil or CLO with the protein. Besides, muscle meat doesn't

have

significant vitamin A to my knowledge anyway.

Any thoughts?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

I'm rather skeptical of the value of DW due to its hydrolized state.

>I've been using Designer Whey (not as the bulk of my protein source), which

>claims to be undenatured, not cross-linked, and pre-digested.

-

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the explanation.

One of my problems is that when I think of " processing " I think of

commercial processing.

Judith Alta

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

In a message dated 12/14/03 1:31:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> Why consume protein powders in place of the real thing? Processing of any

> kind removes nutrients and, I'm sure whole food contain nutrients that we

> have not yet discovered.

NT is founded on the principle that much processing increases nutrient

value.

For example sprouting, soaking, and cooking, and fermenting. If something

is low-temperature dehydrated it should preserve the nutrients just fine.

Also, I don't know how they " pre-digest " the protein, but if it actually

involves

any fermenting, this could theoretically increase the nutrient value.

The reason I use it is because it is vastly more convenient for me, and I've

had some bad luck recently with making whey successfully. I'm going to try

to

buy some cheap off a cheese-making farmer soon.

It also takes up less room, and it also contains less carbs, so it is ideal

for a pre-exercise drink.

I'm not completely sure of the processing and will try to look into it

further, but they claim it is undenatured. If anyone has any information

about the

possibility that this term is a marketing ploy and does not fully

distinguish

between a healthy and harmful supplement, please let me know.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

Not that I know of. I suppose it depends on the final acidity level, but

moderate acid action in fermentation is undoubtedly very different from the

profound hydrolyzation that occurs in the production of most protein powders.

>Regular ol' whey is hydrolized through the fermenting, isn't

>it?

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>NT is founded on the principle that much processing increases nutrient value.

> For example sprouting, soaking, and cooking, and fermenting.

Yes, but these kinds of processing are fundamentally different from most of

the mechanisms used in agribusiness, so it's a pretty good rule of thumb to

avoid any modern processing.

Also, none of the NT-style forms of processing involve such a great degree

of refining.

>The reason I use it is because it is vastly more convenient for me, and I've

>had some bad luck recently with making whey successfully.

Whey protein isolate and liquid whey aren't at all the same thing

anyway. I don't know exactly what the protein content of liquid whey is,

but it also has a high carb content -- and both are dissolved in liquid,

which means you'd have to drink vast volumes of whey to get a meaningful

amount of whey protein.

>I'm not completely sure of the processing and will try to look into it

>further, but they claim it is undenatured.

" Undenatured " and " hydrolized " are at least somewhat mutually exclusive.

-

[Guest guest]

Maybe try to find an organic cheesemaker near you? They should have

more whey than you can weigh at a weigh-station by the wayside. Cheap,

too, I'd bet.

Tom

> Speaking of protein powders,

>

> Does anyone believe for any reason that so-called " undenatured " protein

> powders are any different than real whey?

>

> I've been using Designer Whey (not as the bulk of my protein

source), which

> claims to be undenatured, not cross-linked, and pre-digested. It

also happens

> to be about 8 times cheaper than Goat-tein. I would just drink

whey, but I

> don't have the equipment to make it in a way that isn't a total pain

in the ass

> for me.

>

> Sally's opinion is that all protein powders will create vitamin A

deficiency

> regardless of processing, and I assume she means because there's no

fat. But

> this doesn't strike me as very sound logic. Obviously if one

consumes nothing

> but protein powders one will get vitamin A deficiency, but if one's

diet

> consists of enormous amounts of raw cream, liver, and cod liver oil,

this seems

> unlikely. Even if there's any reason you need *dietary* vitamin A

simultaneous

> to the protein, rather than using stored A, you can solve the

problem by

> taking butter oil or CLO with the protein. Besides, muscle meat

doesn't have

> significant vitamin A to my knowledge anyway.

>

> Any thoughts?

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/03 8:25:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,

toragua@... writes:

> you are an order of magnitude of. It's more like 0.3 - 0.7%.

> The casein would not be part of the whey. There are way more carbs

> than protein in there.

>

Thanks . The DW site may have been speaking of percentage of solid

mass, rather than total weight.

It looks, then, like a high-quality protein powder would be superior for a

pre-workout meal compared to liquid whey, which is unfortunate in the cost

department.

Barring some discovery that it might be harmful to health, I'd recommend

Designer Whey to skinny people looking to throw on the pounds, which I've been

using consistently for pre- and post-workout the last few weeks, and have been

getting noticeably bigger faster. It's nearly twice as effective as junk whey

in a double blind study

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/03 8:55:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,

kacheson@... writes:

> I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. I have expressed

> this view before in relation to such things as the butter oil with the X

> factor. This is the main selling point for this product.

Well you can't get more " NT " than butter oil, since Price invented it!

> writes:

> <NT is founded on the principle that much processing increases nutrient

> value.

> For example sprouting, soaking, and cooking, and fermenting. If something

> is low-temperature dehydrated it should preserve the nutrients just fine.

> Also, I don't know how they " pre-digest " the protein, but if it actually

> involves

> any fermenting, this could theoretically increase the nutrient value.>>

>

> For the life of me i just can't compare the two. NT certainly does use

> sprouting, soaking etc but it is used in a different context than a highly

> processed commercially prepared product.

My point is that there is nothing inherently bad about " processing. " The

idea that foods should be " unprocessed " is more of a poetic notion than a

scientific one, kind of similar to equating " natural " with good and " unnatural "

with

bad. The fact is that more foods need processing than don't, and many require

quite extreme processing of all kinds, including virtually all plant foods.

Raw plant foods are loaded with irritants across the board, not to mention

antinutrients that need to be neturalized by rather laborious methods.

So the question then isn't whether something is " processed " but exactly what

that process is, and whether it happens to harm or benefit the product, or has

a neutral effect. Additionally, it doesn't matter who does the processing.

I don't know what you mean by a " commercial " product, but there is no

" commercial processing " as distinct from " personal processing. " For example,

when

Manna sprouts their rye kernels, it is commercial processing because they are a

commercial entity selling the product for a profit. But it is a nutritionally

superior product, and thoroughly " NT. "

Different protein powders are made with different methods. The only two

significant processing steps that Designer Whey goes through are 1) hydrolysis

and

2) dehydration. thinks that hydrolysis does not occur in fermentation,

but I think he thought I was suggesting that the lowering of the pH leads to

hydrolysis. I wasn't; I expect the hydrolysis to occur by proteolytic enzymes

due to the biological activity of fermentation. I don't see how the bacteria

can live without digesting proteins and using those proteins in the way that

suits them, like any other organisms does. Heidi has suggested that kefiring

hydrolyzes some of the protein. So it may well be that the hydrolysis, while

done by the addition of enzymes rather than bacteria, is something that occurs

in the sorts of processing NT recommends. Dehydration is clearly something th

at is used often throughout NT.

If, for example, you take the whey

> and use it separately in another food item chances are high that you

> (generic you) are using the rest of the product too. If i make raw yogurt

> and separate the whey i still come out with cream cheese. I end up eating

> the whole product. There is no processing at least as we normally think of

> processing.

I don't think what you are talking about is even remotely related to

processing. But more importantly, the idea that somehow one should eat the

" whole

food " has no basis in either empirical evidence or traditional cuisine but is

pure poetics. (I love poetry, read it and write it by the way, so I'm not

downing it! lol) Did not many traditional cultures eat butter? The skim milk

was

thrown to the pigs, so the whole food was not consumed. Did not some cultures

eat organ meats and leave the muscles to the dogs? Did not Price recommend

not only butter, but centrifuged butter oil and cod liver oil (rather than the

whole fish)?

Do you eat egg shells, or just the egg?

> If your reason for using it is convenience then fine <shrug> but

> convenience

> is a separate issue. That it also has less carbs might be important for

> your use but again i don't see it as being an NT idea.

I suppose whatever Sally thinks determines what is NT, since she wrote the

book, and she's against protein powders. I'm not really concerned with what

Sally things as much as whether it is harmful or beneficial to my health. But I

don't see any significant difference between DW's processing and the

processing we do with NT stuff as noted above.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Really? I figured whey had a similar protein content to milk. It's

between

> 6 and 7% by weight. Wouldn't a quart of whey have a pretty large

amount of

> protien? I don't consider that a vast volume to drink.

you are an order of magnitude of. It's more like 0.3 - 0.7%.

The casein would not be part of the whey. There are way more carbs

than protein in there.

http://www.milch-markt.de/e/molke/wertvoll/s6.html

http://cahpwww.vet.upenn.edu/mun/milk_protein.html

I don't think there is any cow/goat milk that would have 6 or 7% protein:

http://classes.aces.uiuc.edu/AnSci308/milkcomp.html

--

[Guest guest]

Judith wrote:

> Why consume protein powders in place of the real thing? Processing of any

> kind removes nutrients and, I'm sure whole food contain nutrients that we

> have not yet discovered.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. I have expressed

this view before in relation to such things as the butter oil with the X

factor. This is the main selling point for this product.

writes:

<NT is founded on the principle that much processing increases nutrient

value.

For example sprouting, soaking, and cooking, and fermenting. If something

is low-temperature dehydrated it should preserve the nutrients just fine.

Also, I don't know how they " pre-digest " the protein, but if it actually

involves

any fermenting, this could theoretically increase the nutrient value.>>

For the life of me i just can't compare the two. NT certainly does use

sprouting, soaking etc but it is used in a different context than a highly

processed commercially prepared product. If, for example, you take the whey

and use it separately in another food item chances are high that you

(generic you) are using the rest of the product too. If i make raw yogurt

and separate the whey i still come out with cream cheese. I end up eating

the whole product. There is no processing at least as we normally think of

processing.

<<The reason I use it is because it is vastly more convenient for me, and

I've

had some bad luck recently with making whey successfully. I'm going to try

to

buy some cheap off a cheese-making farmer soon.>>

If your reason for using it is convenience then fine <shrug> but convenience

is a separate issue. That it also has less carbs might be important for

your use but again i don't see it as being an NT idea.

<<I'm not completely sure of the processing and will try to look into it

further, but they claim it is undenatured>>

Since i don't know a heck of a lot about protein powders it looked up and am

including a couple of URL's:

http://www.affordablesupplements.com/designer.asp

http://labelinfo.nutritionexpress.com/Powder.aspx?

If it works for you thats fine with me but it looks to me to be very

different than something NT styled.

JMO

Kathy A.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

Say rather that I doubt there's anything like the degree of hydrolysis

you'd find in commercial hydrolyzed powders in fermented whey.

> thinks that hydrolysis does not occur in fermentation,

>but I think he thought I was suggesting that the lowering of the pH leads to

>hydrolysis. I wasn't; I expect the hydrolysis to occur by proteolytic

>enzymes

>due to the biological activity of fermentation. I don't see how the bacteria

>can live without digesting proteins and using those proteins in the way that

>suits them, like any other organisms does. Heidi has suggested that kefiring

>hydrolyzes some of the protein.

-

[Guest guest]

Hmmm...I might try this Chris. How much do you take at a time? And

based on your earlier post mentioning that pre-workout protein is far

more effective than post-workout protein, is it really necessary to

take the protein powder after the workout too? Wouldn't a meal with

carbs and fat be better then? Thanks for the tip, I'm just getting

into a weight training routing. I'm skinny too and trying to put on

some bulk.

Tom

> In a message dated 12/14/03 8:25:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> toragua@y... writes:

>

> > you are an order of magnitude of. It's more like 0.3 - 0.7%.

> > The casein would not be part of the whey. There are way more carbs

> > than protein in there.

> >

>

>

> Thanks . The DW site may have been speaking of percentage of

solid

> mass, rather than total weight.

>

> It looks, then, like a high-quality protein powder would be superior

for a

> pre-workout meal compared to liquid whey, which is unfortunate in

the cost

> department.

>

> Barring some discovery that it might be harmful to health, I'd

recommend

> Designer Whey to skinny people looking to throw on the pounds, which

I've been

> using consistently for pre- and post-workout the last few weeks, and

have been

> getting noticeably bigger faster. It's nearly twice as effective as

junk whey

> in a double blind study

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/03 3:16:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,

cassiusdio@... writes:

> Hmmm...I might try this Chris. How much do you take at a time? And

> based on your earlier post mentioning that pre-workout protein is far

> more effective than post-workout protein, is it really necessary to

> take the protein powder after the workout too? Wouldn't a meal with

> carbs and fat be better then? Thanks for the tip, I'm just getting

> into a weight training routing. I'm skinny too and trying to put on

> some bulk.

Tom,

You may be right. However, I don't see how it is counter-productive to take

it after as well. My thought is, in case my cardio warmup or whatever else

happens to use some of the protein for energy simply because I didn't eat carbs

with it or something. It's just insurance.

I would NOT eat fat immediately after the workout. Eat the carbs, wait 20

minutes or so, then eat all the fat you want. And lots of it.

I usually take two scoops before the workout, one after it, with, lately, 2

tbsp mollasses and 1 tbsp maple syrup. Raw honey is ideal but I'm out.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/03 12:14:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Say rather that I doubt there's anything like the degree of hydrolysis

> you'd find in commercial hydrolyzed powders in fermented whey.

Ok, but since the hydrolysis occurs in the stomach, isn't the end product the

same by the time it is absorbed, unlike oxidized fats? So what's the

difference?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/03 9:12:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Was the study commissioned by the company itself?

I'm not sure. I believe it was done at a University, but I have no idea who

payed for it, etc.

I don't see how it's particularly relevant. In a double blind study, there's

no way for anyone to introduce bias, because neither the patients nor those

administering the independent variable or measuring the dependent variables

know who is getting what. If the study were not double blind, I would certainly

be more suspicious of a study the company funded itself, or worse, conducted

itself.

Besides, from an " NT " perspective, despite NT being against protein powders,

it makes sense, since this product is differentiated from most others widely

available by using processing methods that do not damage the proteins.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/03 12:15:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Well, can you provide a reference for the study? I am ALWAYS

> suspicious of studies that are commissioned by those who stand to

> gain financially from the results. While it may have been a double

> blind study, the devil may still exist in the details.... as anyone

> who has read some of the critiques of many of the studies on

> saturated fats should know....

Oh, it gets worse. I just talked to " Janet " from Designer Whey, and she told

me they had a " confidentiality agreement " with the university that conducted

the study and the people who took part as subjects! I told her it was

scientifically and intellectually dishonest to publish vague information on

their

website about a supposed double-blind study while the study is unpublished and

no

citation can be provided for peer- or consumer-review. She told me of course

it wasn't and " you have to have a confidentiality agreement, " which strikes

me as sheer lunacy-- of course you have a confidentiality agreement in regards

to the personal information of the subjects, but not of the methods,

procedure, and results of the study!!!

Supposedly she is going to call me back with " what information I can give

you " , so I'll keep you tuned in.

>

> Also, the notion that this protein is twice as effective as other

> proteins (which others?) seems like a rather strong statement to me,

> and we would need a precise definition of what exactly twice as

> effective would mean.

Quantified by increases in lean body mass, which is what I'm recommending it

for. The speed of digestion is going to be the major factor when used before

and after a workout, and supposedly cross-linked proteins can be less usable,

at least milk proteins, though I haven't looked into that claim (but it's a

major claim of raw milk promoters). While it makes little sense that it would

be " twice as effective " in regards to other issues, research, from what I've

read, shows that quickly digestible protein available immediately after a

workout makes a big difference in the rate of muscle gain, so by this measure it

makes sense to me.

Also, supposedly protein powders under high-temp processing in the powdering

process can form excitotoxins, and very few of the protein powders currently

available use low-temp processing, and the other one I know of, Goat-Tein, is

10 times as expensive as DW.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:45:42 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Re: Protein isolates

>

>

>

> Barring some discovery that it might be harmful to health, I'd recommend

> Designer Whey to skinny people looking to throw on the pounds, which I've been

> using consistently for pre- and post-workout the last few weeks, and have been

> getting noticeably bigger faster. It's nearly twice as effective as junk whey

> in a double blind study

>

> Chris

>

>

Was the study commissioned by the company itself?

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 12/15/03 9:12:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@p... writes:

>

> > Was the study commissioned by the company itself?

>

> I'm not sure. I believe it was done at a University, but I have no

idea who

> payed for it, etc.

>

> I don't see how it's particularly relevant. In a double blind

study, there's

> no way for anyone to introduce bias, because neither the patients

nor those

> administering the independent variable or measuring the dependent

variables

> know who is getting what. If the study were not double blind, I

would certainly

> be more suspicious of a study the company funded itself, or worse,

conducted

> itself.

>

Well, can you provide a reference for the study? I am ALWAYS

suspicious of studies that are commissioned by those who stand to

gain financially from the results. While it may have been a double

blind study, the devil may still exist in the details.... as anyone

who has read some of the critiques of many of the studies on

saturated fats should know....

Also, the notion that this protein is twice as effective as other

proteins (which others?) seems like a rather strong statement to me,

and we would need a precise definition of what exactly twice as

effective would mean.

> Besides, from an " NT " perspective, despite NT being against protein

powders,

> it makes sense, since this product is differentiated from most

others widely

> available by using processing methods that do not damage the

proteins.

>

> Chris

I never implied in any way that using such processing methods would

not be beneficial. I am questioning the fact that it is twice as

effective, and I am questioning the objectivity of the study.

[Guest guest]

The study was sponsored by Designer Whey. They had 9 athletes using

Designer Whey, and 11 using " regular " whey protein. Seems like quite

a small sample group to be statistically reliable. The site I found

(I'm at work, and just did a quick search) didn't have much more

information that that.

I would not cite this as objective evidence of the product's

effectiveness.

> > In a message dated 12/15/03 9:12:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> > implode7@p... writes:

> >

> > > Was the study commissioned by the company itself?

> >

> > I'm not sure. I believe it was done at a University, but I have

no

> idea who

> > payed for it, etc.

> >

> > I don't see how it's particularly relevant. In a double blind

> study, there's

> > no way for anyone to introduce bias, because neither the patients

> nor those

> > administering the independent variable or measuring the dependent

> variables

> > know who is getting what. If the study were not double blind, I

> would certainly

> > be more suspicious of a study the company funded itself, or

worse,

> conducted

> > itself.

> >

>

> Well, can you provide a reference for the study? I am ALWAYS

> suspicious of studies that are commissioned by those who stand to

> gain financially from the results. While it may have been a double

> blind study, the devil may still exist in the details.... as anyone

> who has read some of the critiques of many of the studies on

> saturated fats should know....

>

> Also, the notion that this protein is twice as effective as other

> proteins (which others?) seems like a rather strong statement to

me,

> and we would need a precise definition of what exactly twice as

> effective would mean.

>

> > Besides, from an " NT " perspective, despite NT being against

protein

> powders,

> > it makes sense, since this product is differentiated from most

> others widely

> > available by using processing methods that do not damage the

> proteins.

> >

> > Chris

>

> I never implied in any way that using such processing methods would

> not be beneficial. I am questioning the fact that it is twice as

> effective, and I am questioning the objectivity of the study.

[Guest guest]

<<Well you can't get more " NT " than butter oil, since Price invented it>>

Really? He invented it?? I was in the impression that he found it (x factor)

but what i read is how it is best to get the " deep yellow butter " made in

the spring as that is when most x factor is found.

<<My point is that there is nothing inherently bad about " processing. " The

idea that foods should be " unprocessed " is more of a poetic notion than a

scientific one,

That is not what you said and i didn't get that as being your point. You did

say that the whey protein drink was NT.

<< kind of similar to equating " natural " with good and " unnatural " with

bad. The fact is that more foods need processing than don't, and many

require

quite extreme processing of all kinds, including virtually all plant foods.

Raw plant foods are loaded with irritants across the board, not to mention

antinutrients that need to be neturalized by rather laborious methods.>>

Your changing the topic. There was no discussion on natural/unnatural just

whether protein powder is NT or not. Processing such as turning milk to

yogurt or butter or sprouting seeds is hardly the same as a highly processed

whey powder. One that is as its name implies is a designer product that they

spent years formulating.

<<a neutral effect. Additionally, it doesn't matter who does the

processing.

I don't know what you mean by a " commercial " product, but there is no

" commercial processing " as distinct from " personal processing. " For

example, when

Manna sprouts their rye kernels, it is commercial processing because they

are a

commercial entity selling the product for a profit. But it is a

nutritionally

superior product, and thoroughly " NT. " >>

Again your rambling off citing other food items as comparison. The original

question was about calling Designer whey protein powder as an NT food. The

" commercial product " was referring to whey protein powder. After looking at

the ingredient list and the ads about how it has been scientifically

researched, upgraded and reformulated i call it a " commercial processed "

product. However to use your example we can all make bread at home. OTOH i

have no idea how to make designer whey protein powder at home.

I am curious though why you feel that bread made by Manna would be more

nutritious than bread made at home in the kitchen.

<<I don't think what you are talking about is even remotely related to

processing. But more importantly, the idea that somehow one should eat the

" whole

food " has no basis in either empirical evidence or traditional cuisine but

is

pure poetics. >>

Really? According to who or should that be whom?? I used butter as a

reference as to natural processing. Seemed natural and logical enough to

me.

<<thrown to the pigs, so the whole food was not consumed. Did not some

cultures

eat organ meats and leave the muscles to the dogs? Did not Price recommend

not only butter, but centrifuged butter oil and cod liver oil (rather than

the

whole fish)?>>

your rambling. I can't imagine that many people ate only the organ

meats and tossed the rest to the dogs and i don't see how it compares at all

to processed whey powder. Prices work was several decades ago and i have no

idea where people would get centrifuged butter oil or even why they would

bother. Butter would be what people ate and it would have the butter oil/ x

factor in it. CLO has its uses but its not something that i would normally

eat but then it has nothing to do with protein powder either.

<< suppose whatever Sally thinks determines what is NT, since she wrote the

book, and she's against protein powders. I'm not really concerned with what

Sally things as much as whether it is harmful or beneficial to my health.

But I

don't see any significant difference between DW's processing and the

processing we do with NT stuff as noted above.>>

Perhaps Sally knows more than most of us, but then i never said anything

about Sally at all so save your sarcasm . Nor am i concerned about it being

healthy or not. That was not especially the point. Designer whey protein

powder is a scientifically formulated and prepared product that bares no

resemblance to NT.

Kathy A.

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 12/15/03 12:15:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@p... writes:

>

>

> Also, supposedly protein powders under high-temp processing in the

powdering

> process can form excitotoxins, and very few of the protein powders

currently

> available use low-temp processing, and the other one I know of,

Goat-Tein, is

> 10 times as expensive as DW.

>

> Chris

>

Yes - Goatein is certainly more expensive, but I trust the company a

lot more, and given the vague and misleading advertising by Designer

Whey, I trust them even less. I have been using protein supplements a

lot less that I did formerly, and I am noticing absolutely no

difference at all in strength gains and muscle gains, though

admittedly, I am not trying per se to add muscle.