Biological Value

[Guest guest]

Similar to sugar being 100 on the " glycemic index " , the " biological

value " of eggs is 100.

The term was coined to relate how easy it is to assimilate protein. Google BV or

" biological value " to find charts that compare proteins by this measure.

Duncan Crow

[Guest guest]

Duncan,

re:

> Similar to sugar being 100 on the " glycemic index " , the " biological

> value " of eggs is 100.

> The term was coined to relate how easy it is to assimilate protein.

Google BV or " biological value " to find charts that compare proteins

by this measure.

The part you should pay attention to following Dottie's BV link, the

part I was trying to get you to understand, is this:

" The concept of BV has the merit that it can be used to assess

requirements of protein derived from foods with known quality

differences, because BV is directly related to the efficiency of

protein utilisation. It however has some serious limitations. It

ignores the importance of factors which influence digestion of the

protein and interaction of protein with other dietary factors before

absorption. "

In other words: BV is a rough and approximate estimate based on a

rough and approximate theoretical concept (it is calculated by

assessing the absorption of one component only, nitrogen, and very,

very roughly and approximately at that) that has little bearing on the

actual bioavailability of proteins, the latter being a function of a

much more complex plethora of factors that influence digestion.

Therefore it is useful to talk about " bioavailability " and useless to

talk about " biologic value " when we are trying to address the best

digestive scenario for a cancer patient rather than the minimum amount

of protein that will prevent death from starvation (which is what the

WHO standards for BV were developed to roughly evaluate).

Happy bioavailable eating to you regardless of the biologic value of

what you eat,

Elena

[Guest guest]

> Elena, I think you missed the salient point regarding whey digestion;

> a little more reading will reveal that undenatured whey protein requires

> very little digestion for absorption. Good thing too, because in mammals

> the survival of the species depends on it.

Which species exactly do you have in mind? Far as I know, " free whey "

is not encountered in nature, and digestion of proteins present in all

milk of all mammals has always depended on the WHOLE complex of

substances present in their milk rather than on any industry capable

of splitting it into any number of any separate constituents. So

which mammalian species depended on processed whey for its survival?

Let me guess... the Flying Pig?.. ;-) Betting the survival of your

species on a mass-producing food industry doesn't seem to be an

evolutionary path that has been taken by many... or any... of the

species currently in existence. Humans simply haven't been around

long enough to find out and haven't been doing this for quite long

enough to join the Flying Pig in its evolutionary fate -- but they are

currently smack in the process of finding out -- fast enough.

Elena

[Guest guest]

> > Elena, I think you missed the salient point regarding whey

> > digestion; a little more reading will reveal that undenatured whey

> > protein requires very little digestion for absorption. Good thing

> > too, because in mammals the survival of the species depends on it.

> Elena wrote:

> Which species exactly do you have in mind?

Elena, I'm referring to ALL mammalian species. With regard to our

glutathione discussion, the proteins in mammalian whey that make

glutathione are exactly the same in all mammals. The other components

differ and some species-specific components exist, but what we're

interested in here is the commonality of the components because for

example we can get a lot of product from the larger animals that is

an exact match to our own requirements.

> Far as I know, " free whey "

> is not encountered in nature, and digestion of proteins present in all

> milk of all mammals has always depended on the WHOLE complex of

> substances present in their milk rather than on any industry capable

> of splitting it into any number of any separate constituents.

It seems by the above passage that you're confusing " whole milk "

components, many of which are indeed species dependent, with the

" whey " components that all mammals have in common.

The survival of each specie relies on its ability to use the milk of

that specie. Certain components are species-specific and some are

exactly the same for all mammals. These common components are

plentiful in cold processed whey, and they happen to be the very

easily-assimilated components that make the crucial glutathione.

> So

> which mammalian species depended on processed whey for its

> survival?

Of course none of us depend on cold-processed whey for survival, but

if you want a good WHOLE milk product you can readily assimilate,

that would be human milk.

Duncan Crow