Our Diets....

[Beastt]

Yep it is sad.

(Snip...)

Another little tid bit of information. We are the only continent [North America] that drinks milk non stop. Yet we have the highest occurance of calcium deficiency diseases. [osteoporosis, bone fracture, arthritis, tooth decay etc.]

Very good point and thank you for making it. According to a number of studies, the body is only able to assimilate a small amount of calcium per day. Magnesium may help slightly but the results of the studies suggest that the key is to avoid eating those things that cause the skeletal structure to lose calcium.

In each of the below listed studies it was found that groups eating a high protein diet, (the standard American diet qualifies), always suffered a negative calcium balance regardless of the levels of supplimental calcium consumed. Those on a lower-protein diet enjoyed a positive calcium balance with or without supplimental calcium intake.

The reason for this is that protein, especially in large quantities, alters the blood PH toward the acidic. The body draws on calcium stores, (the bones), to add a base to the blood neutralizing this effect. A small amount of that calcium is reabsorbed by the body but most is filtered out by the kidneys, as is the excess protein, and excreted in the urine.

This explains why the U.S., despite the constant intake of calcium through milk and suppliments, suffers the highest rate of osteoporosis in the world. Other countries with far lower calcium intake show positive calcium balance as the norm while osteoporosis has reached epidemic proportions in America. Milk contains calcium but also large amounts of protein which is already consumed to excess. The protein creates the acidic blood PH and the result is the loss of any calcium absorbed from the milk as well as the loss of calcium drawn from the bones.

I hope this helps a few people avoid the debilitating affects of osteoporosis and perhaps even reduces the incidence of kidney disease to some degree.

Certainly there will be those who will choose not to believe the results of the studies and will have opposing opinions. The debate about whether smoking was harmful raged for quite some time as well, despite all the medical evidence pointing to what we know now as indisputable. It is unlikely that this topic will be any different. If the information helps one person, then it served a noble purpose.

Study: Anad, C., "Effect of Protein Intake on Calcium Balance of Young Men given 500mg Calcium Daily." Journal of Nutrition, 104:695, 1974

Study: Hegsted, M., "Urinary Calcium and Calcium Balance in Young Men as Affected by Level of Protein and Phosphorus Intake." Journal of Nutrition, 111:53, 1981

Study: Walker, R., "Calcium Retention in the Adult Human Male.", Journal of Nutrition, 102:1297, 1972

Study: Johnson, N., "Effect of Level of Protein Intake on Urinary and Fecal Calcium and Calcium Retention of Young Adult Males." Journal of Nutrition, 100:1425, 1970

Study: Linkswiler, H., "Calcium Retention of Young Adult Males as Affected by Level of Protein and by Calcium Intake.", Trans New York Academy of Science, 36:333, 1974

 

[michael112174]

im trying to be on a diet...and its working...but i need my iced cappucino from dunkin donuts once a week!

 

[benicia]

I think we should treat our bodies as sacred temples

and try to eat as healthy as possible although it can be

real hard. Junk food can taste so good. We should just

try our best to eat right.

 

[benicia]

I think we should treat our bodies as sacred temples

and try to eat as healthy as possible although it can be

real hard. Junk food can taste so good. We should just

try our best to eat right.

 

[benicia]

 

[Multi-Elis]

Another little tid bit of information. We are the only continent [North America] that drinks milk non stop. Yet we have the highest occurance of calcium deficiency diseases. [osteoporosis, bone fracture, arthritis, tooth decay etc.]

That's probably mostly because of the soda drinks everybody in America drinks (explination below)

The reason for this is that protein, especially in large quantities, alters the blood PH toward the acidic

The theory I heared might shed new light on it.

You see, Cocacola and all those have phosphoric acid. This acid does not get digested by our system so that it makes our blood acidic. This causes the calcium to leek out of the bones. Calcium makes our blood basic. One cup of milk has all the calcium you need in a day, but with a regular "western" diet, you only absorbe a fifth! It's not just the coke. Grains also get digested leaving your blood acidic. And so does meat, and hard cheese. On the other hand, milk, soft cheese, vegetables, etc, make your blood more basic. Even if you eat lemons, it's an acid that gets digested and exhailed in your breath.
So perhaps the protein refered to is the meat and hard cheeses. Another option to lowering your acidity in your blood is tkaing baking soda. But watch out, don't take too much, it is bad like salt!

Well if you are wondering where I am telling you all this, I invite you to read the artical in New Scientist year 2001, probably december, I can never remember, but it's a whole artical on that.

Why do Americans tend to eat bad? I don't know. My problem is that I eat too much bread.

 

[Beastt]

That's probably mostly because of the soda drinks everybody in America drinks (explination below)

The theory I heared might shed new light on it.

You see, Cocacola and all those have phosphoric acid. This acid does not get digested by our system so that it makes our blood acidic. This causes the calcium to leek out of the bones. Calcium makes our blood basic. One cup of milk has all the calcium you need in a day, but with a regular "western" diet, you only absorbe a fifth! It's not just the coke. Grains also get digested leaving your blood acidic. And so does meat, and hard cheese. On the other hand, milk, soft cheese, vegetables, etc, make your blood more basic. Even if you eat lemons, it's an acid that gets digested and exhailed in your breath.
So perhaps the protein refered to is the meat and hard cheeses. Another option to lowering your acidity in your blood is tkaing baking soda. But watch out, don't take too much, it is bad like salt!

Well if you are wondering where I am telling you all this, I invite you to read the artical in New Scientist year 2001, probably december, I can never remember, but it's a whole artical on that.

Why do Americans tend to eat bad? I don't know. My problem is that I eat too much bread.

You've hit upon the problem but only partially. If you'll note my post above and the studies referenced, the only variable used in the studies was protein intake. In one of the studies in particular, the subjects were divided into two groups - a low-protein group and a high-protein group. Each of those groups were further divided into 5 more groups, each taking a different amount of supplimental calcium. The quantity of supplimental calcium ranged from none to 1400 milligrams per day. At the conclusion of the test, everyone on the high-protein diet showed a loss of calcium from the skeletal structure. Everyone on the low-protein diet showed a gain - a positive calcium balance. Additional research showed that as little as 75 grams of protein per day was enough to completely offset the amount of calcium that the body can assimilate in a day. The average American consumes 140 to 160 grams of protein per day and thusly, they excrete more calcium in their urine each day than their bodies can absorb.

The reason for this is as you state. Protein turns the blood PH toward the acidic end of the scale and the body counters this by drawing calcium out of the skeletal structure. The body is able to reassimilate only a small amount of this calcium. The rest is filtered from the blood by the kidneys, which over time causes damage to the kidneys. As a result, almost all of the calcium suppliments taken in the U.S. end up in the toilet.

Doctors, who are given less than 3-hours of nutrition study for each 4-years of medical school, will tell you to drink lots of milk. The protein in the milk will rob your body of calcium. Americans consume more calcium than almost any other country in the world yet we suffer one of the highest incidence of osteoporosis. Nutritionists will give you advice in direct opposition to that given by most doctors. Dr. John McDougall, who is a nutritionist, says that the average, active, healthy adult male requires about 20 grams of protein daily.

And yet, everyone continues to be concerned that they won't get enough protein. Protein, like every other nutrient is needed in moderation. Too much protein is detrimental.

 

[KGirl]

It seems like junky food is everywhere like sin is everywhere man.. Everything that's bad is so freakishly hard to avoid nowadays.

 

[2Bhumble]

It's easier to eat "yummy" junk food and to be sedentary than to eat with discipline and exercise regularly. Health and fitness doesn't come in a bottle, it comes from hard (but rewarding) work. Everything is at our fingertips these days. Internet, remote control, etc. We want it quick, easy and to have many options and choices. Myself included. The "widening of America" really is an epidemic. Yes technology is great but obviously there's a down side to it. People just don't move like they used to. I noticed a low carb store in my neighborhood. Everything sold there is considered low carb. It's actually a good idea. People flock in there hoping to get a fit body by simply eating what they sell - again it's easy. Costs more but it's easy. 50 years ago there wasn't an epidemic of obesity. There wasn't as many sedentary options, there wasn't the low carb craze and there certainly wan't "super size" meals on every corner. People picked one or two TV shows per week. If they weren't satisfied with the channel, they would actually walk across the room and change it.

Not trying to rant too much, these are just my thoughts on the condition of the North American diet and health.

 

[Beastt]

It's easier to eat "yummy" junk food and to be sedentary than to eat with discipline and exercise regularly. Health and fitness doesn't come in a bottle, it comes from hard (but rewarding) work. Everything is at our fingertips these days. Internet, remote control, etc. We want it quick, easy and to have many options and choices. Myself included. The "widening of America" really is an epidemic. Yes technology is great but obviously there's a down side to it. People just don't move like they used to. I noticed a low carb store in my neighborhood. Everything sold there is considered low carb. It's actually a good idea. People flock in there hoping to get a fit body by simply eating what they sell - again it's easy. Costs more but it's easy. 50 years ago there wasn't an epidemic of obesity. There wasn't as many sedentary options, there wasn't the low carb craze and there certainly wan't "super size" meals on every corner. People picked one or two TV shows per week. If they weren't satisfied with the channel, they would actually walk across the room and change it.

Not trying to rant too much, these are just my thoughts on the condition of the North American diet and health.

How nice it is to find a post that I can whole-heartedly agree with. The low-carb store would seem to me to be yet another symptom of America wanting everything to be easy including weight loss. I have to fall short of calling it a "good idea", but that's my only disagreement. We don't want to exercise and we, (the majority of the population), don't want to limit what we eat. So we go the low-carb route to weight loss. It may promote weight loss and in extreme cases be better than not losing the weight but it also promotes high-fat and high-protein -- two things America is already suffering from. High-fat leads to heart problems, atherosclerosis, stroke, hypertension, etc. Excess protein leads to osteoporosis and has been linked to kidney problems. Even on a standard diet, America eats excessive protein and has been trained to always look for more. Protein is touted as the wonder nutrient. Alas, it's like all the others. Too little is bad, too much is bad and moderation is just right.

The body is designed to burn primarily carbohydrates with fats as a back-up fuel source. Protein is only designed for building or rebuilding tissues, not as an energy source. The body is poorly equipped to utilize protein for energy and when forced to do so, also breaks down muscle tissue. Since muscle tissue helps to burn fat, it's not a healthy, sound method to weight loss. Excess protein is mostly excreted in urine but some is store as fat.



All of this is reminding me that I need to get out on my bike.

 

[Joe84]

The average American consumes 140 to 160 grams of protein per day...

No way is this true! That is a lot of protein... I struggle to get that much into my diet. I have to buy powders to get enough.

Protein is not unhealthy. It's essential. No, it's not meant to be used as a fuel source, and if your body tries, it does it very inefficiently. But that's a good thing (if you're trying to lose fat). Lets say you eat 100 grams of protien. 4 calories in a gram of protien - that's 400 calories, right?

Wrong!

Because your body burns protien inefficiently, 30% of the calories in the protien are used simply in the digestion of the food (This is called the "thermic effect" of food. Of course, all food takes energy to be digested, but protien more so than the other macronutrients. I know that fat only needs about 2% of it's own energy to be digested, and carbohydrate not much more). Not only that, but protien helps you feel fuller. So you eat less, and get a lot less calories. (and no, you don't lose muscle if/when your body uses dietry protien for energy. Some bodybuilders eat nothing but tuna straight out of the can for 3 months before a competition because it's one of the best - not to say hardest - ways to get rid of fat fast without losing any muscle)

Regarding the benefits of eating protien, this is only the tip of the iceberg. However, yes, it makes your blood more acidic, and yes, this can lead to calcium being "leached" from your bones. But this does not make any calcium you eat useless, including supplements. Think about it - if the protien you eat will go to your blood and make it acidic, the calcium you eat is going to go to your blood too, and make it alkaline. Problem solved. Most bodybuilders take calcium supplements to counter the calcium sapping effects of heavy resistance training and high-protein diets. These guys aim for over a gram of protien per pound of body weight (more like 2 grams per pound when they're cutting), and I'm sure I don't need to tell you how much these guys weigh!

Bottom line - both calcium and protien are needed for building muscle. If it was a question of one or the other (like you guys are making it out to be), then how would it be possible to ever gain any muscle at all?

 

[brokenbananas]

I would have to agree with Joe84. 140-160 g protein is a lot of protein. That's about 6 chicken breasts throughout the day if one ate nothing else proteinwise. When I tracked all my food, I found that I typically ate 70-90 g protein a day. I, too, periodically need to take whey protein to get enough protein. It was my understanding that one's proteins needs depend on a person's LEAN BODY MASS and not weight. If you have a high bodyfat % and very sedentary, you may not require as much protein as someone who has a much high LBM and does a lot of weight lifting.

For a woman, I have a 145 lb LBM and I do weightlifting 3-4x/wk and cardio 5-7 days/wk on a regular basis. For me I found 1 g/1 lb of LBM is good. Some may require 0.8 g/1 lb of LBM or 1.25 g/1 lb of LBM, which some of my bodybuilder & powerlifter friends do. You really need to look at how you exercise, if you exercise, bodyfat levels. There is no one size fits all because everyone is different. There are general guidelines or rules.

As far as diets, I say eat as naturally as possible and try to avoid processed foods, refined sugar, white flour products and one will greatly increase one's health benefits & longevity. Also, trying to avoid meats that have hormones & other junk would be good.

Why is junk food, these fad diets or even diets in general so prevalent? $$$$$, people want something for nothing, a quick fix, and people truly hate being accountable for their poor choices. That's what it really boils down to.

Although I am currently overweight, I realize it won't come off so quickly and easily. I exercise every day, whether I feel like it or not (but I'm an exercise junkie). I love fattening foods, but know that if I make that choice, I will pay for it, despite exercising regularly and hard. So, despite a super busy life, I am choosing to make better choices and face the consequences. No weird diets or diets for me.

I am slowly changing my way of eating, but first it started with my heart & mind. I worked on figuring out why I overate and what my relationship with food was. Being overweight was not only because I ate more calories than my body needed, but it was due to how I related to food and my self-esteem. I intellectually knew who I was in Christ, but when I knew in my heart was a different story. When you realize genuinely that you're a child of the King, you view things differently.

As a result, I've worked on my obsessive compulsive behaviors and how I feel about myself. I still have a ways to go. I also can say No...that everything I do with people does not have to revolve around food. I've been on this journey for nearly 3 yrs now and it's been a hard road. But, the grounds I've made will hopefully prevent my children from experiencing the self-esteem issues I've had.

You really have to look at the root cause of why people make the choices they make and change that. Most of the time, it has nothing to do with food. That's just a mask. Identify the root cause and eliminate it, and I bet you have your food problems resolved.

Although I am far from my goal, I feel good about who I am, love Jesus, and if a person thinks I look bad or fat, so what? I'm not here to please them. I live for Jesus and I know that I do the best I can where I am and that's good enough for Jesus. So, why would I care what others think?

Just my 2 or 4 cents,
Doris

 

[Beastt]

(Snip...)
"Because your body burns protien inefficiently..."

Please understand that this is with all due respect to your obvious knowledge on the subject, but the body does not "burn" protein. It is either used to build/repair body tissues, converted to fat and stored or excreted in the urine. The amount of energy that can be attributed to protein finds some variation among the experts but the range is 0% to 10% of total energy produced, and most, if not all, recommend against promoting the body to attempt to utilize protein for fuel as this is not the function of protein within the human body.

Regarding the benefits of eating protien, this is only the tip of the iceberg. However, yes, it makes your blood more acidic, and yes, this can lead to calcium being "leached" from your bones. But this does not make any calcium you eat useless, including supplements. Think about it - if the protien you eat will go to your blood and make it acidic, the calcium you eat is going to go to your blood too, and make it alkaline. Problem solved. Most bodybuilders take calcium supplements to counter the calcium sapping effects of heavy resistance training and high-protein diets. These guys aim for over a gram of protien per pound of body weight (more like 2 grams per pound when they're cutting), and I'm sure I don't need to tell you how much these guys weigh!

(...snip)

If I gave the impression that any calium ingested is useless, then I was unclear and offer an apology for the confusion. The body has very limited ability to assimilate calcium. A small amount can be assimilated each day which is more that sufficient if calcium stores are not routinely robbed to counter blood PH. Once you exceed this amount, any excess will be excreted in the urine. As with excess protein, this can and does lead to kidney disorders, including lending to the building of kidney stones.

Unless you dine on chalk, you will never eat as much calcium as you do protein, even on a relatively low protein diet. So the idea that the calcium ingested automatically offsets the acidic effect of the protein is invalid. Ingested calcium will have an affect on blood PH but since this effect is limited, bone mass will be lost due to removal of calcium from the skeletal structure to adjust blood PH. This is why osteoporosis remains epidemic in America, despite the fact that Americans, on average, consume more calcium than almost any other country. In many countries where both calcium and protein are in short supply in the average diet, osteoporosis is all but non-existant.

"Kids nowadays... tend to go overboard when they discover bodybuilding and eat diets consisting of 50% - 70% protein -- something I believe to be totally unnecessary... [In] my formula for basic eating: eat about 1 gram of protein for every 2 pounds of body weight." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
Schwarzenegger, A., Arnold's Bodybuilding for Men , Simon and Schuster, 1981

(If you ate nothing but brocolli and consumed adequate calories, you would ingest more than 4-times the amount of protein Arnold suggests.)

Thanks for the information. A free exchange is always necessary for learning to occur. Would be nice if all forums took note of that.

 

[Joe84]

...the body does not "burn" protein. It is either used to build/repair body tissues, converted to fat and stored or excreted in the urine

If protein is converted to fat, stored, and then burned, would you not say that that was a rather inefficient process?

So is excreting it in the urine. That would be approximately... 0% efficient.

The amount of energy that can be attributed to protein finds some variation among the experts but the range is 0% to 10% of total energy produced

First of all... "experts"? What "experts"? I could tell you that tracns fats are an essential part of your diet. "Are you sure?", you might ask. "Trust me", I'd say. "I'm an expert". If only you asked "An expert at what?", you might find it was nothing to do with nutrition, but computers, or something else completely unrelated. The word "expert" is so commonly used within the world of nutrition, usually to sell something, that I have become completely intolerant of it.

Secondly, if I ate a diet that consisted of 100% protein (I don't, by the way), how could protein be attributed to only 0% to 10% of my total energy produced? If this is true, the only other place my body could take energy from is my fat reserves, and... hang on a minute... that's a good thing!

I'd just like to clarify though, I don't recommened that anybody eat a diet that is made up of 100% protien. It would near impossible to stick to, and wouldn't give you a full range of nutrients. Not to mention the cravings for carbohydrates you would get if not while on the diet, then straight after. You would but all of your fat back on in a matter of days if you didn't demonstrate a display of the world's greatest willpower.

Unless you dine on chalk, you will never eat as much calcium as you do protein, even on a relatively low protein diet. So the idea that the calcium ingested automatically offsets the acidic effect of the protein is invalid

Something I forgot to mention in my previous post is that carbohydrates and fat also turn the blood alkaline, so calcium is not alone in it's "PH battle" against the evil protein and it's amino acid minions (I apologise... I'm not quite sure where that came from...).

If it was, then you would have no skeleton left, considering the many kilos of protein that you have ingested in your lifetime compared to the miniscule amount of calcium.

"Kids nowadays... tend to go overboard when they discover bodybuilding and eat diets consisting of 50% - 70% protein -- something I believe to be totally unnecessary... [In] my formula for basic eating: eat about 1 gram of protein for every 2 pounds of body weight." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
Schwarzenegger, A., Arnold's Bodybuilding for Men , Simon and Schuster, 1981

I agree. 50 - 70% is overboard, but I would have to disagree that 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight is sufficient to optimise lean body mass gains, and it's definately not enough to maximise fat loss.

I notice that Arnie said "...my formula for basic eating...". Emphasis on "basic". I also noticed that you edited (snipped) heavily. Is he recommending a diet for a bodybuilder? Or someone looking to stay in shape?

(If you ate nothing but brocolli and consumed adequate calories, you would ingest more than 4-times the amount of protein Arnold suggests.)

I'd just like to point out that protein is fairly useless (for gaining lean body mass) unless it's complete, which protein from broccoli (or any other vegetable, unless combined) is not.

I ate a kilo of peas in a day once. Last time I ever eat so many greens in the space of 8 hours.

 

[Greenriser]

I've seen many diets and I've tried to stick with them. The best are usually the ones with lots of fibre, high protein, alot of carbohydrate in the morning. The biggest thing with diets (outside of vitamins, minerals and antioxidants) is making it good for your blood sugar. Some people I know drink green tea in the afternoon because of its affect on energy levels.

 

[Multi-Elis]

The artical I read in new scientist didn't say that protein was the cuase for acidifying the blood, but rather meat, grains, soft drinks with phosphoric acid and hard cheeses. Milk and vegitables had the opposite effect. It seemed as if whatever whey is taken out of hard cheeses is what makes the milk basic and the hard cheese acidic. The article didn't say anything about eggs and beans, (other sources of protein).

In a camp called "camp calcium" where they study calcium connextions with diets and exercise, they found out that in a cup of milk there is all the calcium that a teenage girl needs, but because of her american diet, she needs 5 times as much in order to absorbe it. You can neutrolise the acidic effect, by taking 5 times as much. Another technique, according to the new scientist article was to take baking soda, or pot ash ( I forget the officiel name for pot ash) to neutralize the acid. Older women taking it over the period of time of 10 years saved a kilo or so of bone.

I live in France. My grandparents came over from America to visit me. And what shocked me was their sugar intake. All the marmalade, sweet rolls, etc... but I know that my own diet has problems (too much french bread!)

 

[Beastt]

If protein is converted to fat, stored, and then burned, would you not say that that was a rather inefficient process?

So is excreting it in the urine. That would be approximately... 0% efficient.

Yes, I agree. It's very inefficient... which is exactly the point. Protein is a building material. Beyond what you need to build new body tissues and rebuild damaged tissues, some will become fat and the rest will be flushed, first from the body and then from the porcelain bowl.

First of all... "experts"? What "experts"? I could tell you that tracns fats are an essential part of your diet. "Are you sure?", you might ask. "Trust me", I'd say. "I'm an expert". If only you asked "An expert at what?", you might find it was nothing to do with nutrition, but computers, or something else completely unrelated. The word "expert" is so commonly used within the world of nutrition, usually to sell something, that I have become completely intolerant of it..

You're right. The word "expert" is not only overused but often misused. I hear it all of the time in regard to people who attended an 8-hour class on some subject. So, off the top of my head...

Dr. John McDougall - Nutritionist, Author
Dr. Neal Bernard - Nutritionist, Author
The Late, Nathan Pritikin - Nutritionist, Former owner/founder of The Pritikin Longevity Center
John Robbins - Author, Researcher
Frances Moore Lappe - Author, Researcher

Secondly, if I ate a diet that consisted of 100% protein (I don't, by the way), how could protein be attributed to only 0% to 10% of my total energy produced? If this is true, the only other place my body could take energy from is my fat reserves, and... hang on a minute... that's a good thing!.

I'm glad to hear that you're not trying for 100% protein. The suggestion alone makes me curious as to whether or not this would be possible without resorting to highly processed forms of pure protein. In many cases, especially in the cases of the more popular protein sources, there is a fair amount of fat included with the protein as well as other nutrients. Plant proteins probably contain less fat but I think many people under-estimate the amount of fat available in plant foods.

Burning fat reserves at a very slow rate while obtaining most of the body's energy from it's preferred fuel source -- carbohydrates, is a good thing. When the body receives nothing but protein, first, as you mentioned, the body begins to burn fat because it can't utilize protein well as an energy source, which again, is my point. If you ingested nothing but protein, then the body would use from 0% - 10% of that protein, as an inefficient fuel source and convert some to fat which is then broken down by the liver into ketones and the ketones are then burned as fuel. Which, again, as you stated is a very inefficient system. Ultimately, such a diet would lead to metabolic acidosis.

When talking about losing fat, one must remember that the human diet contains a number of things we'd rather not ingest, but have little choice. Among these things are hormones, antibiotics, (fed to livestock) and pesticides. The pesticides, (usually organo-halogens or chlorinated hydrocarbons), are fat soluble so that they don't wash off the crops in the rain. Because of this, they end up stored in the body's fat reserves. When you lose a lot of fat in a short period, these toxins are "unlocked" from the fat stores and released into the body. This is one of the reasons that care should be taken to lose fat at a moderate pace.

(...snip...)

Something I forgot to mention in my previous post is that carbohydrates and fat also turn the blood alkaline, so calcium is not alone in it's "PH battle" against the evil protein and it's amino acid minions (I apologise... I'm not quite sure where that came from...).

If it was, then you would have no skeleton left, considering the many kilos of protein that you have ingested in your lifetime compared to the miniscule amount of calcium.

No apology necessary. In fact, a look into the shenanigans for which the egg industry in America, specifically the National Commission on Egg Nutrition, are responsible suggests that the word "evil" may not be all that inappropriate. The words used by the court, (Judge Ernest G. Barnes, 1971, I believe) were, "false, deceptive, misleading and unfair". This was in regard to a claim made by the egg industry that there was no scientific evidence linking consumption of eggs to increased risk of heart attack. The Judge, in issuing his decision against the egg industry stopped short of the word "evil".
...but that's another issue.

Having "no skeleton left" is essentially, (though less exaggerated), what osteoporosis is. The skeleton is often so depleted that the texture of the bone becomes very sponge-like. Many sufferers have broken bones, (even vertebra and ribs), through the simple act of coughing or sneezing. A high level of hip fracture from falls in elderly actually occur in the reverse order. The hip bones become so weak that the bone breaks, (usually the condyle of the upper femur), just from the person placing their body weight on it. The fracture causes the fall.

Apparently, and I haven't found any research on this but I will look, since carbohydrates and fat shift the blood PH toward the alkaline side of the scale, they must do so in a fairly minimal way. Many studies have been done that all show the same thing. Low-protein diets lead to positive calcium balance while high-protein diets lead to negative calcium balance.

For Example:

1. Anad, C., "Effect of calcium intake on calcium balance of young men given 500mg calcium daily" - Journal of Nutrition, 104:695, 1974

2. Hegsted, M., "Urinary calcium and calcium balance in young men as affected by level of protein and phosphorus intake" - Journal of nutrition, 111:53, 1981

3. Walker, R., "Calcium Retention In the Adult Human Male As Affected by Protein Intake," Journal of Nutrition, 102:1297, 1972

4. Johnson, N., "Effect of Level of Protein Intake on Urinary and Fecal Calcium Retention of Young Adult Males," Journal of Nutrition, 100:1425, 1970

5. Linkswiler, H., "Calcium retention of young adult males as affected by levels of protein and calcium intake" - Trans New York Academy of Science, 36:333, 1974


Study #1
Calcium Intake (milligrams): 500
Change in Calcium on Low-Protein diet: +31
Change in Calcium on High-Protein diet: -120

Study #2
Calcium Intake (milligrams): 500
Change in Calcium on Low-Protein diet: +24
Change in Calcium on High-Protein diet: -116

Study #3
Calcium Intake (milligrams): 800
Change in Calcium on Low-Protein diet: +12
Change in Calcium on High-Protein diet: -85

Study #4
Calcium Intake (milligrams): 1400
Change in Calcium on Low-Protein diet: +10
Change in Calcium on High-Protein diet: -84

Study #5
Calcium Intake (milligrams): 1400
Change in Calcium on Low-Protein diet: +20
Change in Calcium on High-Protein diet: -65

Average
Calcium Intake (milligrams): 920
Change in Calcium on Low-Protein diet: +19
Change in Calcium on High-Protein diet: -94

"Throughout the world, the incidence of osteoporosis correlates directly with protein intake. In any given population, the greater the intake of protein, the more common and more severe will be the osteoporosis."
Chalmers, J., "Geographic Variations of Senile Osteoporosis," Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 52B:667, 1970

I agree. 50 - 70% is overboard, but I would have to disagree that 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight is sufficient to optimise lean body mass gains, and it's definately not enough to maximise fat loss.

I notice that Arnie said "...my formula for basic eating...". Emphasis on "basic". I also noticed that you edited (snipped) heavily. Is he recommending a diet for a bodybuilder? Or someone looking to stay in shape?

I agree with your skepticism regarding incomplete quotations. You always have to wonder what was removed and why. I'm glad to see that you're not one to happily grasp anything handed to you without a few questions being asked. Sorry about the snipped portions but the information came as a reference to the book rather than directly from the book so I included it exactly as I read it. I have had occassion to find some original sources which are quoted in the book I have, and have yet to find any edited quote, the meaning of which was changed when reading the passage in its entirety. It's generally considered to be a well-regarded source.

It seems the 1 gram per pound strategy works for Arnold. Since most people consume far more protein than necessary, and since excess protein is excreted in the urine, it follows that even bodybuilders could well be over-consuming. But the over-consumption of protein won't hamper the building of lean body mass. The negative results are a gradual, cummulative process and will show up years after the people are too old to compete at the pro level.

I'd just like to point out that protein is fairly useless (for gaining lean body mass) unless it's complete, which protein from broccoli (or any other vegetable, unless combined) is not.

What you've stated here is the subject of entire books which have been written to convey the importance of combining foods to obtain a complete protein. Many in the protein industry still cite the studies from which this idea came. The studies were performed in the 1940s using rats as test subjects. The studies not only showed a need for a high percentage of calories from protein but that eggs contained the "ideal" protein. This is why the idea of combining foods to obtain the best possible ratio of amino acids, used eggs as a model. One very popular book which outlined the importance and methods regarding combining protein sources was "Diet for a Small Planet", written by Frances Moore Lappe in the late 1960s.

Of course, knowledge and research don't stand still for long and many more studies, (using humans this time), have since been completed. The outcome of the studies using humans were quite different from the ones in which rats were used. Human tests showed that not only are eggs not the ideal protein source, but many plant sources are actually superior (for humans), than animal-sources. This newer information also showed that, while certainly not unhealthy, there really is no need to combine foods to obtain the proper levels/mix of amino acids.

Frances Lappe found the new information to be so compelling that in 1981 she issued a re-write of "Diet for a Small Planet", (the Anniversary issue), in which she referred to the ideas outlined in her original book regarding the need to combine foods for the best protein as "a myth". The original book contained 280 pages, of which 200 were dedicated to combining protein sources. The newer book was expanded to 455 pages, and only 60 concern combining proteins and those were mostly about how the ideas concerning the benefits of combining proteins have changed.

I ate a kilo of peas in a day once. Last time I ever eat so many greens in the space of 8 hours.

LOL! Yeah, can't disagree at all with you there!

It's important, especially for me since I've spent a lot of time reading the "common knowledge" of today, to remember that research methods change, usually for the better, and therefore, the results change, hopefully in positive respects regarding accuracy. (So remind me once in a while, okay?) What I know as "true" today, may well be the laughable myths of tomorrow. I'm not going to like that when it happens, since I'll have to re-learn much of what I "know" now. I suppose that's the case with most things but is a necessary part of the process of getting to the most accurate "truth" possible.

Gee, you'd think I could write a few paragraphs without having to edit about a dozen times.

 

[Multi-Elis]

The problem could be the food usually used in these studies to provide protein and not so much the protein it's self.

I repeat, the article I saw in new scientist said that meat AND GRAINS and hard cheese and soda drinks (with phosphoric acid) make the blood acidic,

Vegitables AND MILK and soft cheeses make your blood less acidic.

The article did not mention beans nuts and eggs which are other forms of protein.

Which leads one to conclude, that it may not be the protein which is the culprit but rather the form it is taken in. And notice that grains are full of carbohydrates and yet they make the blood acidic. (not as acidic as meat or parmazan cheese do.)

 

[Beastt]

The problem could be the food usually used in these studies to provide protein and not so much the protein it's self.

I repeat, the article I saw in new scientist said that meat AND GRAINS and hard cheese and soda drinks (with phosphoric acid) make the blood acidic,

Vegitables AND MILK and soft cheeses make your blood less acidic.

The article did not mention beans nuts and eggs which are other forms of protein.

Which leads one to conclude, that it may not be the protein which is the culprit but rather the form it is taken in. And notice that grains are full of carbohydrates and yet they make the blood acidic. (not as acidic as meat or parmazan cheese do.)

Point well taken but since what I posted are only a small sample of the studies and the protein sources are not always the same in the studies, it seems unlikely that it's not the protein that causes the problem. It's not at all difficult to reproduce the affects of protein on blood pH in a lab, so there is little, if any doubt that it's the protein rather than just certain foods containing protein. Among nutritionists, milk is directly blamed as a major culprit in the process leading to osteoporosis. It contains both protein and calcium but the amount of calcium lost from the bones in balancing the affect of the protein is more than what the body can assimilate from the milk. As a result, drinking milk robs your body of calcium. Milk also contains significant quantities of fat, pus (up to 750 million cells per liter), hormones, pesticide residues has been shown to aggravate ezcema and asthma in some, but not all, studies performed.

Some grains contain a considerable percentage of protein such as rye at 20% and wheat germ at 31%. I'm sure you're quite right that the ingestion of soft drinks containing phosphoric acid are part of the problem in many areas but test show that excess protein, in and of itself is enough to promote the onset of osteoporosis.

 

[stray bullet]

Please understand that this is with all due respect to your obvious knowledge on the subject, but the body does not "burn" protein. It is either used to build/repair body tissues, converted to fat and stored or excreted in the urine. The amount of energy that can be attributed to protein finds some variation among the experts but the range is 0% to 10% of total energy produced, and most, if not all, recommend against promoting the body to attempt to utilize protein for fuel as this is not the function of protein within the human body.

Who is saying it is only coverted into fat? Proteins are broken down to its amino acids, which are converted to ammonia and oxaloacetate or pyruvate, both of which are products of carbohydrate burning.

I'm wondering who is concluding these are then turned into fats.