|WikiProject Food and drink|
|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Motion to add (human nutrition) or a disclaimer that this refers only to human nutrition
- 2 Reworking intro paragraph
- 3 sources of protein
- 4 Protein Quality
- 5 need info
- 6 Absorption rates
- 7 Excessive protein consumption in healthy individuals risky?
- 8 The China Study
- 9 Gluten allergy?
- 10 Sources & 'Amount of Protein'
- 11 Paragraph marked dubious/discuss about people who don't eat meat and essential proteins
- 12 Huh? : "Too focused on human nutrition."
- 13 File:Lentils and rice by paul goyette.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
- 14 Vegetarian sources of protein
- 15 Another vegatarian infested article.
- 16 1g per kilo of total bodyweight - too high
- 17 Orphaned references in Protein (nutrient)
- 18 Do we need a food allergies section?
Motion to add (human nutrition) or a disclaimer that this refers only to human nutrition
The page focuses on human nutrition, and the citations also focus on human nutrition. It is misleading to say that this applies to other animals. If we would like to keep just nutrition, we should consider adding sources on other organism's digestion of protein. Please vote : ) Caitlin.swartz (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is too focused on human nutrition. // Internet Esquire 22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)The source is from a highly partisan organisation (they are trying to advocate whey protein) and thus I think this section is unreliable. Could well be true but needs a better reference. MatthewKarlsen
Reworking intro paragraph
While everything in the intro paragraph is true and accurate, I believe it would be more appropriate to talk about the role in the diet rather than launching into the details of how protein is digested. The Crow 02:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
sources of protein
Dietary sources of protein include grains, legumes, meats, and dairy products such as milk and cheese. Mentions dairy 3 times but fails to mention greens and sea veggies? This is ridiculous in my opinion.
- legumes are greens and sea veggies. It's mentioned. Perhaps the article should say "...and dairy products.", full stop, but really, why? it's not like there's a NPOV problem apparent here or anything. 184.108.40.206 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Of the 20 amino acids used by humans, the 12 nonessential amino acids... The 9 essential amino acids... Aside from a possibility of 22+ amino acids used by humans, 12 + 9 does not equal 20. The amino acid page has more detailed ambiguity, listing ten essential amino acids with two noted as only essential in certain cases and ten nonessential of which six are essential in certain cases. Perhaps we should say there are 20 amino acids used by humans, 8 are essential, 8 are essential in certain cases, and 4 are nonessential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexgenaud (talk • contribs) 16:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
An article about protein with only pictures of lentils and protein powders does not give an accurate picture of protein sources consumed in America. The primary source of protein consumed in America is animal products such as meat,fowl, fish. A 4 oz serving of meat has 28 grams of protein; a 4 oz serving of broccoli has 3 grams of protein. If you prefer eating vegetables, that's fine...but don't hide the truth about protein sources. Any table with protein sources should include the various animal sources including eggs and milk...whether you like to eat them or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Censlin (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- 100% Agree. When can we expect you to add the table with animal sources? --Yankees76 Talk 14:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure how to make the table. Also, can you just copy from any source material?
"Animal sources have the complete complement of all the essential amino acids in adequate proportions. Most plant sources do not." - is much more accurate. It is not "Most" - it is "All" animal sources, whether it is beef, pork, lamb, salmon, trout, duck, eel, aligator. Most vegetables do not. Soy is still low in methionine; represented at a level under 70%; and I suspect the same for quinoa. However, the new consensus says that 70% is the new 100% so complete. But there are still only 2!. I think it is more accurate to say that most do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Censlin (talk • contribs) 17:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not all animal sources are complete protein. Gelatin/collagen is not a complete protein. The sentence is fine as is. --Yankees76 Talk 17:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Gelatin and collagen are not animals. Gelatin is derived from either cows or pigs, which is a complete protein source. Gelatin results from many separation processes starting with the skin of the pig. The animal source is complete. Please change for accuracy. Censlin (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)censlin
- I wasn't referring to collagen and gelatin being animals. You're twisting the use of the word "source". "Source" of protein in this case does not mean the animal it's from, but the actual protein that is consumed. Generally, when people refer to protein sources, they refer to the actual protein. For example it's "I ate 150 grams of protein a day from whey, casein, collagen, beef, and pork", not "I eat 150 grams of protein a day from cows and pigs". Of those listed, collagen is not a complete protein. The source of colleagen is animal, opposed to plant, therefore collagen is not a complete animal protein source. --Yankees76 Talk 19:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The source is from a highly partisan organisation (they are trying to advocate whey protein) and thus I think this section is unreliable. Could well be true but needs a better reference. MatthewKarlsen
After reading this article, I also realized that the Quality section is ironically, of low quality itself:
"In general they conclude that animal complete proteins that contain all the essential amino acids such as milk, eggs, and meat are of most value to the body."
The citation link leads to this site] which just seems to be an advertisement for whey protein products that mentions nothing of the previously referenced protein quality measurement methods ("they" being: Biological Value, Net Protein Utilization, and PDCAAS).
The line: "The biological value of plant protein sources is usually considerably lower than animal sources." also cites the same dubious reference for it's claim.
- I agree about the source. It's been a month and a half. I'll remove the dubitable sentences. — President Lethe (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Ideas taken from my website that could be included:
• Protein with a higher concentration of the branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) and the other essential amino acids are of a higher protein quality and are more effective at promoting protein synthesis (muscle building) Source Source mirror
• Nutritional supplements have resulted in high amounts of essential amino acids and low amounts of dietary fat (than protein foods e.g. meat). Source Source mirror
• Whey protein is a high-quality protein, which contains higher amounts of all the necessary amino acids when compared to other common food sources of protein (e.g., egg, soy, milk, etc.). Source Source mirror
Thomas Slee (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Everyone knows that whey is digested quickly, while casein is a slow-release form. What about albumin? I've been searching and I can't find anything. I'm assuming that it is somewhere in between, but which is it closer to? II | (t - c) 03:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I found a good article on this: A review of issues of dietary protein intake in humans. It is a bit technical for me to include in the article. II | (t - c) 04:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Excessive protein consumption in healthy individuals risky?
Is an average daily protein consumption in excess of 300 grams (sometimes up to 500 grams) in any way a health risk for a healthy man in his early twenties with a body weight of ~90 kg? This is not for bodybuilding purposes, I just feel more focused, alert, and energetic on a (lean) meat-, dairy-, and poultry-heavy diet, and an allergy to wheat also makes this by far the simplest choice. Aadieu (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. a) not Atkins b) not overeating —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadieu (talk • contribs) 10:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
To answer your question, yes it is a health risk. Only 5-6% dietary protein is required to replace the protein regularly excreted by the body as amino acids. Increasing dietary protein within the range of about 10-20% is associated with a broad array of health problems, especially if the protein is from animal sources.
theres absolutely no need to eat more than 200g of protein per day. all you guys are brainwashed into thinking that more protein is better when in fact there's a line between adequate intake and excess consumption. u eat any mrore than about 200g and you're basically paying for your own urine —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Real Beef (talk • contribs) 07:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The China Study
I undid these:
It was widely believed that in countries that suffer from widespread protein deficiency, food is generally full of plant fibers. However extensive nutritional studies have concluded that the consumption of a variety of plants is the best way to acquire protein while animal based proteins even when consumed in moderate amounts can cause cancer.
It is important to note here that contrary to popular belief, the consumption of dairy products does not prevent bone loss. In fact, the consumption of dairy products, as it is high in animal protein, creates bone loss. Whenever there is an increase in dairy consumption the rate of osteoporosis and bone fractures also go up.
Both reference The China Study by T Colin Campbell. In my opinion, this falls into an extraordinary claim and I'd prefer some consensus on this and/or more references before including. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lateg (talk • contribs) 23:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say this is best if avoided, although the "China Study" is popular among groups that want to stop consumption of animal products, it does not seem to have the same support among the scientific community. As an example: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6092 Vexorian (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the point that The China Study is preferred as a source from some points of view but not others. However, it is part of a general range of opinion that there may be issues with higher protein consumption, and that diets are healthier where a larger portion of the protein is derived from plant sources. Is there a way to express this without focusing solely on The China Study and its claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
in section "excess consumption" there's described some allergies many people may have to a certain type of proteins. If gluten appears there because of the coeliac disease then that's wrong, coeliac disease is not an allergy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmmio (talk • contribs) 04:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Sources & 'Amount of Protein'
It would certainly be nice to be a bit more specific here. Tempeh: 41 g per cup? So how many grams of tempeh constitutes one cup? 70 g? 80 g? 100 g? Saying there is 41 g (not just about 40, no, exactly 41 g!) of protein in a 'cup' is meaningless, and only creates an illusion of precise information. Does somebody have a source for more exact numbers? Modallist (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Cup is an american unit of volume. It should be changed to international units.--18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes it should definitely be changed. I don't know why wikipedia still allows these fringe measurments. It does not give a serious impression when you read cups, leagues, barrels, bushels and all that other american/brittish stuff in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Amounts of protein for aerobic and anaerobic exercise
The following links (taken from my website) are studies for people to use to cite for anything but I have selected these because they are all studies on how much protein should be consumed for aerobic and anaerobic exercise. These are direct quotes from the respective links, the parts in brackets I have added to put the quote into context within my site for readers to understand. These quotes/sources can be used in the article.
- "These data show that the efficiency of N retention and protein utilization during RT is higher in older subjects who consume 0.8 vs. 1.6 g protein.kg-1.day-1 dietary protein." Source
- "A small study performed on young and elderly found that ingestion of 340 grams of lean beef (90 g protein) did not increase muscle protein synthesis any more than ingestion of 113 grams of lean beef (30g protein). In both groups, muscle protein synthesis increased by 50%. The study concluded that more than 30g protein in a single meal did not further enhance the stimulation of muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly. " Source
- "It appears that both groups [(endurance exercise, strength exercise)] likely will benefit from diets containing more protein than the current RDA of 0.8 g.kg-1.day-1. Strength athletes probably need about 1.4-1.8 g.kg-1.day-1 and endurance athletes about 1.2-1.4 g.kg-1.day-1." Source
- At least .55g /pound/day [or 0.2494761001896018 per kg]. Depending upon your sport or training regimen, the daily requirement can go as high as .9 to 1 grams/pound [0.4082336184920757 to 0.4535929094356397 per kg]. Source
- "Lean body mass (density) was maintained in bodybuilders consuming 1.05 g protein.kg-1.day-1. Source
- "strength training might need to consume as much as 1.6 to 1.7 g protein x kg(-1) x day(-1) (approximately twice the current RDA) while those undergoing endurance training might need about 1.2 to 1.6 g x kg(-1) x day(-1) (approximately 1.5 times the current RDA)." Source
- Based on laboratory measures, daily protein requirements are increased by perhaps as much as 100% vs.recommendations for sedentary individuals (1.6–1.8 vs. 0.8 g/kg). Source
- Moderate protein (MP) = 1.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1, or high protein (HP) = 2.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1. [For strength athletes] The MP diet resulted in a state of adaptation [increase in whole body protein synthesis (WBPS) (vs. LP) and no change in leucine oxidation (vs. LP)]. The HP diet did not result in increased WBPS compared with the MP diet, but leucine oxidation did increase significantly, indicating a nutrient overload. Source
Paragraph marked dubious/discuss about people who don't eat meat and essential proteins
The article contains this paragraph:
"Most animal and certain vegetable proteins are considered complete proteins with a full complement of essential amino acids in adequate proportions. People who avoid animal products for religious and health reasons may practice protein combining to get the essential amino acids in their diet. Lentils and rice combined is a plant source of protein [dubious – discuss]."
Why are the reasons why people don't eat meat specified? Is the situation different for people who don't eat meat because it's not available, or they're trying to save money, or for ethical reasons than for the people who don't eat meat for religious or health reasons?
There seems to be a bit of a semantic issue with the first sentence. What is an animal protein? If it just means protein that's source is an animal then it seems like it might be complete or incomplete. Does it mean protein from an animal source that hasn't been processed? Then does every part of an animal provide a complete protein? If I hadn't read the above discussion I would have guessed that it meant that muscle meat from any animal provides a complete protein (meaning a mix of proteins that contains all the essential proteins in sufficient proportions). But was the term animal protein meant to include animal organs often eaten by humans as well? At any rate the sentence seems ambiguous enough that perhaps some editing would be justified. --Davefoc (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Huh? : "Too focused on human nutrition."
What else should it focus on, plants n animals? It SHOULD focus on human nutrition. If it's felt that protein in animal n plant nutrition should be addressed, those separate articles could be written. Eternal Vigilante (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
File:Lentils and rice by paul goyette.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Lentils and rice by paul goyette.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
Vegetarian sources of protein
The article describes nuts, seeds and legumes as "vegetarian sources of protein", but should it not describe them as "vegan sources" of protein, as some one who is a vegetarian but not a vegan could obtain his/her protein from milk, cheese or eggs? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Another vegatarian infested article.
- The animal sources of protein are well illustrated as the article contains the following multiple image:Rgdboer (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
1g per kilo of total bodyweight - too high
Orphaned references in Protein (nutrient)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Protein (nutrient)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "DRI":
- From Essential amino acid: Dietary Reference Intakes: The Essential Guide to Nutrient Requirements, published by the Institute of Medicine's Food and Nutrition Board, currently available online at http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/dietary-guidance/dietary-reference-intakes/dri-reports
- From Protein–energy malnutrition: "Dietary Reference Intake: The Essential Guide to Nutrient Requirements" published by the Institute of Medicine and available online at http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/dietary-guidance/dietary-reference-intakes/dri-reports
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Do we need a food allergies section?
Food allergies sometimes involve proteins, but then again so do lots of things. All of the enzymes in the body involve proteins. Should we create a section of this page for each enzyme?
Then again this page is about human consumption of protein. Perhaps an inclusion of food allergies, even if the proteins those people are allergic to are only found in one specific food (which would distinguish these illnesses from those illnesses, like Maple syrup urine disease, which sufferers of must avoid a type of amino acid, not just one food type) would be appropriate.
Whatever it is that's decided, I'm removing the following material from the page and placing it here because in addition to the question of how relevant it is to the topic of the article, it contains no functional citations.
"Specific proteins found in certain food items are often the cause of allergies and allergic reactions. This is because the structure of each form of protein is slightly different; some may trigger a response from the immune system while others remain harmless. Most people with milk allergy are allergic to the protein alpha S1 casein. Some people are allergic to gluten, the protein in wheat and other grains; the particular proteins found in peanuts; or those in shellfish or other seafoods. Food allergies should not be confused with food intolerance." makeswell (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)