Posted on 09/05/2006 12:57:57 PM PDT by Mount Athos
Eating a high-protein diet can boost the release of a hunger-suppressing hormone, according to new study on mice. The research suggests that a diet rich in protein may be a good way to lose weight and keep it off.
Mice fed a protein-heavy diet produced higher levels of an appetite-regulating protein called peptide YY (PYY), which has been linked to reduced appetite in human studies. What's more, the high-protein mice put on less fat than mice on a low-protein regime.
The discovery boosts the theory that eating more protein might help to reduce appetite and lead to sustained weight loss, says Rachel Batterham of University College London, who led the research, published in the journal Cell Metabolism1. "All the evidence suggests that it will be beneficial," she says.
The discovery may also shed light on how the notorious Atkins diet, which ditches carbohydrates in favour of protein and saturated fats, might work. Studies have shown that people on this diet can loose weight, though it is unclear why. Batterham thinks she may have the answer: "People on the Atkins diet don't feel as hungry — that's how it works."
But, she cautions, that doesn't mean the Atkins diet is a good idea: "No medical person is going to tell you to have all that saturated fat in your diet and no carbohydrates." In its early stages, the regime causes a condition called ketosis, in which the liver, deprived of glycogen from carbohydrates, switches to its starvation mode and begins to metabolize fatty compounds. "The problem is that it makes you feel terrible," Batterham says.
She now plans to organize a long-term study of the effects of a high-protein diet in humans, which might feature foods such as lean meat, soy, tofu and egg.
Batterham undertook this study in part to pin down the link between PYY and appetite. Her team first showed that the hormone reduces appetite in humans in a Nature paper2 in 2002, but other researchers said they could not replicate the effect. So her team turned to mice to investigate it in more depth.
In the new study, as well as showing that mice fed lots of protein put on less weight, Batterham and her colleagues also genetically engineered mice to lack functioning PYY. These mice ate more and became fatter, even on a high-protein regime. When these mice were dosed with replacement PYY, they stopped gorging. This proves, says Batterham, that a lack of PYY is directly linked to overeating.
That might explain why people are growing ever more obese. Since the agricultural revolution, the amount of protein in the average diet has been declining, in favour of carbohydrates from plant crops such as rice and maize. The typical Western diet contains only 16% protein, whereas a prehistoric hunter-gatherer would have consumed twice as much, Batterham claims.
High-protein eating habits such as the 'caveman diet', which can contain up to 35% protein, might therefore be based on some sound principles, Batterham suggests. The PYY system, she points out, has been around for millions of years, and is found in animals ranging from humans right through to primitive fish called lampreys.
Batterham stresses that such diets will still need to be investigated to see if they carry risks of high cholesterol, kidney damage or other problems. "Prehistoric hunter-gatherers did not routinely live to be 80 years old," she points out.
I understand why you want to avoid the carbs, but what is it about MSG that makes you try to avoid it? I ask only because glutamate occurs naturally in just about every protein and the average person consumes at least ten times more glutamate from these natural sources than they do from "added" sources. Your body stores about four pounds of glutamate in your brain, muscles and organs at any given time. Your body also creates about 50 mg. of glutamate each day. I don't know what you'd live on if you were really trying to eliminate MSG from your diet.
LOL, I used to have a 64 Cobra back in 1967. Couldn't keep it on the road. Most powerful car I ever owned and I'm sorry I ever sold it. Got a Camaro Z-29 for it (timed and tuned) which was quicker but not manuverable. Then traded down for a 68 Backaruda 383 4-bbl which I was able to handle (I was 18). That Cobra I sold to Bob Krichovich wound up wrapped around a bridge abutment, the fate of many a pony from that era.
btw, that 383 4-bbl was 400 hp stock and it was considerably less responsive to either the Cobra or the Z-29. The Cobra was really positive straight down a line, but the full pump was always a problem (it seemed to never get enough fuel when I wanted - which was always - I was 17 then). D*mn. That car was a getter.
MSG and natural glutamate are not the same thing.
Well, MSG wasn't even invented until 1908, so it isn't a food with a millenia-long record behind it. It's the same reason I don't trust Canola oil: anything that has to be processed that much to make it "edible" really isn't edible.
First of all, there are all sorts of things "hidden" in foods, such as the amount of MSG, etc in the foods. Food companies are allowed to simply put labels such as "natural spices" to hide the truth about the amount of sugar, MSG and other additives lurking in the food. You also can't "read labels" at fast food restaurants.
So, don't tell me that "nothing's hidden" when it comes to food labeling.
Then you aren't reading the labels as well as you're telling me to do. What do you think is the real reason for the rise in obesity?! HFCS. It's not natural and it's not the same as sucrose. It's actually a combination of sucrose and fructose, not normally found in nature. That's only part of the reason why people shouldn't eat anything w/ HFCS in it.
The websites I referred you to tell the truth about soy. The Japanese and Chinese don't eat soy in the amounts or in the forms most Americans eat it. Japanese people eat soy basically as a condiment. We westerners, on the other hand, put soy products such as "isolated soy protein" in nearly everything.
Soy milk is a modern innovation unheard of before modern times and it doesn't have a proven safety record that ancient foods, like miso, tempeh, etc. have.
If was invented in modern times, such as HFCS, Soy milk, MSG, aspartame, etc. were, don't eat it. If it's not natural, if it doesn't have a millenia-long track record of providing good health, it shouldn't be eaten.
"The Chinese did not eat the soybean as they did other pulses (legumes) such as the lentil because the soybean contains large quantities of a number of harmful substances. First among them are potent enzyme inhibitors which block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion. These "antinutrients" are not completely deactivated during ordinary cooking and can produce serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake....
Trypsin inhibitors and hemaglutinin have been rightly labeled "growth depressant substances." They are deactivated during the process of fermentation. In precipitated products, enzyme inhibitors concentrate in the soaking liquid rather than in the curd. Thus in tofu and bean curd, these enzyme inhibitors are reduced in quantity, but not completely eliminated. "
"Soybeans are also high in phytic acid or phytates. This is an organic acid, present in the bran or hulls of all seeds, which blocks the uptake of essential minerals-calcium, magnesium, iron and especially zinc-in the intestinal tract. Although not a household word, phytates have been extensively studied. Scientists are in general agreement that grain and legume based diets high in phytates contribute to widespread mineral deficiencies in third world countries. (Studies: Van-Rensburg, et. al. "Nutritional status of African populations predisposed to esophageal cancer", Nutr-Cancer, V.4, 1983, pp. 206-216; Moser, P.B. et. al., "Copper, iron, zinc and selenium dietary intake and status of Nepalese lactating women and their breast-fed infants", Am-J-Clin-Nutr, v.47, Apr 1988, pp.729-734; Harland, B.F., et. al., "Nutritional status and phytate: zinc and phytate X calcium: zinc dietary molar ratios of lacto-ovo-vegetarian Trappist monks: 10 years later", J-Am-Diet-Assoc., v. 88, Dec 1988, pp. 1562-1566. )"
That's my point. It's not bad for you. Trans fats and other artificial fats are far worse for you than saturated fats are.
Technically, this is correct. Very technically. Scientists refer to this as straining at a gnat. Your links provide an excellent example of how the food police (aka toxic terrorists) abuse science to create alarm.
In life, only L-glutamic acids are utilized. D-glutamic acid is a mirror image of L-glutamic acid. Your article even states that they are stereochemical mirror images. Enzymes are 3 dimensional and are highly selective. They only choose L-amino acids to build proteins. D-glutamic acid is a product of manufacturing but the body easily, and without result, metabolizes it and passes it.
The article is also correct in stating that some amines and propanols are created as a part of the manufacturing process. However, there has never been any legitimate study showing that these trace (read: minuscule) amounts are harmful in any way, which is why your article is very careful to say that they could be harmful. Nothing like the power of suggestion to create fear.
Soy sauce contains equal amounts of D and L-glutamic acid. The Japaneses have been eating it for thousands of years and still enjoy the longest life span in the world. When Hydrolized Vegetable Protein came on the market it was studied to death by the FDA and none of the issues your alarmist links cite were ever found by the FDA even though HVP is loaded with D-glutamic acid. The argument that D-glutamic acid is in some way bad for you when it is a mirror image of L-glutamic acid, which isn't bad for you, is spurious at best and is being perpetrated by frauds who have an agenda. These two molecules are identical but they cannot be superimposed. Since they're identical, how can one be ok for you to consume but not the other one?
Do you drink coffee? If so, you need to be aware that coffee contains 400 chemicals that have been identified and another 200+ that have never been identified. Of those still unidentified, some are toxic and some are carcinogenic. However, they do not exist in quantities that could be harmful to humans otherwise coffee would have been banned or warnings issued about consumption.
Thankfully, there are conservative groups like the Hudson Institute who are committed to providing factual information based on sound science to the public. Hudson is also active in exposing frauds like the Weston A. Price Foundation. (You used the Price Foundation as a link).
The whole issue of MSG being bad, in any way, is much ado about nothing. If sound-science is employed, it is very clear that glutamic acid from natural sources is no different than from "added" sources when it comes to our physiology.
If MSG is "added" to the product it clearly states so on the ingredient deck. There is no conspiracy. The food industry is not trying to poison their customer base. In an effort to comply with the desires of consumers the entire label on most products is consumed by ingredient and nutritional information. Today you can easily learn if any of the big eight allergens are included in a product by simply looking at the label.
Food companies are allowed to simply put labels such as "natural spices" to hide the truth about the amount of sugar....
If you understood the food industry you'd realize that ingredients like natural spices or natural flavoring is how many companies protect the proprietary nature of their products. Without that protection, companies who spend millions of dollars a year to create specialty flavorings or seasoning blends would have no protection for their investment. Their products would be instantly knocked off and all R&D would come to a grinding halt. The black helicopter crowd has never liked that explanation. They seem to prefer believing that the food processors are evil and want to steal our precious bodily fluids.
MSG and other additives lurking in the food. You also can't "read labels" at fast food restaurants.
Do you have any idea how many products the average restaurant uses? How much information do you need? As a conservative, do you think businesses are over regulated today or do you just see the need for more regulation of the food industry. Of course, on the bright side, more regulation would substantially increase costs and give you something additional to complain about.
That's an easy one: People consuming more calories than they burn. You see, all carbohydrates are converted by the body into glucose. The source doesn't matter since the body can't differentiate from where the glucose came. When they reach the Krebs cycle these molecules are all 3x2 carbon fragments. Your body has no idea where they came from nor does it care. If HFCS is the cause for the rise in obesity how do you explain increased rates of obesity and diabetes in countries that don't use HFCS in their food supply?
Glucose that's needed for immediate energy is used and any glucose leftover is converted to glycogen, which is then stored in the liver and muscles. If the glycogen reserves are full, the remainder is converted to depot fat. It's very simple. If you consume more calories than you need, they will be converted to glycogen and then to fat. It has nothing to do with HFCS regardless of what the food police want you to believe.
It's not natural and it's not the same as sucrose. It's actually a combination of sucrose and fructose
HFCS is made up of glucose and fructose just like sucrose. There are two types of commercialized HFCS. One offers 55% fructose and 45% glucose and is used mostly in soft drinks. The other is comprised of 42% fructose and 58% glucose. This product is utilized mostly in cereals and baked goods. Sucrose is made up of 50% glucose and 50% fructose.
not normally found in nature
For this to be true you'd need to show me that the chemical structure of glucose and fructose from hydrolized sucrose is different than glucose and fructose from HFCS. Since glucose is glucose and fructose is fructose, you're going to have a really hard time proving that they're any different. Don't waste your time.
Of course, this information won't be found on the labels. You'd have to have some knowledge of nutrition and chemistry to understand that if HFCS is deleterious to your health then sugar (sucrose) has to be bad for you for exactly the same reasons. Pretty silly, isn't it?
Trans fats were "studied to death" by the FDA and they've had to do a 180 on their healthfulness. They "study to death" all sorts of pharmaceuticals, which they end up having to pull off the shelves after people die of heart attacks and other issues, so don't tell me to simply take the FDA's word that MSG or anything artificial or chemically produced is safe.
Wouldn't touch the stuff w/ a 10ft pole. Ugh! (Now if I can only get my hubby to stop drinking it.)
Change that to a fatty meat and eggs diet and you might have something there. But the soy part (including tofu) is just plain nonsense. Soy should be treated as hydrogenated foodstuffs; avoid them like they're poison.
The process for making soy sauce rids the product of any girly hormone effects that other soy products incur.
The evidence is mounting that the copious amounts of fiber that we eat may be the cause of the arteries ever being able to catch and hold or tear the artery lining so the fats in the blood stream can accumulate.
OK.
The Japanese and Chinese don't eat soy in the amounts or in the forms most Americans eat it
Maybe not the Chinese but the Japanese and other Asians certainly consume a great deal of soy.
Japanese people eat soy basically as a condiment.
When I lived there in the late 80's it seemed that we had some soy product every day. This included tofu, miso, steamed soybeans along with all the condiments. Soy consumption is substantial when looking at Asia as a whole and it's interesting to note that the healthiest people come from places sporting the highest per-capita consumption of soy. Take Okinawa for example, they have the highest soy consumption on the planet and they live longer than any other people on the planet. There have been many studies on Okinawans and it's been shown that Okinawans are at extremely low risk for hormone–dependent cancers, including cancers of the breast, prostate, ovaries, and colon. Compared to North Americans, they have a staggering 80 percent less breast cancer and prostate cancer, and less than half the ovarian cancer and colon cancer.
Is soy the reason for this? I don't know but don't you find it interesting that the lowest cancer rates in the industrialized world are found in an area that also has the highest per-capita consumption of soy?
We westerners, on the other hand, put soy products such as "isolated soy protein" in nearly everything
Nearly everything? Hyperbole seems to be a common thread in your posts. What about isolated soy protein? It's comprised of 90% protein. What is it about the remainder of the product that's so bad for you?
Soy milk is a modern innovation unheard of before modern times and it doesn't have a proven safety record that ancient foods, like miso, tempeh, etc. have.
What is it about soy milk's safety record that you don't like? Did you ever stop to think about all those children who are born allergic to milk? If they can't have milk, what other source will supply them with a source of protein as high in quality as soy? The track record of soy milk is seen everyday with much healthier children. Additionally, soy milk provides more than 10 times as much essential fatty acids as cow’s milk. Cow's milk contains more than nine times as much saturated fat as soy milk, so is far more likely to contribute to heart disease. Soy milk is cholesterol-free, while cow’s milk contains 34 mg of cholesterol per cup. Soy milk lowers both total and LDL cholesterol levels, while cow’s milk raises both total and LDL cholesterol levels.
If it's not natural, if it doesn't have a millenia-long track record of providing good health, it shouldn't be eaten.
I couldn't imagine going through life being unable to enjoy so may foods. What do you eat? How do you ever manage to go out to a restaurant and enjoy yourself?
I see you've chosen to link me to more junk science from your friends at the Weston Price Foundation. Let's look at what they have to say.
First among them are potent enzyme inhibitors which block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion. These "antinutrients" are not completely deactivated during ordinary cooking and can produce serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake
The authors couldn't have overstated this issue any more than they have. While it's true that the protein found in cooked soybeans is slightly less digestible than proteins from animal foods, the amount is so small as to be insignificant. Of course, fermented soy products will offer better digestibility than animal foods. Even considering minimal reduction in digestibility, cooked soybeans are so high in protein, and in all the essential amino acids, that they could be utilized as the sole source of protein in a person's diet.
Trypsin inhibitors and hemaglutinin have been rightly labeled "growth depressant substances
This nonsense is all based on animal studies where they fed amounts of soybeans to the animals that have no relationship to real world human consumption. This is a typical ploy in much research today and it is absolutely wrong to draw conclusions from animal studies even with species that seem quite closely related because they function quite differently than humans at a molecular level. I've read about tests where baby rats didn't thrive on soy milk so the researchers made all sorts of wacky conclusions and then asked for more grant money. What these researchers didn't tell you was that the baby rats didn't survive on human breast milk either. The research the Price Foundation is citing is a lot of BS.
"Soybeans are also high in phytic acid or phytates. This is an organic acid, present in the bran or hulls of all seeds, which blocks the uptake of essential minerals-calcium, magnesium, iron and especially zinc-in the intestinal tract. Although not a household word, phytates have been extensively studied. Scientists are in general agreement that grain and legume based diets high in phytates contribute to widespread mineral deficiencies in third world countries.
This is a common refrain used by the toxic terrorists and, as usual, it's based on grossly overstating what's real to create alarm. The issue of phytates might be important if you only ate foods high in phytates. Of course, that's not what humans do. We like variety in our diets. Phytic acid levels found in a plant-based diet including a serving or two of soy a day are not high enough to cause mineral absorption problems for most people eating varied diets. When soy products are fermented phytate levels are reduced to about a third their initial level. Other methods of soy preparation such as soaking, roasting and sprouting also significantly reduce phytate content.
For every alarmist claim about soy, and most other foods approved for consumption, there is a rebuttal based on sound-science. Unfortunately, the alarmists get all of the attention because people, who really don't understand enough about biochemistry and physiology, read what they say and believe it because they sound like they know what they're talking about. The soy debate, IMHO, is the most complex and contentious. HFCS is pretty simple. So is MSG. Artificial sweeteners also create a lot of needless anxiety. To buy into all this nonsense though, you have to believe that the FDA is aware of all the criticism being leveled at these ingredients but is ignoring them and the health and safety of the American public. The FDA doesn't serve industry. They have nothing to gain in doing so. The adversarial relationship between the FDA and the food industry is only exceeded by that between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry. If there were any truth to all this stuff you linked me to, the FDA would have acted on it a long time ago. Fortunately, they know junk science when they see it and I'm pleased to know that more rational people are overseeing what products are available to us for consumption.
I agree.
Then why is it when a lot of these FDA types retire or resign from government service, they end up working for these same industries with which they have an "adversarial" relationship?
I don't see much evidence of an "adversarial" relationship, if anything, it looks pretty cozy from where I stand. Considering the FDA is against the labeling of GMO foods, I don't really trust them to have my family's best interests at heart.
I'll stick with avoiding man made foods as much as possible because they don't have a good track record.
Soy's health record?! You have to be kidding! When studies out there show that soy has enough phytoestorgens to affect estrogen hormone levels in both men and women, that can't be healthy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.