Protein was diabetes

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Shannon,
No, no - the starting point was quite different.

I do not remember details (has been 25 years) - but I do remember:

He stated: Surplus carbohydrates/fats are stored as fat to serve as
reserve when supply gets short. This is well recognized.

He then asked: What happens to surplus proteins resp. surplus amino
acids? It would be logical to assume that there is a system of
storage for them too, for the same reason.

He did his research trying to answer that question. He explained his
research, but this I do not remember.

He came up with the answer that they are stored (at least partly)
either in the linings of the blood vessels or adhering to them (I do
not remember, which of the two). This is ok as long as there is supply
and demand, i.e. that at greater or shorter intervals some are taken
and used. Where there is a constant over-supply, these deposits will
get too thick and too wide-spread so that 1) the arteries get
hard/inflexible and 2) the exchange of substances between capillaries
and interstitium gets hampered. There will then be, among other
things, too much insulin and glucose in the blood and too little in
the spaces between the capillaries and the cells, so that the cells do
not get enough glucose. Which again accounts for the phenomenon that
diabetics as a rule have a craving for sweets and starches.

This line of arguing seemed logical to me.

Unless in the meantime there has been research showing how the surplus
proteins ARE stored, it stll does.

If they are NOT stored - how is the surplus eliminated?

As I said before: I have not kept up with nutrition etc. and not
followed up what research there has been done along these lines
meanwhile.

Perhaps his question has been answered and he has been proven wrong -
this I do not know.

Regards

Luise

--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Shannon Nelson]

Re metabolism of excess protein, here is one nice summary:

from: http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/Met-Obe/Metabolism.html

Protein Metabolism

[...]
Digestion breaks protein down to amino acids. If amino acids are in
excess of the body's biological requirements, they are metabolized to
glycogen [the main form of carbohydrate storage in animals; readily
converted into glucose as needed] or fat and subsequently used for
energy metabolism. If amino acids are to be used for energy their
carbon skeletons are converted to acetyl CoA, which enters the Krebs
cycle for oxidation, producing ATP. The final products of protein
catabolism [digestion] include carbon dioxide, water, ATP, urea, and
ammonia.

[...] Transamination converts amino acids to L-glutamate, which
undergoes oxidative deamination to form ammonia, used for the synthesis
of urea. Urea is transferred through the blood to the kidneys and
excreted in the urine.

[...]
Body proteins are broken down when dietary supply of energy is
inadequate during illness or prolonged starvation. The proteins in the
liver are utilized in preference to those of other tissues such as the
brain. The gluconeogenesis [formation of glucose from non-carbohydrate
sources] pathway is present only in liver cells and in certain kidney
cells.

o-------------------------------------

So, while I have no basis for saying "who's right", there does seem to
be a clearly established mainstream understanding of protein digestion
which does not involve its storage anywhere, except as needed for
maintenance, operation and repair of the body. (Well, it did mention
that when the body is robbing its own stores during a time of protein
shortage, it will draw first upon the liver; I suppose that could be
called storage.)

I'm not sure if any of this is useful...
Cheers,
Shannon

[Irene de Villiers]

Luise,
This is not research - it is pure (incorrect) supposition on what
happens to excess protein eaten.

The truth:
Protein is taken in as amino acids. They go into the blood stream and
from there to all cells of the body.
Each type of body cell has a specific amount of amino acid it can store.
If there is still a lot of amino acid left in the blood, then the
nitrogen group is knocked off it so the rest can be used for energy
or stored as fat.
The nitrogen group goes to make ammonia which is detoxified by the
liver (by combining it with Co2) and forming urea. This diffuses
throughout the body via the bloodstream and is then excreted by the
kidneys.
It's total baloney:-)
Its never a good idea to use outdated suppositions to make nutrition
decisions. Science has new REAL information (not supposition) every
year and it is worth looking at:-)

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Tanya Marquette]

it seems to me that anything that is in excess puts excess load on the
body. how well understood the biochemistry may leave us with
incomplete details, but i think the concept of too much of a good
thing is not good can be applied with proteins, just as with fats,
and carbs. so the idea the too much protein, particularly animal
meats which are harder for the body to digest, having a negative
impact on health is quite understandable

tanya

[Shannon Nelson]

Okay, but the whole thing *is* very individual:
Some people do much better if the diet includes meat;
Some do better without it.
Some are able to *digest* meat fine, whether they need it or not, while
Others *need* it, but do not digest it well. (That was my category.)

There are two separate issues there: protein need, and ability to
digest meat.
But *any* food which is digested poorly, will cause build-up of toxins,
and have negative effects. Same could happen with beans I assume--and
certainly happens with soy for some of us!

Shannon

[Tanya Marquette]

i think you missed my point. we already agreed that there are
individual differences for diet as in everything else.

my point is that meat eating in excess breaks down the body's
process. that is where the issue of heavy meat eating and
cancer comes in. red meat is hard for the body to digest and
since americans, at any rate, are major meat eaters for the most
part, there should be some concern for this. i am not arguing
whether people should, or should not eat meat at all. but every
cancer diet i have come across eliminates meat.

tanya

[Irene de Villiers]

Gosh - where do you get that idea from?
Does nobody study metabolism these days?
Is it okay to just make wild statements with nothing at all in
metabolism that lines up with them?
On the contrary.
It's VERY easy to digest.
Plants are hard to digest:-)
More basic metabolism facts:-)
I know there are vegetarian or vegan ones but not all cancer diets
are that way.
Meat avoidance is due to contamination perhaps - not due to meat - we
need the protein.
The veg is not to be anti-meat - it is to provide high levels of
antioxidants which are in veg rather than meat.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Shannon Nelson]

I'd go back to "individualization." Meat *is* hard for *some* people
to digest--anyone with low HCl stomach, for instance. (Been there.)
Those people *will* feel better--at least at first--when they go off of
meat. Been there too. There are various ways (I mean in addition to
homeopathic treatment) of normalizing the stomach secretions and
restoring the ability to digest meat effectively. HCl; enzymes;
predigested protein; herbs...
Shannon

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Shannon,
Well, I suppose (but am not sure) this was mainstream thinking already
when Wendt published. As I said, he did his work **against**
mainstream thinking - and if the above was part of it already at the
time, he contradicted it also. I just do not remember details.

Just reasoning from my own thinking: I am not convinced that the body
has no mechanism to store protein "for those rainy days". It just
doesn't make sense that it is all broken down and eliminated when
there is a surplus, so that in times of little supply the body
substance has to be used, which is after all needed right then. Why
should there be a system for carbohydrates and not for protein?
(Obviously it cannot build proteins from carbohydrates/fat)
Afaik the liver is a temporary storage place for carbohydrates too
(glycogen), so I myself should think that it is the same for protein.

It just does not make sense that animals should be designed a way
that any time protein supply is low it should go into a starvation
process, i. e. using up its own substance needed for good functioning.

I agree with Irene on the value of good research. But one of the
problems is that, in order to find anything, you have to look for it,
or rather, in order to find out something you have to start asking the
appropriate questions and see what comes up. I still wonder whether
any research has been done to find out whether such storage mechanism
exists or whether science has just taken for granted that it doesn't.

Anyhow, if things are the way described aabove, I do not understand
why Soy proteins should not also be broken down and eliminated
without problems!

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Shannon Nelson]

The mechanisms mentioned were the liver, and the muscles, with the
liver proteins used first: "Body proteins are broken down when dietary
supply of energy is inadequate during illness or prolonged starvation.
The proteins in the liver are utilized in preference to those of other
tissues such as the brain." (I don't know why it says "in preference
to those of other tissues such as the *brain*; I *think* it is the
muscles that come next, after the liver??)

The muscles are not exactly storage, yet are a store that can be drawn
on. Other metabolic factors work similarly, where "working stores" can
be drawn on as needed, e.g. calcium from the bones if needed to buffer
the blood; e.g. vitamins and minerals which can be taken from
less-essential areas if needed to bolster more-essential areas.
Carbohydrates... To the liver, you mean?
But it can do the reverse, build carbs and fat from protein.
We can function indefinitely on protein but no carbs (Eskimos, for the
extreme example), and can convert protein to carbs; we cannot function
(very well, for long) on carbs but no protein, and cannot convert carbs
to protein. So protein does seem to be the more essential (and less
flexible) of the two.
Yes--read it over again. The piece *did* mention protein being drawn
first from the liver, then if needed from the muscles.

Does that (above) seem clear and reasonable?

Sure--for someone who digests them well and isn't allergic; however
it's a common allergen, and some of us don't seem to digest it well
(understatement!). (Fermented or sprouted seems better.)

Shannon