"Some Fruits, Including Bananas, Pineapples, And Tomatoes. "

[Kartoffel]

I don't see how the ratios found in the food we'd evolved eating would be anything less than optimal.

I don't like evolutionary arguments about ideal diets and foods. I think no one really knows what exactely we ate over millions of years, or what that means for our physiological needs today. Dozens of different groups are claiming that their diet is the one we evolved to eat. Fruitarians say we are made to eat fruits and leaves, paleos say we evolved eating meat and berries, others say we are meant to eat mostly starchy things like tubers. They all cite tiny bits of historical evidence, but in the end it's nothing more than anecdotes selected as circumstantial evidence.
I don't think that the frail, low-energy people of Okinawa are the optimal form of human evolution.

 

[Travis]

Fruitarians say we are made to eat fruits and leaves, paleos say we evolved eating meat and berries, others say we are meant to eat mostly starchy things like tubers. They all cite tiny bits of historical evidence, but in the end it's nothing more than anecdotes selected as circumstantial evidence.

It's logic, genetics, and comparative physiology.

 

[Kartoffel]

It's logic, genetics, and comparative physiology.

Nutrition, especially if you dare to make an evolutionary argument, is far too complex to leave it to something so flawed as human logic.
Unfortunately I can't access any of the full-texts of the studies you posted, but I think that most nitrogen balance studies underestimate the requirement for protein. Ray has also talked on numerous occasions about the various shortcomings of short-term nitrogen balances. For example Elango et al. (2010) state:


"The nitrogen balance studies [1,8–14] have numerous shortcomings due to various practical and data interpretation limitations, and these have been extensively reviewed and discussed. Briefly, the balance technique tends to overestimate nitrogen intake and underestimate nitrogen excretion. The net result leads to an overly positive balance and therefore an underestimation of the requirement [10]. Nitrogen balance studies in adults consistently display positive balances, with considerable apparent retention of nitrogen, which is biologically implausible. The miscellaneous losses of nitrogen are inherently difficult to measure and vary by almost two-fold due to environmental conditions (temperate versus tropical climate) [1]. Long periods (5–7 days) of adaptation to test intakes are required for the conduct of nitrogen balance studies because the method requires the equilibration of the slow changing and large body urea pool [10]. Furthermore, there are significant confounding effects on the measurement of zero nitrogen balance due to altered dietary energy intake levels [14]. Data analysis and interpretation limitations arise primarily due to the fact that the efficiency of protein utilization decreases near zero balance [3]. With increasing nitrogen intakes, the nitrogen response curve is nonlinear. Earlier balance studies had test intakes at or near zero balance, and the intercept is usually determined by linear interpolation, which also leads to an underestimation of the true balance."

Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2010 Jan;13(1):52-7. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0b013e328332f9b7.
Evidence that protein requirements have been significantly underestimated.
Elango R1, Humayun MA, Ball RO, Pencharz PB.

 

[Travis]

I think Denise's point is that undigested cellulose fibers reduce the ability of your enzymes to access the protein, and your ability to absorb them, carrying them through the digestive tract undigested - like many other fibers are capable of doing.

Humans actually break down most of the cellulose and hemicellulose they ingest:

'The study showed that 84.5% of the cellulose and 96% of the hemicellulose components of dietary fiber were digested and that this digestion occurs mostly in the large bowel for cellulose and in the small bowel for hemicellulose. Cellulases are not present in the human digestive juices. Therefore, digestion of cellulose will probably be by intestinal bacteria. Animal studies have shown that cellulose is acted on by bacteria to form volatile fatty acids which can be absorbed.' ―Holloway​

Something Denise Minger apparently doesn't know; she's still apparently under the delusion that gorillas have a radically unique capacity for this, with humans osetensibly being a primate species which do not:

'In addition, many of the higher primates—such as leaf-chompin’ gorillas—are known as hindgut fermenters, which means they use special microbes in their colon to break down cellulose for energy. Due to their specialized digestive systems, which are not identical to humans’ (although I’ve heard this claim before), they’re able to extract nutrition from matter we can’t digest.' ―Mingerr​

I wonder where she thinks gorillas get this esoteric bacteria? these 'special microbes?' Prevotella and Fibrobacter species are cellulolytic no matter where they're found: in gorillas, in humans, and in vitro.

Holloway, W. D. "Digestion of certain fractions of dietary fiber in humans." The American journal of clinical nutrition (1978)​

 

[Koveras]

Humans actually break down most of the cellulose and hemicellulose they ingest:

'The study showed that 84.5% of the cellulose and 96% of the hemicellulose components of dietary fiber were digested and that this digestion occurs mostly in the large bowel for cellulose and in the small bowel for hemicellulose. Cellulases are not present in the human digestive juices. Therefore, digestion of cellulose will probably be by intestinal bacteria. Animal studies have shown that cellulose is acted on by bacteria to form volatile fatty acids which can be absorbed.' ―Holloway​

Something Denise Minger apparently doesn't know; she's still apparently under the delusion that gorillas have a radically unique capacity for this, with humans osetensibly being a primate species which do not:

'In addition, many of the higher primates—such as leaf-chompin’ gorillas—are known as hindgut fermenters, which means they use special microbes in their colon to break down cellulose for energy. Due to their specialized digestive systems, which are not identical to humans’ (although I’ve heard this claim before), they’re able to extract nutrition from matter we can’t digest.' ―Mingerr​

I wonder where she thinks gorillas get this esoteric bacteria? these 'special microbes?' Prevotella and Fibrobacter species are cellulolytic no matter where they're found: in gorillas, in humans, and in vitro.

Holloway, W. D. "Digestion of certain fractions of dietary fiber in humans." The American journal of clinical nutrition (1978)​

Interesting.

She speculates a bit more here

"But the devil is in the details, as they say. When you look closer, our digestive tracts have some major differences compared to other primates—differences that pose dietary consequences. The most significant is the size of our small intestine versus our colon. In chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, the colon is about two to three times the size of the small intestine. But in humans, those figures are reversed: the small intestine dominates, clocking in at over twice the size of the colon.

As you can see, there’s not much difference in relative stomach volume—but other primates have a whole lotta’ colon, and we’ve got a whole lotta’ small intestine.

So what does that mean?

In simple terms, a big colon is good for handling “low-quality” foods like tough leaves, stems, and fibrous fruits—things that require a lot of digestive work to break down. Primates that eat boatloads of greens, like gorillas, have a whole army of microbes in their colon that digest cellulose and convert it into an energy source. That’s a process called “hind-gut fermentation.” Humans aren’t so lucky; we can digest some forms of fiber, but much of it passes right through us without delivering nutritional value. Our colons aren’t big enough to host enough little organisms to ferment things as effectively as other primates do.

On the flip side, a big small intestine (is that an oxymoron?) is perfect for digesting high-quality foods that are dense, smaller in volume, and easy to break down. That includes soft fruits, animal foods, cooked foods, tender leaves, and perhaps items that have been pre-processed through chopping or grinding. Even our modern-day blended and juiced foods make our small intestines happy, because that pre-processing translates to less digestive work.

In other words, humans are adapted to a softer, more compact diet than other primates. Our bodies have moved away from extremely high-fiber cuisines and are better suited for foods that require less digestive effort."

​

​

 

[Koveras]

More

CLAIM: Regarding Sylvester Graham, an early pioneer of the vegetarian movement (and originator of the much-loved Graham cracker), Davis says, “My favorite argument of Graham’s which has lost no validity over the years, is that orangutans and gorillas clearly prove that you don’t have to eat meat or dairy products to remain strong” (page 60).

REALITY: If this claim hasn’t lost any validity, it’s only because it had none to begin with. Unlike humans, orangutans and gorillas are fabulous hindgut fermenters—boasting huge colons full of cellulose-degrading bacteria that turn otherwise indigestible food into energy. (Think: twigs, bark, pith, and tough-as-leather foliage that make kale seem like tissue paper by comparison!)

Gorillas can wolf down over 40 pounds of vegetation in a day, and due to the sheer volume of food they consume, actually ingest an incredible amount of protein. Depending on the season, their protein intakes range from “similar to those recommended for humans” to “close to the maximum recommended for humans and similar to high-protein human weight-loss diets” (6). Humans, with our comparatively puny colons (and lack of all-day veggie buffets), don’t have the same ability to support gorilla-esque strength on a diet of leaves.
​

["6"]

Nutritional geometry: gorillas prioritize non-protein energy while consuming surplus protein

"It is widely assumed that terrestrial food webs are built on a nitrogen-limited base and consequently herbivores must compensate through selection of high-protein foods and efficient nitrogen retention. Like many folivorous primates, gorillas' diet selection supports this assumption, as they apparently prefer protein-rich foods. Our study of mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei) in Uganda revealed that, in some periods, carbohydrate-rich fruits displace a large portion of protein-rich leaves in their diet. We show that non-protein energy (NPE) intake was invariant throughout the year, whereas protein intake was substantially higher when leaves were the major portion of the diet. This pattern of macronutrient intake suggests that gorillas prioritize NPE and, to achieve this when leaves are the major dietary item, they over-eat protein. The concentrations of protein consumed in relation to energy when leaves were the major portion of the diet were close to the maximum recommended for humans and similar to high-protein human weight-loss diets. By contrast, the concentrations of protein in relation to energy when gorillas ate fruit-dominated diets were similar to those recommended for humans. Our results question the generality of nitrogen limitation in terrestrial herbivores and provide a fascinating contrast with human macronutrient intake."​

 

[Amazoniac]

Travis, you can't be malleable, you have to be a contortionist to avoid the reasons favoring slightly higher yet balanced protein intakes. If you were interested in proving this, you would have found convincing points a long time ago with your mad skills, especially because you already mentioned in your thread that you're after optimizing stuff, not subsistence. Ray has frequent consultations with different people, and insufficient protein appears to be a common thing.

Herb Doctors: Longevity

protein deficiency is a possible cause of low body temperature; I've seen people who couldn't respond to thyroid or other metabolic activators and it turned out they were eating something like 20g of protein a day when the requirement is closer to 80g.

Excess protein seems to be what age people the most, there's just no escape, and focusing on the proportion of carbs and fats in the diet tends to be distracting. On the other hand, insufficient protein intake do tend to make people fragile, leave them with impaired repair and defenses, and incapable of dealing with stress; so the cachexic idea of the member above isn't too delusional.

 

[Amazoniac]

Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2010 Jan;13(1):52-7. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0b013e328332f9b7.
Evidence that protein requirements have been significantly underestimated.
Elango R1, Humayun MA, Ball RO, Pencharz PB.

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2122701&d=1256482659

 

[peep]

Just because @Fisherman94 can pull it off, doesn't mean we should as well.

Pull off what?

 

[Travis]

Travis, you can't be malleable, you have to be a contortionist to avoid the reasons favoring slightly higher yet balanced protein intakes. If you were interested in proving this, you would have found convincing points a long time ago with your mad skills, especially because you already mentioned in your thread that you're after optimizing stuff, not subsistence. Ray has frequent consultations with different people, and insufficient protein appears to be a common thing.

Herb Doctors: Longevity


Excess protein seems to be what age people the most, there's just no escape, and focusing on the proportion of carbs and fats in the diet tends to be distracting. On the other hand, insufficient protein intake do tend to make people fragile, leave them with impaired repair and defenses, and incapable of dealing with stress; so the cachexic idea of the member above isn't too delusional.

I quoted the minimum level to be .5‧g/kg/d. This is the amount you'd get from just raw foods and has been found to be the median balanced nitrogen intake an many studies. This means that there were many subjects who had nitrogen balance on lower amounts; and even in the studies showing .6‧g/kg/d to be the balance point, many of those subjects were doing it on .5‧g/kg/d.

If you were interested in proving this, you would have found convincing points a long time ago

I did. The island is called Okinawa; these people are generally considered to be the longest‐living among First World countries.

You do realize that it's impossible to live over 100 years with negative nitrogen balance? right?

 

[Travis]

Interesting.

She speculates a bit more here

"But the devil is in the details, as they say. When you look closer, our digestive tracts have some major differences compared to other primates—differences that pose dietary consequences. The most significant is the size of our small intestine versus our colon. In chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, the colon is about two to three times the size of the small intestine. But in humans, those figures are reversed: the small intestine dominates, clocking in at over twice the size of the colon.​

This is true. The gorilla eats ~90% low‐calorie leaves when fruit is not available. The get enough energy, they have to eat a lot. The study you'd posted showed that they eat fruit when it's available, although the authors do seem confused:

'However, this apparent preference for protein by mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei) is puzzling because the gorilla diet, composed of high-protein terrestrial herbaceous vegetation, contains much higher protein concentrations [8,9] than are estimated to be required by gorillas in relation to food intake [10,11]. This is a contradiction that extends to many other folivorous primates [6,12].​

To decipher this apparent ‘protein paradox’, we used the geometrical framework of nutrition [13]. ' ―Rothman​

They are confused because they focus on protein and not energy. The gorilla eats more protein than it needs—but not for structural proteins, but to use the nitrogen containing amino acids for energy. This is inefficient because all amino acids are different, taking an entire suite of enzymes to turn them into acetyl‐CoA. Only glutamate and aspartate seem capable of entering the Citric Acid Cycle more‐or‐less directly.

She presents a graphic comparing human digestive volumes to primates who are folivorous for a good part of the year, but why not frugivorous primates? She probably hadn't do so because it would become immediately apparent that humans would fall in the frugivore category, the same category Carl Linnaeus and many other taxonomists had placed humans:

​

As the caloric density increases, the coefficient of gut differentiation follows. You might expect that after few million years of higher fruit eating the gorilla's digestive tract parameters would shift more towards a lower colonic volume, perhaps having dimensions closely approximating the frugivores.

As you can see, there’s not much difference in relative stomach volume—but other primates have a whole lotta’ colon, and we’ve got a whole lotta’ small intestine.

So what does that mean?

In simple terms, a big colon is good for handling “low-quality” foods like tough leaves, stems, and fibrous fruits—things that require a lot of digestive work to break down. Primates that eat boatloads of greens, like gorillas, have a whole army of microbes in their colon that digest cellulose and convert it into an energy source. That’s a process called “hind-gut fermentation.” Humans aren’t so lucky; we can digest some forms of fiber, but much of it passes right through us without delivering nutritional value. Our colons aren’t big enough to host enough little organisms to ferment things as effectively as other primates do.​

​

Denise Minger had actually said that our 'colons aren’t big enough to host enough little organisms to ferment things.' This is untrue, as these microorganisms are only about one micron in diameter. It had already shown that cellulose and hemicellulose is 84.5% and 96% digested, respectively, by humans. The colonic volume (V = πr²‧l) says little about the amount of bacteria present, which is a function of surface area (σ = 2πr‧l). This means that as the volume is doubled by increasing the radius, the surface changes only by √2. So assuming gorillas have twice the colonic volume, they have only 1.414 the increase in surface area. Denise Minger is apparently imagining our colonic lumen to be packed wall‐to‐wall with bacteria, apparently assuming that volume dictates the digestive efficiency of leaves.

It should be noted that transit time between humans and chimpanzees is similar:

―Milton

I don't think it would be illogical to assume that intestinal volume would be determined by caloric intake—animals eating more leaves needing more volume—and fermentation would be more of a function of transit time and surface area.

Chivers, David J. "Morphology of the gastrointestinal tract in primates: comparisons with other mammals in relation to diet." Journal of morphology (1980)
Milton, Katharine. "A hypothesis to explain the role of meat-eating in human evolution." Evolutionary Anthropology Issues News and Reviews (1999)
Holloway, W. D.. "Digestion of certain fractions of dietary fiber in humans." The American journal of clinical nutrition (1978)​

 

[Amazoniac]

I quoted the minimum level to be .5‧g/kg/d. This is the amount you'd get from just raw foods and has been found to be the median balanced nitrogen intake an many studies. This means that there were many subjects who had nitrogen balance on lower amounts; and even in the studies showing .6‧g/kg/d to be the balance point, many of those subjects were doing it on .5‧g/kg/d.

How do you explain the improvements people notice from slightly higher intakes then?

I did. The island is called Okinawa; these people are generally considered to be the longest‐living among First World countries.

You do realize that it's impossible to live over 100 years with negative nitrogen balance? right?

I meant proving the opposite, because it doesn't take much effort to find reasons favoring a bit more.

 

[Amazoniac]

Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease - Ross

"Nitrogen balance is simply the difference between input and output that is similar to the introduction of a coin into a gumball machine with the resulting release of a gumball. The perception of only the “in” and “out” observations is that the machine changes the coin directly into a gumball or the dietary intake becomes directly the N excreted without consideration of amino acid entry from protein breakdown (B) or uptake for protein synthesis (S). This point is further illustrated with four different hypothetical responses to a change from a zero N balance (case 0) to a positive N balance (cases A to D). A positive N balance can obtained by increasing protein synthesis (A), by increasing synthesis more than breakdown (B), by decreasing breakdown (C), or by decreasing breakdown more than synthesis (D). The N balance method does not distinguish among the four possibilities."

The centenarians can be very well-adapted (case C or D) to a sub-optimal intake, just like Kartoffel mentioned.

 

[Travis]

How do you explain the improvements people notice from slightly higher intakes then?

How do you explain the improvements from lower intakes then?

I meant proving the opposite, because it doesn't take much effort to find reasons favoring a bit more.

Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble explaining why excessive methionine and trytpophan are a good thing for people not intentionally trying to grow in size (i.e. most people) and those attempting to keep serotonin levels a bit lower than average (i.e. most people here).

 

[Travis]

The centenarians can be very well-adapted (case C or D) to a sub-optimal intake, just like Kartoffel mentioned.

If they have adapted than how is it not optimal?

 

[Amazoniac]

How do you explain the improvements from lower intakes then?
Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble explaining why excessive methionine and trytpophan are a good thing for people not intentionally trying to grow in size (i.e. most people) and those attempting to keep serotonin levels a bit lower than average (i.e. most people here).

The protein usually comes imbalanced from muscle meat, it would make sense that consuming less minimizes the harm.

I'm against excesses just like you are. The problem here is what you think is enough, I think is slightly less than optimal. It's about balancing anabolism and catabolism, so some construction is needed.

If they are adapted than how is it not optimal?

They wouldn't be able to follow your posts. Not even 1%.

Now how would you explain that a lot of people that consulted with Ray found benefit with greater intakes? If you double the amount of protein that you consume with gelatin, you won't be increasing any methionine or tryptophan significantly and still find a lot of benefit from the increased intake.

 

[raypeatclips]

If anyone wants to see some epidemiology on colon cancer, eggs, and meat consumption I can post those too.

Yes please.

 

[raypeatclips]

@Travis Also I wondered about the Okinawans that you use as an example of low protein diets and good health. I noticed the diet image you posted earlier said their diet was something like 69 percent sweet potatoes, almost 3/4 sweet potatoes. I wondered if you thought the keto acids in the potatoes was the reason they could get by on low protein? Peat has said before that the keto acids in potatoes can assimilate proteins in the body, like the "ray peat protein potato soup" which seems low in protein on paper, but has a larger effect once consumed. What if the protein content isn't the main factor, and that potatoes as the Okinawans main calorie source has been overlooked, and this is assisting their low protein diet?

 

[Travis]

@Travis Also I wondered about the Okinawans that you use as an example of low protein diets and good health. I noticed the diet image you posted earlier said their diet was something like 69 percent sweet potatoes, almost 3/4 sweet potatoes. I wondered if you thought the keto acids in the potatoes was the reason they could get by on low protein? Peat has said before that the keto acids in potatoes can assimilate proteins in the body, like the "ray peat protein potato soup" which seems low in protein on paper, but has a larger effect once consumed. What if the protein content isn't the main factor, and that potatoes as the Okinawans main calorie source has been overlooked, and this is assisting their low protein diet?

I read a few studies on the α-keto acid content of potatoes and it seems negligible (~2%). However, another study showed that potato had a higher protein bioavailability that milk. I am not sure why this, but I can certainly see why it'd be better than seeds. Beans, nuts, and grains have seed storage proteins which represent a compact depot of proteins which are then unpacked for growth. Much of the glutamate exists as glutamine, which releases ammonia upon germination. Also, they are high in proline and thus difficult for our enzymes to digest.

 

[tca300]

@superhuman No metabilic decrease, I eat more now, my fat has been at 75 - 90 grams per day ( from dairy) for about a month, its very stimulating and I need to eat more to avoid weight loss.