Eating meat extends human life expectancy

[Ritchie]

1) I dont base my statements off of how "Dr. Peat see's it", so a response of "Peat see's it X way" is largely irrelevant to this conversation. This is especially the case considering Dr. Peat has multiple quotes from many different periods of time that are seemingly contradictory with eachother.

To put it in context, I was replying to Haidut, who posted this thread with an article and study suggesting eating meat extends human life expectancy. Now, recently Peat has been speaking about lowering methionine, and protein in general, because of the theory that doing so extends life, amongst other health benefits. Clearly the title of this thread, and Peat's current position are at odds with each other. We're on the Ray Peat forum so we're kinda here to discuss/debate/explore his ideas, at least in part... So I asked haidut how he thinks it all squares.. In the context of this forum, the way Peat sees it is very relevant to the conversation..

Just to be clear, i'm not saying Peat is necessarily correct here.. but obviously wanting to explore his ideas, which is even more interesting in the face of contrasting research.

2) Also, Peat lowering his protein intake to 60g/ day to keep methionine lower, doesn't mean that "He doesn't see" that the methionine restriction studies have mostly been done in lower animals, have resulted in certain physical tradeoffs, and that glycine has been shown to be somewhat of an antidote to methione.

Point is he has obviously been convinced enough to take this route and adhere to that position... At least for now. He's certainly not trying to cause himself health detriment so what other motivations do you think he has when he knows full well about glycine and animal studies?

Also, I'd be interested if you could link a study you've seen showing glycine to be an antidote to methionine excess...?

3) If I'm not mistaken many of the methionine restriction studies in these lower animals were started when the animals where young. In quite a few other longevity models starting an intervention at a later age resulted in significantly less benefit than when started at a young age. This implies that methionine restriction when applied to full grown adult humans may not play out in the same manner that methionine restriction does in young lower animals.

I'm not that well across it but I think there's research showing caloric restriction in general resulted in significant health outcomes, possibly through fasting or intermittent fasting. The methionine research stands on the shoulders of that, and the theory is that low methionine consumption is the reason that caloric restriction in general is so beneficial... Probably tryptophan and cysteine plays into that as well.

4) Incorporating a larger amount of collagen/ gelatin in the diet may allow for sufficient protein intake, as well as a larger glycine intake, while effectively limiting methionine. This is something that Dr. Peat himself has discussed and may effectively diminish the need for a low protein diet.

Yes I know but Peat seems to have decided that this theory doesn't quite cut it. Otherwise he wouldn't be talking about striving to achieve low methionine via low protein consumption and dropping down to a 50gram a day protein diet.... If anyone is aware of glycine/collegen/gelatin and it's relationship to general protein intake it's Peat.
Again - i'm interested in discussing his position and the rationale rather than using him as a flag for what is right or wrong.

I agree that only getting most of your protein from gelatin would lower methionine consumption, and tryptophan at that, but I think it's unclear that this would somehow be an antidote or balance if you are in methionine excess due to large consumption of other high methionine foods like muscle meats and so forth.

5) Studies in older adults show decreased mortality with higher intakes of protein. This has been discussed as being related to frailty, sarcopenia, and increased catabolism. So even if restricting methionine intake increased lifespan in humans (who most likely had to start restricting when they were young), the increased frailty, and decreased body size, particularly when older may predispose towards other issues that can possibly increase risk of mortality and cancel out the ability to realize the increase in total lifespan. This is not to mention possible alterations in quality of life due to the possible tradeoffs.

Do you think Peat is aware of what you are saying here?

Some initial thoughts : there could be whole host of confounding variables in that research, for example were the people that were eating lower protein, eating high energy carbohydrate dense foods for what they weren't eating in protein dense foods? Along with other nutrition? Obviously if they weren't eating as much overall, thus lowering protein along with everything else, that would lead to frailty etc. Often when protein is lowered, it means people are eating less overall. Especially in the elderly.

It's possible that we as humans don't actually need as much protein intake as we have been lead to believe. It's easy to understand the industry motivations for convincing the public that higher and possibly excessive protein levels are necessary. What our body doesn't use in protein intake gets converted to glycogen through glyconeogenesis, which causes stress on the system and chronically leads to a whole host of issues, and then either gets stored as fat or used as energy, while the surplus of excess amino acids are expelled and the kidneys have to deal with the nitric oxide caused by this, again not ideal. You'd rather get all your glycogen needs through sugar and carbs than have to convert it from high amounts of excess protein. Peat has discussed this alot, and it's partly why keto diets cause so many issues. More so, if you are already eating a high carbohydrate diet along with high protein you won't be using the excess protein for energy, so it will be more likely stored as fat after glyconeogenesis. So the combo of excess protein and high sugar/carbohydrate could be a recipe for getting fat and stressed, even though the sugar would mitigate some of that stress... All this considered, it would be extremely beneficial to understand what the ideal amount of protein consumption should be, ie what can our bodies actually use and make do with.. and what is in excess.. This seems to be the route Peat is exploring...

 

[haidut]

I used to work with some Brahmins. They were vegan. But of course, they have very strong family and extended family support and "privilege." They are extremely smart and ambitious. But when I was invited to weddings or other occassions, anyone over 40 had no eyebrows. The women tended to a sortof sudden obesity after youthful beauty. While they smile kindly and lovingly (they are nice), they seem completely out of it. Like smiling zombies. Their strong supportive ties are holding each other up.

One of my professors in college was a Brahmin. You just perfectly described him and his extended family. I went to his house once for a celebration of him getting a big grant from the NSF. I could not tell which person in attendance was 40 and which one was 90+. They all looked the same...yet, sadly, not the old ones looking young but the ones in their 40s looking like the 90+ year old grandpa, sitting in the corner and eating vegan lentil soup that was literally nothing but lentils boiled in water, without any fat/additives, and just a little salt. I am also convinced that Brahmins use some kind of psychotropic herbs. Peat wrote about reserpine in one of his articles, which originates in India and was heavily used by Gandhi. Brahmins use a lot of herbs and after seeing how their behavior changes after using those herbs, I am inclined to believe some of those herbs have reserpine in them. That chemical has life extending and aging-retarding properties, mostly due to powerfully depleting serotonin. Unfortunately, it also depletes dopamine so the person using it regularly probably looks/acts like a zombie despite getting health benefits from using it.

 

[Regina]

One of my professors in college was a Brahmin. You just perfectly described him and his extended family. I went to his house once for a celebration of him getting a big grant from the NSF. I could not tell which person in attendance was 40 and which one was 90+. They all looked the same...yet, sadly, not the old ones looking young but the ones in their 40s looking like the 90+ year old grandpa, sitting in the corner and eating vegan lentil soup that was literally nothing but lentils boiled in water, without any fat/additives, and just a little salt. I am also convinced that Brahmins use some kind of psychotropic herbs. Peat wrote about reserpine in one of his articles, which originates in India and was heavily used by Gandhi. Brahmins use a lot of herbs and after seeing how their behavior changes after using those herbs, I am inclined to believe some of those herbs have reserpine in them. That chemical has life extending and aging-retarding properties, mostly due to powerfully depleting serotonin. Unfortunately, it also depletes dopamine so the person using it regularly probably looks/acts like a zombie despite getting health benefits from using it.

Aha. Reserpine. ? Yes, I definitely wondered what they are all on.

 

[Hans]

How does this square with the research showing significant methionine restriction increasing life span dramatically? Meat is obviously very dense in methionine.. Peat has been talking about this recently

That study showing that methionine reduced longevity was done with casein. Adding 8% glycine prevented any negatives of methionine in the diet. Meat is close to 8% glycine.

View: https://youtu.be/z3rrS3avsxk

 

[Kvothe]

That study showing that methionine reduced longevity was done with casein. Adding 8% glycine prevented any negatives of methionine in the diet. Meat is close to 8% glycine.

View: https://youtu.be/z3rrS3avsxk

The 8% in the study you mentioned refer to 8% of total diet (by weight) so that's not the same as "meat has 8% glycine and therefore is close to optimal". You would need significantly more glycine than the amount in meat to get close to the amounts used in those studies.

 

[Eberhardt]

That study showing that methionine reduced longevity was done with casein. Adding 8% glycine prevented any negatives of methionine in the diet. Meat is close to 8% glycine.

View: https://youtu.be/z3rrS3avsxk

now THATS relevant info. And theres other potential issues form casein as well (keeping it simple but its at least more confounding factors). But are you sure all the tests where done that way?

 

[Hans]

The 8% in the study you mentioned refer to 8% of total diet (by weight) so that's not the same as "meat has 8% glycine and therefore is close to optimal". You would need significantly more glycine than the amount in meat to get close to the amounts used in those studies.

Your body can create a lot of glycine from serine, 4-hydroxyproline and so on. So by eating (only) meat, you get a perfect balance. You could argue that meat protein would thus be the ideal food, and milk protein the worse, based on amino acid ratios. However, milk as a whole food doesn't shorten lifespan. But when you feed animals casein for example, it can shorten their lifespan.
So a carnivore should theoretically live the longest based on the animal studies looking only at the methionine to glycine ratio.

 

[Hans]

now THATS relevant info. And theres other potential issues form casein as well (keeping it simple but its at least more confounding factors). But are you sure all the tests where done that way?

I don't think we can extrapolate too much from highly unnatural animal diets (chow + casein for example). In my previous comment, I mentioned that milk doesn't shorten lifespan in humans, yet the casein shortened lifespan in animals. So it doesn't just come down to the methionine to glycine ratio.

 

[Michael Mohn]

I don't think we can extrapolate too much from highly unnatural animal diets (chow + casein for example). In my previous comment, I mentioned that milk doesn't shorten lifespan in humans, yet the casein shortened lifespan in animals. So it doesn't just come down to the methionine to glycine ratio.

Good points and good video as always Hans.
I come down from a period of high work related stress and I eat less protein, feeling much better. The extended belly is shrinking fast.

 

[Ritchie]

That study showing that methionine reduced longevity was done with casein. Adding 8% glycine prevented any negatives of methionine in the diet. Meat is close to 8% glycine.

View: https://youtu.be/z3rrS3avsxk

Thanks, that's an interesting video. I'm not sure if what you presented is conclusive though in terms of glycine "blocking" any potential detrimental effects of methionine.. And of course as Peat has talked about, there are other issues with consuming significant methionine apart from the longevity factor. Same with tryptophan. Personally I don't know enough about it, but I do find it interesting that Peat has recently significantly altered his diet largely in response to methionine and protein in general.

 

[Eberhardt]

I don't think we can extrapolate too much from highly unnatural animal diets (chow + casein for example). In my previous comment, I mentioned that milk doesn't shorten lifespan in humans, yet the casein shortened lifespan in animals. So it doesn't just come down to the methionine to glycine ratio.

Exactly. I still think its interesting.

 

[Peatful]

Archived Article Notice

The article you are looking for has been archived in Dr. Mercola's Censored Library on Substack.

articles.mercola.com

 

[Amazoniac]

Your body can create a lot of glycine from serine, 4-hydroxyproline and so on. So by eating (only) meat, you get a perfect balance. You could argue that meat protein would thus be the ideal food, and milk protein the worse, based on amino acid ratios. However, milk as a whole food doesn't shorten lifespan. But when you feed animals casein for example, it can shorten their lifespan.
So a carnivore should theoretically live the longest based on the animal studies looking only at the methionine to glycine ratio.

Juan, animals in those experiments also had their share of endogenous synthesis of glycine, it's in addition to it. Various crapon donors feed into the failate cycle, glycine that's created through this means will have the methyl counterpart eventually added to the system. It's the reason why that remarkable publication referred to it as a 'weak link in metabolism': synthesis of glycine will be accompanied by methyl(ene tetraheldro)failate, with the difference that excess of the former is easily dealt with by cleavage, but the latter is not. You may have 3 g of glycine synthesized this way, but a corresponding amount of methyl groups down the line. The body will have glycine in surplus only if these methyl groups are put to use. In our case, they would be doing a plentiful and supplemental glycine is intended to mop them up, diverting adenosylmethionine from undesirable methylation and polyamine synthesis. Glycine has to be in excess.

Meats tend to be rich in anabolic factors like creatine and choline, which will burden the glycine pool further, perhaps leading to disposal.

Agreed, meats can't be reduced to methionine; glycine negates neither.

- Dietary glycine supplementation mimics lifespan extension by dietary methionine restriction in Fisher 344 rats (attach'd)

"The increase in median and maximum lifespan obtained with GS was only partial, compared to MR, and demonstrated a dissociation between lifespan extension and body growth inhibition, which has not been observed either with MR or caloric restriction models[1,2]. This dissociation is mirrored by the relatively mild decrease observed in IGF-1 (Fig. 2)."​

​

"The lack of effect on plasma Met and cys, coupled with increases in the gly metabolites ser and thr, but not sarcosine (data not shown), also suggests no alteration in the activity of GNMT with GS, in turn suggesting that Met clearance is not compromised in CF and that the apparent threshold effect (i.e., with limited lifespan extension occurring between 4% - 8% GS) of GS is not due to improved Met clearance."​

In terms of Gly:Met mass ratio, their control diet (with the lowest ratio) was 5.3, the beef shewned yields a ratio of 2.6. As pointed out in Bulgaria's thread, it's important to know the food intake in these experiments to rule out glycine replacement of other "nutrients". Also, it's worth knowing the weight of the animals throughout to contexualize the amounts.

Part of methionine will go towards protein synthesis, I think that it's a small fraction that could be discounted. However, the need for glycine for (soft and hard) tissue formation can be surprisingly high, such reactions are major consumers, justifying the 0.1% researchers' idea that glycine intake is suboptimal. So, this aspect should drain a lot more glycine than methionine.

For methylation purposes, not a lot is needed because it can be recycled. Casein has the advantage of being digested slowly, there must not be an extreme influx of morthionine at once.

As far as I know, glycine can't induce its methylase, it's an overwhelming amount of methyl donors that does it. If we assume that this 'buffering' mechanism is working properly, wastage of methionine may only occur in abundance, after needs for anabolism are comfortably met since methionine insufficiency must signal threat. Due to this, there might not be a way around methionine restriction, it has to be imposed. Considering how people respond to low consumption, it seems to do what it's expected to, adaptation appears to take place. However, like Miguel mentioned, too little methionine can weaken the person and be counterproductive, there are environmental insults of all sorts these days and in a fashion that's not predictable. Nevertheless, it's valuable to guarantee that there's glycine available to mitigate uncontrolled methylation reactions, to maximize the use of cysteine and so on.

Moderate consumption of protein with a generous amount of glycine is the best option.

- The history of enthusiasm for protein

 

[Lollipop2]

Juan, animals in those experiments also had their share of endogenous synthesis of glycine, it's in addition to it. Various crapon donors feed into the failate cycle, glycine that's created through this means will have the methyl counterpart eventually added to the system. It's the reason why that remarkable publication referred to it as a 'weak link in metabolism': synthesis of glycine will be accompanied by methyl(ene tetraheldro)failate, with the difference that excess of the former is easily dealt with by cleavage, but the latter is not. You may have 3 g of glycine synthesized this way, but a corresponding amount of methyl groups down the line. The body will have glycine in surplus only if these methyl groups are put to use. In our case, they would be doing a plentiful and supplemental glycine is intended to mop them up, diverting adenosylmethionine from undesirable methylation and polyamine synthesis. Glycine has to be in excess.

Meats tend to be rich in anabolic factors like creatine and choline, which will burden the glycine pool further, perhaps leading to disposal.

Agreed, meats can't be reduced to methionine; glycine negates neither.

"The increase in median and maximum lifespan obtained with GS was only partial, compared to MR, and demonstrated a dissociation between lifespan extension and body growth inhibition, which has not been observed either with MR or caloric restriction models[1,2]. This dissociation is mirrored by the relatively mild decrease observed in IGF-1 (Fig. 2)."​

​

"The lack of effect on plasma Met and cys, coupled with increases in the gly metabolites ser and thr, but not sarcosine (data not shown), also suggests no alteration in the activity of GNMT with GS, in turn suggesting that Met clearance is not compromised in CF and that the apparent threshold effect (i.e., with limited lifespan extension occurring between 4% - 8% GS) of GS is not due to improved Met clearance."​

In terms of Gly:Met mass ratio, their control diet (with the lowest ratio) was 5.3, the beef shewned yields a ratio of 2.6. As pointed out in Bulgaria's thread, it's important to know the food intake in these experiments to rule out glycine replacement of other "nutrients". Also, it's worth knowing the weight of the animals throughout to contexualize the amounts.

Part of methionine will go towards protein synthesis, I think that it's a small fraction that could be discounted. However, the need for glycine for (soft and hard) tissue formation can be surprisingly high, such reactions are major consumers, justifying the 0.1% researchers' idea that glycine intake is suboptimal. So, this aspect should drain a lot more glycine than methionine.

For methylation purposes, not a lot is needed because it can be recycled. Casein has the advantage of being digested slowly, there must not be an extreme influx of morthionine at once.

As far as I know, glycine can't induce its methylase, it's an overwhelming amount of methyl donors that does it. If we assume that this 'buffering' mechanism is working properly, wastage of methionine may only occur in abundance, after needs for anabolism are comfortably met since methionine insufficiency must signal threat. Due to this, there might not be a way around methionine restriction, it has to be imposed. Considering how people respond to low consumption, it seems to do what it's expected to, adaptation appears to take place. However, like Miguel mentioned, too little methionine can weaken the person and be counterproductive, there are environmental insults of all sorts these days and in a fashion that's not predictable. Nevertheless, it's valuable to guarantee that there's glycine available to mitigate uncontrolled methylation reactions, to maximize the use of cysteine and so on.

Moderate consumption of protein with a generous amount of glycine is the best option.

- The history of enthusiasm for protein

Helpful post @Amazoniac. Thank you.

 

[Hans]

Good points and good video as always Hans.
I come down from a period of high work related stress and I eat less protein, feeling much better. The extended belly is shrinking fast.

Digestion is always negatively impacted with stress. Interestingly raw meat (in the form of dried meat/sausage) always digests perfectly or close to it, even for people that have digestive problems.

 

[Ritchie]

Juan, animals in those experiments also had their share of endogenous synthesis of glycine, it's in addition to it. Various crapon donors feed into the failate cycle, glycine that's created through this means will have the methyl counterpart eventually added to the system. It's the reason why that remarkable publication referred to it as a 'weak link in metabolism': synthesis of glycine will be accompanied by methyl(ene tetraheldro)failate, with the difference that excess of the former is easily dealt with by cleavage, but the latter is not. You may have 3 g of glycine synthesized this way, but a corresponding amount of methyl groups down the line. The body will have glycine in surplus only if these methyl groups are put to use. In our case, they would be doing a plentiful and supplemental glycine is intended to mop them up, diverting adenosylmethionine from undesirable methylation and polyamine synthesis. Glycine has to be in excess.

Meats tend to be rich in anabolic factors like creatine and choline, which will burden the glycine pool further, perhaps leading to disposal.

Agreed, meats can't be reduced to methionine; glycine negates neither.

"The increase in median and maximum lifespan obtained with GS was only partial, compared to MR, and demonstrated a dissociation between lifespan extension and body growth inhibition, which has not been observed either with MR or caloric restriction models[1,2]. This dissociation is mirrored by the relatively mild decrease observed in IGF-1 (Fig. 2)."​

​

"The lack of effect on plasma Met and cys, coupled with increases in the gly metabolites ser and thr, but not sarcosine (data not shown), also suggests no alteration in the activity of GNMT with GS, in turn suggesting that Met clearance is not compromised in CF and that the apparent threshold effect (i.e., with limited lifespan extension occurring between 4% - 8% GS) of GS is not due to improved Met clearance."​

In terms of Gly:Met mass ratio, their control diet (with the lowest ratio) was 5.3, the beef shewned yields a ratio of 2.6. As pointed out in Bulgaria's thread, it's important to know the food intake in these experiments to rule out glycine replacement of other "nutrients". Also, it's worth knowing the weight of the animals throughout to contexualize the amounts.

Part of methionine will go towards protein synthesis, I think that it's a small fraction that could be discounted. However, the need for glycine for (soft and hard) tissue formation can be surprisingly high, such reactions are major consumers, justifying the 0.1% researchers' idea that glycine intake is suboptimal. So, this aspect should drain a lot more glycine than methionine.

For methylation purposes, not a lot is needed because it can be recycled. Casein has the advantage of being digested slowly, there must not be an extreme influx of morthionine at once.

As far as I know, glycine can't induce its methylase, it's an overwhelming amount of methyl donors that does it. If we assume that this 'buffering' mechanism is working properly, wastage of methionine may only occur in abundance, after needs for anabolism are comfortably met since methionine insufficiency must signal threat. Due to this, there might not be a way around methionine restriction, it has to be imposed. Considering how people respond to low consumption, it seems to do what it's expected to, adaptation appears to take place. However, like Miguel mentioned, too little methionine can weaken the person and be counterproductive, there are environmental insults of all sorts these days and in a fashion that's not predictable. Nevertheless, it's valuable to guarantee that there's glycine available to mitigate uncontrolled methylation reactions, to maximize the use of cysteine and so on.

Moderate consumption of protein with a generous amount of glycine is the best option.

- The history of enthusiasm for protein

Excellent post

 

[Amazoniac]

However, eating even those carefully chosen plant diets cannot match the full benefits meat eating has on health and lifespan. Now, that does not mean one should gobble up meat for every meal, as there are indeed important factors in meat that need to be mitigated (e.g. the low calcium/phosphorus ratio). However, even with those caveats in mind a predominantly meat-based diet is probably still more beneficial in the long run compared to a pure vegan diet.

nrodiirr. toxic meraholitps rannhle of rtamacrinrr rl-ip ht-qin

Jorge, there aren't many countries with meat consumption higher than 100 kg/year, or 270 g/day, which would provide about 70 g of protein per day. The linear model is based mostly on intakes below that and total protein consumption must not be too far from a reasonable 1 g protein/kg bw. What made you conclude the paragraph with such dramatization?

- A High-carb Diet May Explain Why Okinawans Live So Long

 

[Razvan]

Jorge, there aren't many countries with meat consumption higher than 100 kg/year, or 270 g/day, which would provide about 70 g of protein per day. The linear model is based mostly on intakes below that and total protein consumption must not be too far from a reasonable 1 g protein/kg bw. What made you conclude the paragraph with such dramatization?

- A High-carb Diet May Explain Why Okinawans Live So Long

This thread is not intended in praising meat as truly beneficial food that must be eaten every day. This thread is indeed aiming for going after the anti meat,vegan push that is going on.

 

[Razvan]

Juan, animals in those experiments also had their share of endogenous synthesis of glycine, it's in addition to it. Various crapon donors feed into the failate cycle, glycine that's created through this means will have the methyl counterpart eventually added to the system. It's the reason why that remarkable publication referred to it as a 'weak link in metabolism': synthesis of glycine will be accompanied by methyl(ene tetraheldro)failate, with the difference that excess of the former is easily dealt with by cleavage, but the latter is not. You may have 3 g of glycine synthesized this way, but a corresponding amount of methyl groups down the line. The body will have glycine in surplus only if these methyl groups are put to use. In our case, they would be doing a plentiful and supplemental glycine is intended to mop them up, diverting adenosylmethionine from undesirable methylation and polyamine synthesis. Glycine has to be in excess.

Meats tend to be rich in anabolic factors like creatine and choline, which will burden the glycine pool further, perhaps leading to disposal.

Agreed, meats can't be reduced to methionine; glycine negates neither.

"The increase in median and maximum lifespan obtained with GS was only partial, compared to MR, and demonstrated a dissociation between lifespan extension and body growth inhibition, which has not been observed either with MR or caloric restriction models[1,2]. This dissociation is mirrored by the relatively mild decrease observed in IGF-1 (Fig. 2)."​

​

"The lack of effect on plasma Met and cys, coupled with increases in the gly metabolites ser and thr, but not sarcosine (data not shown), also suggests no alteration in the activity of GNMT with GS, in turn suggesting that Met clearance is not compromised in CF and that the apparent threshold effect (i.e., with limited lifespan extension occurring between 4% - 8% GS) of GS is not due to improved Met clearance."​

In terms of Gly:Met mass ratio, their control diet (with the lowest ratio) was 5.3, the beef shewned yields a ratio of 2.6. As pointed out in Bulgaria's thread, it's important to know the food intake in these experiments to rule out glycine replacement of other "nutrients". Also, it's worth knowing the weight of the animals throughout to contexualize the amounts.

Part of methionine will go towards protein synthesis, I think that it's a small fraction that could be discounted. However, the need for glycine for (soft and hard) tissue formation can be surprisingly high, such reactions are major consumers, justifying the 0.1% researchers' idea that glycine intake is suboptimal. So, this aspect should drain a lot more glycine than methionine.

For methylation purposes, not a lot is needed because it can be recycled. Casein has the advantage of being digested slowly, there must not be an extreme influx of morthionine at once.

As far as I know, glycine can't induce its methylase, it's an overwhelming amount of methyl donors that does it. If we assume that this 'buffering' mechanism is working properly, wastage of methionine may only occur in abundance, after needs for anabolism are comfortably met since methionine insufficiency must signal threat. Due to this, there might not be a way around methionine restriction, it has to be imposed. Considering how people respond to low consumption, it seems to do what it's expected to, adaptation appears to take place. However, like Miguel mentioned, too little methionine can weaken the person and be counterproductive, there are environmental insults of all sorts these days and in a fashion that's not predictable. Nevertheless, it's valuable to guarantee that there's glycine available to mitigate uncontrolled methylation reactions, to maximize the use of cysteine and so on.

Moderate consumption of protein with a generous amount of glycine is the best option.

- The history of enthusiasm for protein

How much do you refer in terms of moderate protein mister amazoniac?

 

[Amazoniac]

This thread is not intended in praising meat as truly beneficial food that must be eaten every day. This thread is indeed aiming for going after the anti meat,vegan push that is going on.

That's why absurd suppositions are better avoided, they delegitimize the (futile) cause.

How much do you refer in terms of moderate protein mister amazoniac?

The value above of 1 g protein/kg bw (without factoring in collagen) should be enough, although there are special cases that benefit from more.