The Peat Ratio Of Foods (Glycine Vs Methionine, Cysteine And Tryptophan)

[Amazoniac]

What differences?

0.7 / (0.2 * 0.9 * 0.4)

??

Your input continues to be in grams and you're treating them all equally. Let's say that you had this profile instead:

Skim milk: 0.7 (glycine)/(0.4 (cysteine)+0.2 (methionine)+0.9 (tryptophan))

The ratio would remain the same.

 

[baccheion]

??

Your input continues to be in grams and you're treating them all equally. Let's say that you had this profile instead:

​

The ratio would remain the same.

Fine now due to multiplication replacing sums.

 

[Amazoniac]

Fine now due to multiplication replacing sums.

Using dogs as example.

You can has:

70 pounds of German Pinchers + 140 pounds of German Shepherds + 70 pounds of Havaneses.

Having 280 pounds of dogs is almost meaningless without knowing how much each should weight, but with the sum at least you know the total. It only adds confusion when you multiply, what does a 686,000 (pounds) 'score' represent and the point in obtaining it?

Things change when you know the specificitastieis:

- Breed Weight Chart | American Kennel Club

- 35 pounds for 1 German Pincher
- 70 pounds for 1 German Shepherd
- 10 pounds for 1 Havanese​

You should expect..

2 German Pinchers + 2 German Shepherds + 7 Havaneses.
Must be dealing with 11 dogs.​

A different scenario, what if you hased instead:

70 pounds German Pinchers + 70 pounds German Shepherds + 90 pounds of Havaneses.

That's 230 pounds of dogs and a new 'score' of 441,000. Thy figures decreased, but now you'd have:

2 German Pinchers + 1 German Shepherd + 9 Havaneses.
12 dogs.​

Dangerous approach, should be regulated as drugs.

 

[Amazoniac]

- Amino Acids and Proteins | Principles of Food Chemistry (978-3-319-63607-8)

Spoiler

Glycine and tryptophan:

Spoiler

 

[baccheion]

Using dogs as example.

You can has:

​

Having 280 pounds of dogs is almost meaningless without knowing how much each should weight, but with the sum at least you know the total. It only adds confusion when you multiply, what does a 686,000 (pounds) 'score' represent and the point in obtaining it?

Things change when you know the specificitastieis:

- Breed Weight Chart | American Kennel Club

- 35 pounds for 1 German Pincher
- 70 pounds for 1 German Shepherd
- 10 pounds for 1 Havanese​

You should expect..

2 German Pinchers + 2 German Shepherds + 7 Havaneses.
Must be dealing with 11 dogs.​

A different scenario, what if you hased instead:

​

That's 230 pounds of dogs and a new 'score' of 441,000. Thy figures decreased, but now you'd have:

2 German Pinchers + 1 German Shepherd + 9 Havaneses.
12 dogs.​

Dangerous approach, should be regulated as drugs.

It is known that the amino acids being considered are the ones listed. Foods are then being ranked by their relative portioning of "desired" amino acids versus "undesired". Therefore, columns are amino acids and rows are foods. A score is created by weighing and combining amino acid quantities.

Each desired amino acid points back to glycine and each undesired ends up as methionine. The conversion method involves applying a scale and offset, something that doesn't have to be known if multiplication is used rather than summation. That is, I don't have to assess the structure of choline to determine the gram:gram ratio of choline:glycine.

With columns now static/known and combined, foods can now be scored/ranked.

It doesn't matter how much of each the foods have or if the amounts equal the same score but are shuffled among the amino acids, as each food has the same columns present.

If the negative value of tryptophan is greater than methionine, it implies the need for a weight. Such a weight would then be placed in the exponent. For example, (glycine * serine * choline) / (methionine * cysteine * tryptophan ^ 2.3).

If the scale was being added to ensure it has the same units, it is no longer necessary.

 

[Amazoniac]

It is known that the amino acids being considered are the ones listed. Foods are then being ranked by their relative portioning of "desired" amino acids versus "undesired". Therefore, columns are amino acids and rows are foods. A score is created by weighing and combining amino acid quantities.

Each desired amino acid points back to glycine and each undesired ends up as methionine. The conversion method involves applying a scale and offset, something that doesn't have to be known if multiplication is used rather than summation. That is, I don't have to assess the structure of choline to determine the gram:gram ratio of choline:glycine.

With columns now static/known and combined, foods can now be scored/ranked.

It doesn't matter how much of each the foods have or if the amounts equal the same score but are shuffled among the amino acids, as each food has the same columns present.

If the negative value of tryptophan is greater than methionine, it implies the need for a weight. Such a weight would then be placed in the exponent. For example, (glycine * serine * choline) / (methionine * cysteine * tryptophan ^ 2.3).

If the scale was being added to ensure it has the same units, it is no longer necessary.

That was the first criticism. As soon as you have 3 variables or more, it's over, you could fix one but can't lump the rest without correcting for differences.

The only solution that I can think of is relating each of them from an unity, as in BCAAs: 2 : 1 : 1 (I'm getting an icon). Or else it wouldn't matter, the person could take 2 g of BCAAs and screw the distribution (that disappears when you combine) because all are desired, and note that these 3 amino acids are considerably similareler than the ones from this thread.

If the interaction involves crowding out a site, perhaps the rudimentary way of working with grams is enough, but it's likely beyond that, probably involving competition for transport or transference of parts, making those initial figures useless.

In case you have something better, the N95 duck here believes that it's preferable if the concepts is applied in practice with actual values for producing the cut to the chase.
The USDA database used to have a Full Report for each food, I don't know if it's still available, can save time when computing these.

 

[baccheion]

That was the first criticism. As soon as you have 3 variables or more, it's over, you could fix one but can't lump the rest without correcting for differences.

The only solution that I can think of is relating each of them from an unity, as in BCAAs: 2 : 1 : 1 (I'm getting an icon). Or else it wouldn't matter, the person could take 2 g of BCAAs and screw the distribution (that disappears when you combine) because all are desired, and note that these 3 amino acids are considerably similareler than the ones from this thread.

If the interaction involves crowding out a site, perhaps the rudimentary way of working with grams is enough, but it's likely beyond that, probably involving competition for transport or transference of parts, making those initial figures useless.

In case you have something better, the N95 duck here believes that it's preferable if the concepts is applied in practice with actual values for producing the cut to the chase.
The USDA database used to have a Full Report for each food, I don't know if it's still available, can save time when computing these.

The purpose of the ratio posted in the OP is to rank foods by good:bad. The higher the score, the better. Factoring minimum requirements for each amino acid is something else.

 

[Matt C]

Hey Hans, do you recommend BCAAs and if so, when is the best time to take them?

I've ordered some to assist with my weight training however I've read from ppl on here that it can be good to take if you eat a lot of tryptophan.

I've incorporated more liver and oysters/mussels in my diet, which all seem pretty high in tryptophan so perhaps supplementing with BCAAs is a good idea for me..

I also take collagen for the glycine..

 

[Hans]

Hey Hans, do you recommend BCAAs and if so, when is the best time to take them?

I've ordered some to assist with my weight training however I've read from ppl on here that it can be good to take if you eat a lot of tryptophan.

I've incorporated more liver and oysters/mussels in my diet, which all seem pretty high in tryptophan so perhaps supplementing with BCAAs is a good idea for me..

I also take collagen for the glycine..

Honestly, BCAAs are worthless is you eat enough protein, which is about 1.4-1.6g/kg of BW of beginner to intermediate and 2g/kg/BW for an advanced lifter. BCAAs will only help if your protein intake is subpar.
But in terms of tryptophan, I don't think BCAAs is a good long term solution because you'll have to take it with every protein meal. I'd rather focus on keeping stress and inflammation low to optimize neurotransmitter.
On the flip side, tryptophan is used for muscle protein synthesis and also for NAD synthesis.

 

[Matt C]

Honestly, BCAAs are worthless is you eat enough protein, which is about 1.4-1.6g/kg of BW of beginner to intermediate and 2g/kg/BW for an advanced lifter. BCAAs will only help if your protein intake is subpar.
But in terms of tryptophan, I don't think BCAAs is a good long term solution because you'll have to take it with every protein meal. I'd rather focus on keeping stress and inflammation low to optimize neurotransmitter.
On the flip side, tryptophan is used for muscle protein synthesis and also for NAD synthesis.

Thanks man

 

[Cheese liver]

There is a Fernstrom ratio which looks at the amount of tryptophan in foods compared to other large neutral amino acids such as the BCAAs, tyrosine and phenylalanine.

I thought of doing the same with glycine compared to methionine, cysteine and tryptophan.
So I'm just going to list a few common foods and we can add more foods to this thread.

The higher the number, the better.

Skim milk: 0.7 (glycine)/(0.2 (cysteine)+0.9 (methionine)+0.4 (tryptophan)) = 0.467
Ground beef: 0.926
Sirloin: 1.071
Lamb chop loin: 1.077
Goat milk: 0.333
Bison: 1.396
Yogurt: 0.268
Gelatin: 31.667
Chicken breast: 0.909
Chicken thigh: 0.595
Turkey breast: 0.909
Potato: 0.733
Casein: 0.455
Whey: 0.294
Beef liver: 1.333
Beef kidney: 1.133
Beef heart: 1.071
Oysters: 1.3
Shrimp: 1.12
Cod: 0.917
Squid: 1.286
Soy protein: 1.111
Pea protein: 1.286
Rice protein: 0.833
Macadamia nuts: 4.667
Almonds: 2.636

Very informative @Hans Thank you . But now i,m curious to know if milk has such a low fernstorm ratio, isnt that a bit concerning ? I have been searching around and all evidence suggests that milk is rather high in tryptophan and other inflammatory proteins. One counter argument that I have heard is that the calcium content in milk helps somehow to balance the negative effects. Another thing that I read is that its not the amount of tryptophan but rather the combination of all the amino acids in regard to the other anti-inflammatory amino acids like glycine and proline. Any advice in this regard ?

 

[Hans]

Very informative @Hans Thank you . But now i,m curious to know if milk has such a low fernstorm ratio, isnt that a bit concerning ? I have been searching around and all evidence suggests that milk is rather high in tryptophan and other inflammatory proteins. One counter argument that I have heard is that the calcium content in milk helps somehow to balance the negative effects. Another thing that I read is that its not the amount of tryptophan but rather the combination of all the amino acids in regard to the other anti-inflammatory amino acids like glycine and proline. Any advice in this regard ?

Yes the Fernstrom ratio and not so much total tryptophan. Milk doesn't have the lowest Fernstrom ratio, but it's also not sky-high. Tryptophan can also be used to create B3 and is used for muscle protein synthesis. Milk contains equal amounts of methionine compared to beef and is lower in cysteine. It's only higher in tryptophan than beef. But since it contains many other health-promoting substances (calcium, anti-stress peptides, branch chain fatty acids, odd chain fatty acids, etc.), it makes it worth it.

 

[Cheese liver]

Yes the Fernstrom ratio and not so much total tryptophan. Milk doesn't have the lowest Fernstrom ratio, but it's also not sky-high. Tryptophan can also be used to create B3 and is used for muscle protein synthesis. Milk contains equal amounts of methionine compared to beef and is lower in cysteine. It's only higher in tryptophan than beef. But since it contains many other health-promoting substances (calcium, anti-stress peptides, branch chain fatty acids, odd chain fatty acids, etc.), it makes it worth it.

Thanks for the response. In order to expand, BCAA , Casein , gelatin and calcium are all the beneficial things one can include in their diet to help to ward of the negative effects.

 

[Hans]

Thanks for the response. In order to expand, BCAA , Casein , gelatin and calcium are all the beneficial things one can include in their diet to help to ward of the negative effects.

Yes, but I won't say BCAAs are necessary. You can always take BCAA with tyrosine and/or phenylalanine to increase dopamine and lower serotonin, so simply take caffeine with theanine or theacrine. That will also help to increase dopamine and lower serotonin. Keeping inflammation low and optimizing glucose oxidation is key and those things you mentioned (as well as others) can help with that.

 

[Cheese liver]

Hey guys just noticed this issue here.
I was comparing the glycine content in different types of food and I was rather surprised to find oxtail and lamb shanks low in glycine compared to lean beef!

As u can see it shows oxtail is lower in glycine with protein values equated. I have heard danny and Peat say it was much higher in glycine and hence advocated it more.
Is something amiss here ? Do let me know.