Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Nutrition Fallacies: Deriving Adult Nutritional Needs From Human Milk Composition

I have seen a number of authors suggest that the nutritional composition of human mother's milk gives us important information about how adult humans should eat.  

The most common suggestions I have seen include:

1.  Since human milk provides 55% of energy as fat, and about 25% of total energy as saturated fats, this shows that adult humans should eat diets providing ~55% of energy as fat and ~25% as saturated fats.  This argument is often made by advocates of high fat diets (e.g. Paul Jaminet in The Perfect Health Diet.)
2.  Since human milk provides only 5% of energy as protein, this shows that adult humans do not need any more than 5% of energy as protein.   This argument is often made by advocates of very low protein plant-based diets (such as fruit-based diets) who want to play down the importance of protein. 

One can only come to these suggestions by taking the nutritional composition of human milk out of context.  Human milk has a specific nutritional purpose, namely, to support the growth and development of infants.  Infants have specific nutritional needs not had by adults.  



Human Milk Promotes Fat Gain?


An infant has an energy requirement approximately 2 to 3 times that of an adult, on a kcal/kg/d basis–80-115 kcal/kg/d for infant [1] vs. 43 kcal/kg/d for 70 kg active adult male expending 3000 kcal per day.  If the 70 kg human had the same energy requirements as the infant on a weight basis, he would need to ingest 6000 to 9000 kcal daily.  

Obviously, the infant's extraordinary metabolic rate creates a demand for a high energy density food.  Since fat provides more energy per unit weight than any other macronutrient, Nature provides the energy-hungry infant with a food high in fat.  Simply put, human milk provides a high proportion of energy as fat in order to meet the high energy demands of an infant. Since adults do not have the same energy requirements as infants, it is very unlikely that the same high fat intake serves adult needs.
 

During the first 18 months of life, breast-fed human infants increase their total body mass from an average of 3.5 kg to 11.0 kg, and their percent body fat from 16% to 25%. [2]   This represents a gain of 2.15 kg of body fat (rising from 0.6 kg to 2.75 kg), in relative terms a 300% increase in body fat mass.  So a diet of fat-rich human milk promotes a rapid rate of body fat accrual and a rapid gain in weight.  Is that what an ideal adult diet should do?  Since adults have only one-third the metabolic rate of infants, one might predict that modeling an adult diet on the nutrient profile of human milk might lead to similar or greater rates of gain of fat and weight in adults.  

Why don't those authors who advocate a high fat diet based on the composition of mother's milk provide this additional information?  If they told you that eating a 55% fat diet enables infants to triple their body weight and fat mass and increase their body fat percentage by 50% in just 18 months, would you consider that fat intake ideal for your purposes? 

As for the saturated fat content, besides having a high need for fats to build adipose reserves and use as energy, infants are also actively building new neural tissue, much of which incorporates saturated fats.  Once again, adults are not growing new neural tissue at the pace of infants, so they do not have the same requirements for fats. 

Protein Phobia

Some people claim that human milk provides the infant a diet low in protein because only 5% of the energy of human milk comes from protein.  However, protein requirements are properly expressed in relation to weight, not percent of energy consumed.  This especially applies here because infants have a much greater energy requirement than adults as discussed above.  Since infants have to consume a much larger proportion of their food as energy-yielding nutrients (fat and carbohydrate),


Infants up to 9 months of age actually have a higher protein requirement than adults when expressed in g/kg/d.  Using the current RDA, a moderately active adult who is not engaged in strenuous resistance or endurance training requires 0.8 g/kg daily.  Infants aged 1–2 months need 1.99 g/kg/d; aged 5–6 months, 0.92 g/kg/d; and 9–12 months, 0.8 g/kg/d. [3 

Obviously, in the first 6 months of life, human milk provides the infant with up to 2.0 g PRO/kg body weight which is necessary for the rapid accrual of lean mass involved in a doubling of body mass in ~ 6 months.  Hence, it is misleading to call human milk a "low" protein diet.

How can a food that provides only 5% of energy as protein provide a high protein intake? Although human milk supplies only 5% of energy as protein, the required large energy intake of an infant leads to a relatively high (compared to the RDA) protein intake expressed in g/kg.  If a 70 kg adult consumed energy at a rate similar to an infant, he would ingest up to 9000 kcal per day of which 5% (450 kcal) would consist of protein.  That would amount to 113 g protein for a 70 kg adult. That comes to 1.6 g PRO /kg or twice the US RDA for protein for an adult male.  Of interest this is similar to the amount recommended for adults engaged in resistance training with a goal of muscle hypertrophy – 1.33 g/kg/d. [4]  

However, since the metabolic rate and therefore total energy requirement of adults is one-third to one-half that of an infant, the adult needs to consume 12–15% of energy as protein to obtain the same intake of protein on a g/kg basis.  

5% of 9000 = 450 = 113 g protein
15% of 3000 = 450 = 113 g protein

Stated otherwise, although human milk provides only 5% of energy as protein, since the infant consumes a very large amount of energy from the milk, s/he obtains, in absolute figures, a moderately high protein intake expressed as g/kg in the first 6 months of life, and this tapers to an intake essentially equivalent to the RDA, i.e. adequate, not "low" in protein.  

To reiterate, at no point in the first year of life does human milk provide infants with any less than 0.8 g/kg protein.   A 70 kg moderately active male consuming 3000 kcal per day and 0.8 g protein/kg body mass will be consuming about 7 percent of energy from protein.  If he consumed only 5% of energy from protein, he would obtain only 38 g protein daily, which is only 0.5 g/kg – less than the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) of 0.66 g/kg/d which is based on nitrogen balance studies.[5]  The EAR states the mean requirement, so for any individual, there is a 50% chance that his requirements are higher than the EAR.  

A 0.5 g/kg intake is also significantly less than estimates of protein requirements based on indicator amino acid oxidation studies, which suggest mean and population-safe requirements of 0.93 and 1.2 g/kg/d, respectively, in young men [6] and 0.85 and 1.15 g/kg/d in elderly women [7].  Using these estimates, a 120 pound elderly woman with an energy requirement of only 2000 kcal per day would probably need about 46 g and possibly as much as 63 g protein daily, which would be 9 to 13% of energy from protein. 

In other words, it is quite possible that while 5% of energy as protein is adequate for someone who has very high energy requirements and consumption (like the infant), but is inadequate for adults with lower energy requirements and consumption.  When talking about protein requirements, it is most informative to focus on the absolute requirements in g/kg, and to put all talk of protein intakes as a percent of energy in this more important context.  

In summary, since infants have very different energy requirements and metabolic activities from adults, it is misleading to use human milk as a model for adult fat or protein requirements. 



 

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Don's Plant Based Meals 5-21-14 - YouTube

▶ Don's Plant Based Meals 5 21 14 - YouTube




I explained in this video why I am using a protein powder in my pre-training shakes.  I am experimenting with this as a nutrient timing strategy for enhancing the results of resistance training (RT), based on some research that suggests that taking protein before RT will enhance the results. 1 However, I am aware that several studies suggest that this strategy has no benefit [For example, 2, 3, 4] so I consider this an experiment.  Every individual differs slightly from the norm, so it is possible that the strategy may provide genuine benefit to some individuals and not to others, resulting in conflicting study results and an average null effect in large populations. 

Use of this supplement has nothing to do with improving the healthfulness of the diet. I could have achieved the same increase in protein intake by eating some whole foods, but I am taking this before training, so I want something liquid, low bulk and easily digestible.

My total food intake for this day provided a total of 120 g protein.  Only 12 g (i.e. 10%) of that came from the protein supplement, and the protein supplement provided only about 2% of my total kcalorie intake.  Without the pea protein, I would still have had 108 g protein.  Since I weigh 70 kg, without that protein supplement the diet provided 1.5 g PRO /kg, about twice the RDA and more than suggested intakes for someone engaged in resistance training with a hypertrophy goal.  

Again, adding the protein supplement is part of a nutrient timing strategy for making an abundance of amino acids available to the tissues during training in a compact, easily digestible form.  It has nothing to do with meeting protein requirements or making the diet more healthful. You can subtract the protein supplement and the diet still provides more than enough protein and other essential nutrients. 


The vast majority of research on the effects of protein supplementation in resistance training subjects is conducted on subjects who consume animal protein in their daily diets (see the four examples cited above).  Further, most of these studies take people who are already eating diets rich in animal protein, and enrich their diets with more animal protein (milk or egg derived).

So one could wonder: If animal protein is so great, why would anyone have to supplement with more animal protein?  Why would people who are already eating cheese and eggs need to supplement more dairy and egg protein to get results from resistance training?  If they need to supplement, does this mean that meat, fish, and poultry are deficient in essential amino acids, and only milk and egg proteins have adequate supplies of essential amino acids?  Hardly anyone asks such questions.

No one asserts that the use of protein supplements by meat-eaters to attempt to enhance results from resistance training provides evidence that a meat-based diet is protein deficient.  But if a vegan adds a protein supplement to his diet, this is taken as "proof" that plant-based diets don't supply adequate essential amino acids.  LOL. 

Some people are upholding a double standard by suggesting that if a vegan uses a protein supplement for a specific purpose, this means that a plant-based diet is protein deficient; but if an omnivore uses a protein supplement for the same purpose, no doubt is cast on the healthfulness or protein-adequacy of a diet containing meat.  This is simple bullshit.

Vegan athletes have a right to experiment with various plant protein intakes and supplements to improve performance, and their doing so says nothing about the general healthfulness of a plant-based diet for non-athletes. 

In fact, I would say that vegans have this Right, but omnivores are not similarly Right to use milk and egg proteins, because "Right" means "an action that does not infringe on the Life, Liberty, or Natural Property of another Sentient Being."  In order for anyone to experiment with those animal proteins, s/he has to intentionally infringe on the Life, Liberty, Natural Property, and pursuit of happiness of the non-humans from whom they take milk and eggs.  Doing so, the omnivore embraces and models a "might makes right" moral relativism which implicitly grants to everyone the license to steal anything from anyone weaker whenever the stronger one believes that doing so will suit his own goals.  This moral relativism and its epistemological counterpart, egotistic solipsism, give rise to all the evil we encounter in our human world. 

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Response to The Kosher Omnivore's Defense of Slavery

We Need Dialogue not Protests, Why I Stand by Urban Adamah and am Appalled by the Actions of the JVNA - The Kosher Omnivore's Quest



My response to specific statements of the Kosher Omnivore:





"....spent laying hens." 


No one has any Right to 'spend' any One's life, liberty, or property except One's own.  Your idea that you have a right to 'spend' a chicken's Life shows you to be an ardent defender of SLAVERY.



"...on a small class of fellow Jews that cares about animals and uses extremely high welfare practices rather than protest the atrocities that go on daily in industrial farms and slaughterhouses, then who am I to stop them?"   


Any One with any Con-science opposes all forms of SLAVERY regardless of how 'well' the slaves are treated or how few the slaves. 


"...cares about animals...."  


So your argument goes as follows: "I 'care' about my slaves, how can you oppose my holding them against their will and taking Life, Liberty, and Property from them?"   These words show your IGNOR-ance of the priniciples of Natural Law: 1) Do not do unto any One what you do not want done to One Self.  2) What by your Acts you sow, so shall you reap.  If One ever wonders why SLAVERY still exists, why 'authorities' take One's Life, Liberty, and Property at their whim you need only look in the mirror. You teach them to do it by your own Actions.  The term 'Self-Respect" literally means "take another look at One Self"  to see the Truth.  I see that you have a lack of experience in that practice.


"According to the JVNA this was a life and death struggle in which they needed to resort to desperate measures to save the life of 15 chickens but I put little stock in this narrative when millions of chickens are scalded to death in industrial slaughterhouses each year."   


IOW you are saying:  "My Violence is less than his Violence, leave me alone."  Or:  "Don't look at me, look at him."  All the moral reasoning of a juvenile.   The fact that someone else killed 16 chickens doesn't make it right for you to kill 15. Grow UP and take RESPONSE-ABILITY for your own Actions.  You are morally culpable for your actions.  By that I mean that you will reap what you sow, it is Natural Law. 


"...in order to bully them into canceling the class."  


LOL.  You take the Lives, Liberty, and Property of 15 innocent One's who lack the Actually Effective Power to Defend Themselves against your Violence, and you call people who oppose your Violence on these Power-less Ones 'Bullies"?  That is rich indeed!  Violence is NEVER a Right, always a Wrong, and the use of Force in to oppose Violence to any One is always a Right, NEVER a Wrong.  The JVNA did the Right, and you did the Wrong. 


"There exists another very important value in Judaism, that of tshuvah, which means repentance or return. The JVNA needs to commit to the fostering of intelligent and thoughtful dialogue rather than the path of forceful intolerance that they’ve chosen. "  


LOL.  The JVNA should repent for doing what is Right?  You truly are in Darkness.  Let me repeat:  Taking Life, Liberty, or Property from any One is Violence and Wrong.  The use of Force to resist Violence is NOT Violence because Violence only occurs when one Violates a Right; Force resisting Violence is ALWAYS a Right, not a Wrong.   If you exercise a little Self-Respect (as described above) you will See that you yourself would exert Force to resist Violence of your Life, Liberty, or Property -- unless you have truly become a complete and willing SLAVE.

Which brings me to this: You do not even understand the meaning of your ritual. It was invented by Priests to train the 'flock' to lay their own necks on the chopping block at the pleasure and whim of the 'authorities.'  They invented the oxymoronic mind-control concept of bloodless ('kosher') slaughter to train the 'flock' to accept SLAVERY.   You are trapped in the net of Mind- and Heart- numbing indoctrination (memes).  I hope One Awakens before One find One's own neck on the chopping block. 

Remember this:  "First they came for the chickens, and I said nothing, because I am not a chicken...."  You can fill in the rest.