Hi all,

this appears to be a very quiet list, so its nice to see a little action.

i wonder to what extent concurrent vegetable consumption limits the
production of urea and nitrogenous wastes, or acts in other ways to
mediate the effect of a high protein diet.  it seems to me that with the
burgeoning popularity of the paleolithic diet, or in diets that share
similar  principles, i.e. Atkins etc, there is an undue emphasis upon
animal protein.  For e.g. I know that the coastal first nations people of
british columbia (salish, haida, tlingit etc.) consumed an enormous
diversity of vegetation, much greater that what is typically consumed
today in NA, along with a high protein, high fat diet.  It seems to me
that if we want a more complete analysis of the problem we need to look
at a lot more than just the major macronutrients.  For some reason the
vegetables always get left out of the equation, despite the admonitions
of mothers all over the world.

Personally, my interest is in the clinical usage of paleolithic diet, and
i have consistently seen a need for high (non-starchy) vegetable
consumption in high protein diets in most individuals.  In most of the
literature in natural medicine this is phrased in terms of acid vs.
alkaline, and we have found that a higher ratio of vegetation to protein
seems to prevent some the problems associated with the acidic effects of
a high protein/low CHO diet and can be therapeutic (e.g. gout).  And, as
I am also a clinical herbalist, I utilize a wide variety of medicinal
plants that contain an incredible diversity of constituents that can have
a variety of activities on metabolic function, for e.g. enhancing liver
detoxification, hepatoprotection etc.  Many of these herbs of course were
certainly harnessed by our paleolithic forebears.  Now I haven't seen any
studies that have looked at the ornithine cycle and the effect of certain
vegetables or herbs specifically, but i think it might be worthy of
investigating.


>Ben,
>
>I am interested in your proposed concept regarding organ meats and the
>dietary protein ceiling.  It is my understanding that urea formation is the
>limiting physiological factor (as you had mentioned earlier).  If urea
>formation was at its maximum, additional protein channeling into catabolic
>pathways would theoretically yield an increase in ammonia production
>(neurotoxic).  It is also my understanding that the only way to curtail
>urea formation, at least in a physiological sense, is to curtail net
>protein catabolism.  This would require a close match between dietary
>protein intake and anabolism/maintenance of tissue proteins (protein
>deposition into tissues, such as muscle
>mass, or even as an
>increase/maintenance of metabolic enzymes).
>
>If, however, organ meats were substituted for "muscle meats", how might
>this "ceiling" be raised?  Are you proposing that there might be a
>mechanism for:
>
>-increased hepatic capacity for urea formation?
>
>-decreased ammonia toxicity (due to body compartment channeling or improved
>ammonia metabolism/excretion)?
>
>-increased anabolism (increased protein accretion at the tissue/enzyme
>level)?
>

>I would also argue is that when discussing high protein diets, one must be
>careful to clarify whether it is a high absolute consumption of meat
>(limited by urea production probably to an absolute max of 6g/kg body
>weight/day) or high proportion of protein relative to carbohydrate and
>lipid (limited to probably about 40% max of calorific intake). Otherwise
>one can get into a tangle. It is particularly noticeable when reading
>about modern 'fad' diets that are presented as 'high-protein' that it is
>rarely indicated whether the diet means consumption of large quantities of
>protein or a lot of protein relative to other macro-nutrients.

>**************************************************************

Todd Caldecott
[log in to unmask]
www.wrc.net/phyto/phyto.html