Re: Is there a size bigger that jumbo?

Andrew.C · by Andrew.C on Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:36 pm

Don't listen to Mr.Mackey, drugs don't afraid of anything, okay?

Yeah, that 'real malk' thingie seems to have some good points - except that one about pasteurization increasing pathogens... what the? I'm no doctor but something sounds a little wrong with that. I think the real take home message that needs to get across, especially to these people, is that we really shouldn't be drinking cow's milk at all, period. It's for cows! And on that note, we really shouldn't be eating cow's meat either. Not to totally rag on cows and all, because they're tasty and kinda cute, but they really don't seem to be doing us humans any favours in the health department. The only reason we eat them is because they're there, and we like to eat stuff. I'm pretty sure the cow's main contribution to humankinds domination was to contribute extra muscle power (I guess the milk was probably benificial), and then we figured 'hey, they're here now, I wonder what they taste like?'. So it's almost like the cow's revenge...

Marc · by Marc on Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:57 pm

So we should eat people meat?

(ho ho ho)

Groove Champion · by Groove Champion on Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:08 pm

There is a rating system for protein based on how well we absorb and use it. It's done relative to breast milk which is the best food for us too eat. After that comes eggs. Cow milk and beef both rate highly, higher than other animals and much higher than plant protein.

We should harvest human milk. Mmmmm..... tastes creepy.

Marc · by Marc on Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:25 pm

Do you have a source? I would like to see this chart (and not have this turn into What Some Bloke In The Pub Told Me).

Andrew.C · by Andrew.C on Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:38 pm

If only protein absorption had any relevance to overall health, hey... To not mention anything about the multitude of other subtances in meat besides proteins.

Groove Champion · by Groove Champion on Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:27 pm

Protein itself is important, unlike carbs you actually need it. Same with fat. Two things beef is high in (although the fat varies a lot depending on the cut). The system of measuring protein quality is PDCAA or something. The system does have flaws though. The reason plant proteins rank poorly is because their amino acids are typically incomplete but if you eat different sources you CAN get complete amino acids - problem solved. Don't know how many vegetarians actually mix the right ones though.

I don't actually eat much beef. I get most of my protein from eggs, whey, lamb, fish, chicken etc

Protein = Essential Amino Acids
Fat = Essential Fatty Acids
Carbs = Essential Fuck All

Since protein is essential I'd say it's absorbtion is important to overall health.

Groove Champion · by Groove Champion on Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:37 pm

Maybe I should be changing the word absorbtion to quality.

Groove Champion · by Groove Champion on Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:59 pm

While we are on the subject of food, I read a news article a few days ago about salt in food. They were saying how Australians get too much and that people found the info on food packets confusing. They want to dumb it down and call sodium salt instead. I think there was more changes they wanted too. They said that the average person couldn't be expected to understand the 'scientific jargon' on the packets. I'm no scientist but I thought that everyone knew what the sodium on the packet refered to.

They also said they wanted to lower the salt in food to get the average sodium intake down (it was something like 10g of the stuff). I added up mine for a few days and found I was getting on average 1g of the stuff which is bad because it is essential and might explain my low blood pressure. It made me wander how the hell people were getting 10g of it. I've started adding MORE salt to my diet. What the FUCK are these people eating?

I'll try and find the article and see how badly I've referenced it.
EDIT: Here we go
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=74715

Marc · by Marc on Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:27 pm

Well, you basically live on cheese slices and ketchup, don't you? Or was that just for my benefit and while I was out you were enjoying sumptuous banquets?

edit: how much salt are we supposed to have?

edit edit: well, the article says:

Most Australians consume 10 grams of salt a day but could comfortably survive on just four grams

Andrew.C · by Andrew.C on Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:28 pm

Okay, I love all this back and forth stuff, but I just want to comment on some things because I'm an anal stickler for these kinds of things.

Did you get some of this info from those Protein Muscle Gainer kits with the pictures of those freakishly musclely meat-heads on the container, that suggest the recommended dosage of: "eat this 5 times a day, then go buy some more."? Because I gotta say, some of that stuff sounds way bogus. E.g. Carbs = non-essential: way bogus. Plant protein amino acids incomplete? I know all those words but that sentence makes no sense. But I think I get what you mean, I just wanted rag on stuff to pretend that I know things...

That salt thing was great. People do eat a lot of crap. And I'm one of them. More salt on that?

Groove Champion · by Groove Champion on Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:27 pm

Carbs are non essential. I do eat them though because they are yummy. I'm just saying you don't need them. There is nothing in carbs you need, they are just energy but you can get energy from protein and fat too.

Groove Champion · by Groove Champion on Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:30 pm

Andrew.C wrote:
Plant protein amino acids incomplete? I know all those words but that sentence makes no sense. But I think I get what you mean, I just wanted rag on stuff to pretend that I know things...

I think I worded that bit wrong. The amino acids are complete but they don't create useable protein by themselves. Or something like that. Leave me alone.

EDIT: Found something on Wiki (everything on Wiki is FACT DAMN IT!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCAAS

It explains it in the part about the limitations of the system.

Marc · by Marc on Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:50 pm

The PDCAAS value is different in measuring the quality of protein from the protein efficiency ratio (PER) and the biological value (BV) methods.[2] The PER was based upon the amino acid requirements of growing rats, which noticeably differ to that of humans. The PDCAAS allows evaluation of food protein quality based on the needs of humans as it measures the quality of a protein based on the amino acid requirements (adjusted for digestibility) of a 2- to 5-year old child (considered the most nutritionally-demanding age group). The BV method uses nitrogen absorption as a basis. However, it does not take into account certain factors influencing the digestion of the protein and is of limited use for application to human protein requirements because what is measured is maximal potential of quality and not a true estimate of quality at requirement level. Nevertheless, BV can be used to assess requirements of protein derived from foods with known quality differences and measure the proportion of absorbed nitrogen which is retained and presumably utilized for protein synthesis as an accurate indicator for protein measurement.[3][4]

The PDCAAS method may also still be considered incomplete, since human diets, except in times of famine, almost never contain only one kind of protein—however, calculating the PDCAAS of a diet solely based on the PDCAAS of the individual constituents is impossible. This is because one food may provide an abundance of an amino acid that the other is missing, which means that in this case the PDCAAS of the diet is higher than that of any one of the constituents. To arrive at the final result, all individual amino acids would have to be taken into account, though, so the PDCAAS of each constituent is largely useless.

Sounds to me that this whole ranking system is really only quite a rough guide.

Groove Champion · by Groove Champion on Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:55 pm

Very much so. I don't really pay it much attention but if I was a vegetarian I would.

I only brought it up due to the doubt people seemed to have about breast milk being the best food for us.

Andrew.C · by Andrew.C on Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:14 pm

Okay, 1 sec...

*hurls Biochem textbook onto table* (Hey, it cost $150, I gotta use it for something)

Ah screw it, I'm not looking through that. Carbs are essential, trust me (who wouldn't?). But yes you're right, they are primarily (if not only) for energy, but because of various unfortunate evolutionary reasons the body isn't clever at all. e.g. I was rather shocked and disappointed, yet intrigued, to learn that the brain (indeed the whole nervous system in fact, and not to mention Red blood cells) can ONLY make use of glucose (derived from carbs, essentially [ignoring ketone bodies which adds another level of complexity]) as an energy source. This is in contrast with cardiac muscle, the king of all tissues, which consumes everything it can get its hands on to keep on pumping. Unfortunately your brain cells are way more picky, which is why you die, very quickly, without food.

But I get your jibe about people's aversion to breast milk. Weird.