[quote]actionjeff wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
It’s incorrect to say that near 100% is absorbed no matter the dose or form.
The greater part of fecal matter is, what?
Fiber? Nope.
Any other non-digestible component of food? Nope.
Bile? No…
Shed intestinal cells? Uh-uh.
Bacteria that beat you to the absorption of nutrients?
Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!
Try a protein powder and oil (and optionally maltodextrin) or MRP based diet for a couple of days where EVERYTHING ought to be absorbable, having 50 g or so of protein at a time, and then try explaining how the toilet bowl contents are compatible with a theory that all the protein was absorbed.
no thanks. Let’s just cut to the chase:
According to you, eating a lot of protein at once vs. spreading it throughout the day will impact protein absorption?[/quote]
Why don’t you try taking what I actually said and going with that, rather than putting words into my mouth, and then arguing that those words are wrong.
[quote]Considering that this is YOUR profession, I highly recommend actually you know… learning about physiology and digestion and stuff.
Lyle Mcdonald’s website is an excellent resource of scientific material on nutrition and fitness that truly expanded my knowledge base. Reading some of the articles on this website might help to prevent other future embarrassing incidents of making shit up and supporting it with anecdotal evidence involving eating a 0 fiber diet and inspecting fecal matter. [/quote]
I’m sorry, but sometimes a simple demonstration – like dropping a light rock and a heavy rock off of a tower and seeing them hit at the same time thus proving Aristotle wrong about gravity – overcomes any number of references. (If references to the contrary even exist.)
That is, overcomes it to a reasonable person. There is also the type of person who will ignore the clear demonstration.
If Mr McDonald has information on his website claiming that protein, particularly when taken in quantity such as I stated, is absorbed 100% which I stated above is wrong, which I highly doubt he has, then that “information” is wrong.
But I highly expect that the error is yours, not his, or in his cited information.
To “cut to the chase” as you put it: You must never have read a protein bioavailability study at any time, otherwise you would never even begin to dispute a person saying that absorption is not 100%.
By the way, what do you think the bacteria in the GI tract live on? What is their nitrogen source if not dietary protein? Even after I brought this general point up, you did not stop to think about this?
When fecal matter is chemically analyzed – and this has of course been done very many times, as you would know if you had read protein bioavailability studies – where do you think the very considerable nitrogen content comes from if not from that percentage of protein that was NOT absorbed by the GI tract? (Yes, a trace comes from shed intestinal cells but not much.)
You dismiss the direct evidence, both that which you can see with your own eyes if you want, and that which has been scientifically analyzed many times in the course of studying the PRECISE matter in question.
Whether you like it or not, the nitrogen content of the stool quantitates non-absorbed protein, and for the person wanting to see for himself whether all protein is absorbed, it indeed can be done as simply as I stated.
If 100% of protein were absorbed as claimed, stool volume on the diet described would consist only of shed intestinal cells, and bile. But that is not the case.
QED, to a reasonable person.