eugenez@azure.UUCP (Eugene Zinter) (10/17/84)
[Line Eater Junk Food] ************************************************* ** ** ** Reply to Mr. Carter Bullard: ** ** My responses are prepended with asterisks ** ** ** ************************************************* Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site azure.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gatech.UUCP Path: azure!teklds!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!gatech!carter From: carter@gatech.UUCP (Carter Bullard) Newsgroups: net.veg,net.med Subject: Re: FLAME:FLAME:FLAME:Nutrition Puzzle Solved Message-ID: <10440@gatech.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Oct-84 08:05:58 PDT Article-I.D.: gatech.10440 Posted: Tue Oct 9 08:05:58 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Oct-84 19:25:03 PDT References: <70@azure.UUCP> Organization: School of ICS, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Lines: 42 > > All this information is based on burning food in a Calorimeter. > The experts could be somewhat wrong to believe the body behaves > exactly as a Calorimeter. After all, isn't protein really > meant to build and maintain the body? > > That is, when the amino acids pass into the circulation they > are used to reconstruct more than 1,600 different kinds of > protein that make up muscle tissues, hormones, enzymes, etc. > Why would the body use amino acids as fuel? Except if forced > to? > Now don't take this personally. I'm really mad about this and have lost all control, so please don't hold me responsible until after this episode has subsided. ** What are you mad about? Are you saying that Calorimeters are ** not used to determine how many Calories a serving of a ** particular foodstuff provides? Or are you saying that amino ** acids are not used to reconstruct protein? Are are upset ** that I don't believe the main purpose of protein is to fuel ** the body? Please explain. I am fully aware that protein can ** be used to fuel the body---but that is NOT it's main purpose ** and is usually due to wrong eating habits---in particular, ** the overconsumption of protein (or the underconsumption of ** carbohydrates). Really, Before you say anything in net.med that is intended as information you should at least be qualified first. Have you ever heard of Biochemistry, the Krebs Cycle? Have you ever had a Biology course before? in a college? in high school? in grammer school? ** I hold a mere B.S. In Electrical and Computer Engineering. ** Apparently, this doesn't qualify me to make any statements ** in net.med---at least according to your narrow viewpoint. ** I believe practically anyone has heard of the WELL KNOWN ** Krebs Cycle. It is extremely interesting. ** I do, however, read a lot. And so if I run across something ** of interest, I like to pass it along to others. ** Are you one of those people who don't believe that someone ** without the "proper" degree(s) can't make meaningful ** contributions to the world? (Let's not tell George ** Washington Carver about that.) I hate to mention this, but ** SOME of the most stupid people in this world are those with ** a string of capitalized letters following their whole name. ** Oh yes, by the way---it's "grammar", NOT "grammer". I would like to think that this news group could be a source of GOOD information and discussion about current topics in medicine. IF YOU DON'T KNOW SOMETHING, ASK. MAYBE SOMEBODY KNOWS AN ANSWER, AT LEAST A REASONABLE ANSWER. ** What GOOD information have you contributed in your letter? ** Your letter provides NOTHING. JUST DON'T TAKE A POSITION OF AUTHORITY IN THIS NEWS GROUP UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. ** What position did I claim? What is your position? Are you the ** Master here? This is still a free world where I live---perhaps ** you would like to change that. If you know what you are ** talking about---then please tell us, it might interest at ** least myself. "Nutrition Puzzle Solved" was and still is the biggest bag of garbage I have ever read. ** Rather than behaving like a child, why don't you act like ** a responsible adult and state in a simple informative manner ** what is incorrect about my article? It would be much more ** interesting and useful than your current remarks. ** The following information was what I provided in my letter ** to net.med and net.veg (surrounded by brackets): *** ["Have you ever wondered about the relationship between that *** nutritional information on the back of so many food containers? *** The protein, carbohydrates, fat, and alcohol??? *** Try an experiment---for one serving of the particular food or *** drink, look on the back of some box or bottle (like catsup). *** 1) Multiply the number of grams of protein by 4 *** 2) Multiply the number of grams of carbohydrates by 4 *** 3) Multiply the number of grams of alcohol by 7 *** 4) Multiply the number of grams of FAT by 9 *** 5) Now add those numbers (1-4) together. *** This is how the number for Calories is gotten!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *** Notice how close your calculation is to what the label *** claims (on your food container). They round it off though."] ** It is CORRECT. And this was the main interest of my letter. ** My purpose in supplying it was that MANY people are not aware ** of how the number of Calories per serving relates to the ** individual components---protein, carbohydrates, alcohol, and ** fat. GET IT? THE MAIN POINT!! -- Carter Bullard ICS, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet:Carter @ Gatech ARPA:Carter.Gatech @ CSNet-relay.arpa uucp:...!{akgua,allegra,amd,ihnp4,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!carter ** And I admit my example was simple minded and not an exact ** dissertation. It was NOT meant to explain the EXACT ** physiological happenings caused by eating foods composed as ** stated. It WAS meant to imply that you can't go by ** Calories ALONE when designing a diet. (That is, just ** because two foods have the same amount of Calories per ** serving, don't expect them to be similar in their makeup.) ** You could have a VERY unbalanced protein-to-carbohydrate- ** to-fat ratio. You can't go by just carbohydrates alone ** (low carbohydrate diets---"Calories don't count" claims). ** After all, fat provides over twice the Calories that ** carbohydrates do. And for efficient protein use, an ** adequate amount of carbohydrates must be present. You can't ** go by just protein alone either. You have to look at the ** WHOLE picture. Oh yes, that also includes such things as ** vitamins and minerals too. Those who are minimizing ** Calories had better do a little research to see if they are ** lacking in any nutrients. ** So what's wrong with that? Again, please explain. ** If you have some constructive information on all this, I ** and perhaps others on the net would appreciate reading it ** as diet has a large interest in our lives. ** Eugene C. Zinter
carter@gatech.UUCP (Carter Bullard) (10/22/84)
> > Alright,alright, I apologize for being such an ***** about it. But I did say that I was upset. I did warn you in the beginning. Anyway, you and so many others have pointed out my error and I would like to sincerely apologize. Ok, this is my opinion about why the article is deficient. > > All this information is based on burning food in a Calorimeter. The information that you provide is not derived from burning these things in a calorimeter. All the information on caloric potential is determined biochemically and is totally dependant on the amount of NADPH, NADH and subsequently the amount of ATP that can be produced from the material through the glycolytic chain, the Krebs cycle and the process of oxidative phosphorylation( including the electron transport chain ). The caloric potential is realized when phosphatitic enzymes cleave one or two of the phosphate bonds of ATP. From a biochemical standpoint, there is only one way to deliver potential chemical energy to physiologic processes, and that is through the utilization of high energy bonds such as the phosphate bonds found in ATP. Now the kind of energy that is available from chemical bond cleavage is completely described in terms of heat, thus the use of the term calorie to begin with. From a physics point of view, you have to talk in terms of calorimeters, sense that is the definition of something that measures calories. So in order to understand the energy potential of the foodstuffs that we put in our mouths, you have to look at the biochemical utilization which is measured finally in terms of heat production, and in order to measure that you need a calorimeter. Now, the amount of heat released by ATP when it is utilized has been determined to an extremely precise value. And since everybody shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel so to speak, when a food stuffs caloric potential is determined, it is done through a determination of the amount of biochemical intermediates it can produce. Actually the companies do exactly what you did. They just figure out how much protein, fat and carbohydrates are in their product and then just whip out the old calculator. > > The experts could be somewhat wrong to believe the body behaves > > exactly as a Calorimeter. You are absolutely correct!!! I don't know of any physiologist, biochemist, endocrinologist, pharmocologist, microbiologist, ..., even, dare I say it, nutritionist that does. > > After all, isn't protein really meant to build and maintain the body? What do you mean by build and maintain? Everything you put into your mouth has the potential to build and maintain the body. The majority of the protien that you eat is converted to pyruvate which enters the Krebs cycle and thus becomes indistinquishable from carbohydrates. It is the nitrogen that is striped from the amino acid in its conversion to carboxylic acids that becomes eventually urea, that substance that singularly justifies the existence of your kidneys. Remember, the only source of nitrogen in the basic foodstuffs is from amino( this is the chemical prefix for nitrogen ) acids, and the only thing in urea is nitrogen( and a little hydrogen ). The primary reason your urine is yellow, is because amino acids are used the same as carbohydrates. This even applies to some of the essential amino acids, you know, those amino acids that you can't make yourself. > > Why would the body use amino acids as fuel? Except if forced > > to? Now where did you get an idea like that? Really. Where did you get this information? That is the problem I have. This stuff sounds like all the other nutritionist stuff that is not based on fact but on somebody's idea of what will sell in a bookstore. Now if I said that electrons were created simply so we could watch television, you would probably get a little perturbed. > > That is, when the amino acids pass into the circulation they > > are used to reconstruct more than 1,600 different kinds of > > protein that make up muscle tissues, hormones, enzymes, etc. Come on. There are a lot more than 1,600 different kinds of protein. Really. I would very much like to find out where that number came from. To think that that number is within even 4 orders of magnitude of an intelligent quess is one of the most ridiculous ideas that I've heard in several....now you see there, I'm gettin upset again. Well, you get the idea. I hope. No, I don't mind if anybody submits anything to the net. I just pay particular attention when somebody submits an article entitled Nutrition Puzzle Solved. I didn't even know that there was a puzzle to begin with. No, you don't have to have a degree to talk intelligently about biological types of things. But its the intelligent part thats sometimes hard to do. But most of the stuff I said was in haste and not well considered. So please forgive me. PS By the way, I don't remember misspelling grammar on purpose. -- Carter Bullard ICS, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet:Carter @ Gatech ARPA:Carter.Gatech @ CSNet-relay.arpa uucp:...!{akgua,allegra,amd,ihnp4,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!carter