Talk:Biological value

message: I started this article as a primer on the Biological Value method of protein rating for human consumption that was used by the FDA and is currently used by other organizations. It simplifies the process so any elaboration is welcome and appreciated. Be bold when you edit it as I welcome any corrections to its points. I myself think if I remember correctly the score of the egg was modified to 93.7 because of the 97% digestibility rate. However it may have been due to the testing of whey protein that caused its number to drop. In either event I think it's a start and would welcome any input and improvements. Quadzilla99 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting started

message: I notice a criticism (first paragraph under criticisms) suggests that BV fails to account for gluconeogensis of a certain amino acid. But, this claim makes no sense given the summary of BV as something computed by measuring nitrogen wastes. After all the nitrogen always has to go somewhere. Gluconeogensis produces nitrogenes wastes in the form of urea, as such it would be accounted for in BV. So either a.) the criticism makes no sense and should be removed, or else b.) there is something incorrect or confusing (to this reader anyhow) about the definition of what BV is. Bmord 20:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physiological error in criticism, or misleading summary of BV? 

message: 63.17.73.220, nice job providing the references for the undisputed material. Most of the information you referenced is a fact found in most general reference sources and is easily locatable by anyone. However it's a nice start to see you getting your feet wet by properly citing sources. Though I must say, some of those sources appear to be a bit spotty - is turnuptheheat.com really a credible third party source with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? Mind you none of the information really asserts anything that isn't common knowledge, but good work nonetheless. Yankees76 05:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: References 1-4 may not qualify under Wikipedia rules as a reliable published source. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Perhaps an explanation on how websites like turnuptheheat.com passes based on this criteria is in order. Yankees76 16:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Can't agree with you there - the whole purpose of the section is to outline criticism of the use of Biological value as an indicator of protein value - the rest of the article is entirely supportive of it - there should be more than one side presented.Yankees76 16:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How is it unfairly criticising BV? All of the information in there is correct. No the oringial author did not cite references, but in turn did not write false information - unless you have an agenda to supress the information. Yankees76 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually no, becaue I've cited two of the claims and looking for an online version of the third claim. Yankees76 17:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: 63.17.71.101, since PCDAAS has only been used since 1989, would you care to explain how citing sources that were published in 1909, 1924 and 1926 like these:
Methods of Estimating Protein Quality by D.M. Hegsted. 
^ a b Thomas, K. Ueber die biologische Wertigkeit der stickstoff-substanzen in 1909 verschiedenen Nahrungsmitteln. Arch. Physiol., 219. 
^ a b Mitchell, H.H. A method for determining the biological value of protein. 1924 J. Biol. Chem., 58, 873. 
^ a b Mitchell, H.H. and G.G. Carman. The biological value of the nitrogen of mixtures 1926 of patent white flour and animal foods. J. Biol. Chem., 68, 183. 
Demonstrate that BV is is more accurate to both the PER and the PDCAAS for the measurement of protein utilization in humans? I'd be curoius to know how Hegsted, Mitchell and Carman could have possibly written in these journals about something that was 70 years after their time.
And what page does Colgan make this claim in his book  Optimum Sports Nutrition -- Your Competitive Edge -- A Complete Nutritional Guide For Optimizing Athletic Performance? Considering it was published in 1993 shortly after PCDAAS was accepted by the FDA, I'd be interested in seeing just where he'd be able to make this assumption. I've reverted your edits until you provide an explanation for this gross oversight is given. Do you have a background in nutrition at all or access to any up-to-date journals that you can use as a verifiable source, because I'm finding your claims about BV to be outlandish and very hard to verify Yankees76 01:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about this too. Am I reading this right? Are these studies really from the early 20th century, or do those numbers mean something else? It might be more clear to use a citation template such as . --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 04:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are -one is a foreign language journal from 1909 (Thomas, K) - probably pulled from here , HH Mitchell was published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in 1924, and the second Mitchell reference was from the same journal - in 1926. Yankees76 04:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable References to support strong claims

message: This section is for Requests for comment discussion.
----
I advise all editors involved to start by reading Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Physical_sciences.2C_mathematics_and_medicine. In particular, note the following:
1. "The scientific consensus can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs." (emphasis added)
2. "In science, avoid citing the popular press."
--Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 16:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: Hello Kind Folks,
Speculation and opinions is POV. Who claims is it "deemed superior". In what way is it superior. Who has made such strong statements as to proclaim which method is the absolute best and so superior.
Original information (as from a good imagination) is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia not rumors or implications as to what method is superior. Where is the scientific proof which method it is DEEMED SUPERIOR ??? 63.17.90.25 19:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speculation and opinions aren't able quote two verifiable sources. And just for fun, here's yet a third source (it's a reprint, but the original newsletter it appeared in won't be difficult to located. It's written by L. Lee Coyne, Ph.D. It's appears Dr. Coyne supports the argument as well. Here's a direct quote from the article. PDCAAS (Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score) - A mouthful but currently the protein quality system considered to be most reliable. And about Biological Value? He describes it as outdated. Aren't things that are outdated generally inferior? If you like I can add in the sentence in question "more reliable" instead of "deemed superior" - it's the same thing. Yankees76 20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, according to the source I'm quoting it's most reliable - not more. But I'll take "more" too. See my last post above as to why nothing measured with the PCDAAS method can score above 1. Yankees76 21:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've presented my case - all you're doing now is presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refuting it, and pretending that the opponent's actual position has been refuted. I'd even call contextomy here too. Yankees76 21:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I have shown my case too. 63.17.90.25 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Do some reading.  See Methods of Assessing Protein Quality - point #2. Therefore, in 1990 at a FAO/WHO
meeting it was decided that proteins having values higher than 1.0 would be rounded down to 1.0. Again you're  presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refuting it, and pretending that the opponent's actual position has been refuted. Yankees76 01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Still a strawman argument. The source was provided to show that the numbers were rounded by the WHO and nothing more. Again you're  presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refuting it, and pretending that the opponent's actual position has been refuted. Yankees76 02:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deemed Superior is POV (Nice Joke). 

message: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010 - I'll let the evidence inside speak for itself. And you can read the nice message left on my talk page regarding this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yankees76#What.27s_Up. (just below the 'civility'sub head) Regards. Yankees76 05:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Gig is Up

message: 6317 repeatedly states here that animal sources of protein are more usable than all vegetable sources of protein. Is there a source that states this? I'm serious. What is the basis for this statement, other than "ask anyone" or "bodybuilders know"? I am looking for a reputable published source. Thanks. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Animal & vegetable sources

message: After browsing the discussion on this talk page I think that Template:Citecheck may be the wrong template for one of your disputed sections.  Citecheck doesn't question the reliability of a source and it doesn't question whether a source is up to date; it only questions whether the text in Wikipedia's article gives an accurate reflection of what the source says.  Citecheck is meant, for example, to call attention to quotes out of context.  I suggest you review this to see whether this really represents the dispute as the editors see it. Durova 21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it there because I don't beleive the text in that particular section of the article gives an accurate reflection of what the source(s) listed say - especially the text immediately below the Citecheck template and the source that says that Dr. Michael Colgan supports BV as a reliable method for protein value (I've clicked the link and there is no mention of Colgan in that source. Yankees76 21:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Firstly, you have no idea what you're quoting because you're merely referencing a source that another website referenced. What page is your information on in that book? Who published that book? Is is self-published or not? Do you even know? No, because you're merely copying and pasting it from another (possibly unverifiable source) and passing it off as a verifiable source that matches your claim. Not a verifiable source under Wikipedia guidelines. Lastly lose the uncivil claims about edit warring - you're only a thinly disguised sockpuppet of  being used to get around being blocked for violating the 3RR rule. Yankees76 18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yankees76 is right about citations: it is inappropriate to cite a source that the editor hasn't actually read.  In that situation both the reference and the template should be removed from the article until or unless the editor who added the citation locates the appropriate passage in the book itself (which can be accessed through interlibrary loan from any public library).  However, accusations of sockpuppetry are counterproductive and uncivil.  Please initiate a formal complaint if the matter is worth mentioning at all.  I am an active administrator at WP:RFI and would look into this if it's still current. DurovaCharge! 04:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Durova, I've already run a WP:RFCU that showed user 67.150 is a sock of  . Yankees76 07:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citecheck template 

message: I actually agree with the anon IP. The reference is good. We should assume good faith and the reference is important.
Strange enough, Yankees76 is changing other editors sentences. A quick look at the history of the talk shows a deletion by Yankees76. Hopefully Yankees76 will stop edit warring on this and other articles including the soybean article.
Talk:Biological Value - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABiological_Value&diff=86798886&oldid=86761585 --AndyCanada 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but a WP:RFCU has already proven that you are the anon IP - your input here agreeing with yourself isn't required, nor is it valid. Defamatory statements about editors can be removed under the remove personal attacks WP:RPA guideline. As for the validity of the reference, see my questions regarding this reference above. Yankees76 21:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Defamatory statements about an editor may be removed immediately. And under the circumstances I could have removed it as vandalism by anon IP, only it had an issue that needed addressing. By the way stop vandalizing this page with your sockpuppets, the two references that have been removed have not been sourced properly and within the guidelines and therefore should be removed. Yankees76 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference provided by anon IP is valid. 

message: This is why some sources list whey as having a BV 104, even though as noted above, it is physically impossible. --Messenger2010 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification Needed 

message: The typical values section doesn't list units, suggesting that it's giving the values relative to egg protein. However, egg protein is listed at 93.7, which is its absolute percentage value, not its relative value (which would obviously be 100). However, whey protein is listed as 100, even though its value relative to egg is described elsewhere in the article as 104. So it looks like this section is a mix of absolute and relative values. Can someone with primary sources straighten it out? Inhumandecency 16:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical values: Units? 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "Pellett" :
** Pellett, PL and Young, VR. Nutritional evaluation of protein foods. United Nations University, 1980.
**  Pellet et al., concluded that "biological measures of protein quality conducted at suboptimal levels in either experimental animals or human subjects may overestimate protein value at maintenance levels." As a result, while BV may be important for rating proteins where intake is below requirements, it has little bearing on individuals with protein intakes far above requirements.
This flaw is supported by the FAO/WHO/UNU, who state that BV and NPU are measured when the protein content of the diet is clearly below that of requirement, deliberately done to maximize existing differences in quality as inadequate energy intake lowers the efficiency of protein utilization and in most N balance studies, calorie adequacy is ensured. And because no population derives all of its protein exclusively from a single food, the determination of BV of a single protein is of limited use for application to human protein requirements.<ref>The Use Of Biological Value Of A Protein In Evaluating Its Quality For Human Requirements.
DumZiBoT (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed - we still have the references to the physical textbook. --Yankees76 (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: From Properties of the protein source "Amino acid composition is the principal effect. All proteins are made up of combinations of the 21 biological amino acids."
The Wikipedia article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_amino_acid states the number as 22. Most internet references I see list 22 as well.
72.144.234.135 (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This statement contradicts another Wikipedia article