Talk:Protein (nutrient)

message: The page focuses on human nutrition, and the citations also focus on human nutrition. It is misleading to say that this applies to other animals. If we would like to keep just nutrition, we should consider adding sources on other organism's digestion of protein. Please vote : ) Caitlin.swartz (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion to add (human nutrition) or a disclaimer that this refers only to human nutrition

message: Under the heading " Excess Consumption" deanimation should be deamination, the link needs correcting as well. Cheers
:Done. David notMD (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Terminology

message: While everything in the intro paragraph is true and accurate, I believe it would be more appropriate to talk about the role in the diet rather than launching into the details of how protein is digested. The Crow 02:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking intro paragraph 

message: Mycoprotein is a complete protein source not mentioned in the article. It is produced from fungal cultures such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusarium_venenatum and is part of the diet of several million people under the name "Quorn". Does anyone want to add this, or shall I do it?  SDalley (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing about mycoprotein in the article 

message: Dietary sources of protein include grains, legumes, meats, and dairy products such as milk and cheese. Mentions dairy 3 times but fails to mention greens and sea veggies? This is ridiculous in my opinion.
:legumes are greens and sea veggies. It's mentioned. Perhaps the article should say "...and dairy products.", full stop, but really, why? it's not like there's a NPOV problem apparent here or anything. 208.38.59.80 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think my recent edit should clear up this discrepancy. -kotra (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: 100% Agree. When can we expect you to add the table with animal sources? --Yankees76 Talk 14:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Not all animal sources are complete protein. Gelatin/collagen is not a complete protein. The sentence is fine as is. --Yankees76 Talk 17:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't referring to collagen and gelatin being animals. You're twisting the use of the word "source". "Source" of protein in this case does not mean the animal it's from, but the actual protein that is consumed. Generally, when people refer to protein sources, they refer to the actual protein. For example it's "I ate 150 grams of protein a day from whey, casein, collagen, beef, and pork", not "I eat 150 grams of protein a day from cows and pigs". Of those listed, collagen is not a complete protein. The source of colleagen is animal, opposed to plant, therefore collagen is not a complete animal protein source. --Yankees76 Talk 19:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources of protein 

message: The source is from a highly partisan organisation (they are trying to advocate whey protein) and thus I think this section is unreliable. Could well be true but needs a better reference. MatthewKarlsen
After reading this article, I also realized that the Quality section is ironically, of low quality itself:
"In general they conclude that animal complete proteins that contain all the essential amino acids such as milk, eggs, and meat are of most value to the body.[4]"
The citation link leads to this site] which just seems to be an advertisement for whey protein products that mentions nothing of the previously referenced protein quality measurement methods
("they" being: Biological Value, Net Protein Utilization, and PDCAAS).
The line: "The biological value of plant protein sources is usually considerably lower than animal sources.[4]" also cites the same dubious reference for it's claim.
I'm gonna tag these lines as dubious for now and maybe remove them in a few days if nobody has come up with a real reference for this.
Liquidsnakex (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the source. It's been a month and a half. I'll remove the dubitable sentences. — President Lethe (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protein Quality 

message: can some body please put the benefits of proteins here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.31.55 (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  need info 

message: Everyone knows that whey is digested quickly, while casein is a slow-release form. What about albumin? I've been searching and I can't find anything. I'm assuming that it is somewhere in between, but which is it closer to? II | (t - c) 03:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a good article on this: A review of issues of dietary protein intake in humans. It is a bit technical for me to include in the article. II | (t - c) 04:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absorption rates 

message: I undid these:
:It was widely believed that in countries that suffer from widespread protein deficiency, food is generally full of plant fibers.  However extensive nutritional studies have concluded that the consumption of a variety of plants is the best way to acquire protein while animal based proteins even when consumed in moderate amounts can cause cancer.
:It is important to note here that contrary to popular belief, the consumption of dairy products does not prevent bone loss.  In fact, the consumption of dairy products, as it is high in animal protein, creates bone loss.  Whenever there is an increase in dairy consumption the rate of osteoporosis and bone fractures also go up.
Both reference The China Study by T Colin Campbell.   In my opinion, this falls into an extraordinary claim and I'd prefer some consensus on this and/or more references before including.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lateg (talk • contribs) 23:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say this is best if avoided, although the "China Study" is popular among groups that want to stop consumption of animal products, it does not seem to have the same support among the scientific community. As an example: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6092 Vexorian (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the point that The China Study is preferred as a source from some points of view but not others.  However, it is part of a general range of opinion that there may be issues with higher protein consumption, and that diets are healthier where a larger portion of the protein is derived from plant sources.  Is there a way to express this without focusing solely on The China Study and its claims?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.247.31 (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if some sources besides ChinaStudy are found? In this Oz ep this Fuhrman guy was saying some study showed the amount of animal protein Americans eat caused a 400% increased chance of cancer, but could he have been relying on bad research from TSC to support a vegan agenda? 174.92.133.107 (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The China Study

message: in section "excess consumption" there's described some allergies many people may have to a certain type of proteins. If gluten appears there because of the coeliac disease then that's wrong, coeliac disease is not an allergy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmmio (talk • contribs) 04:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gluten allergy? 

message: It would certainly be nice to be a bit more specific here. Tempeh: 41 g per cup? So how many grams of tempeh constitutes one cup? 70 g? 80 g? 100 g? Saying there is 41 g (not just about 40, no, exactly 41 g!) of protein in a 'cup' is meaningless, and only creates an illusion of precise information. Does somebody have a source for more exact numbers? Modallist (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cup is an american unit of volume. It should be changed to international units.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources & 'Amount of Protein' 

message: The following links (taken from my website) are studies for people to use to cite for anything but I have selected these because they are all studies on how much protein should be consumed for aerobic and anaerobic exercise. These are direct quotes from the respective links, the parts in brackets I have added to put the quote into context within my site for readers to understand. These quotes/sources can be used in the article.
* "These data show that the efficiency of N retention and protein utilization during RT is higher in older subjects who consume 0.8 vs. 1.6 g protein.kg-1.day-1 dietary protein." Source
* "A small study performed on young and elderly found that ingestion of 340 grams of lean beef (90 g protein) did not increase muscle protein synthesis any more than ingestion of 113 grams of lean beef (30g protein). In both groups, muscle protein synthesis increased by 50%. The study concluded that more than 30g protein in a single meal did not further enhance the stimulation of muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly. " Source
* "It appears that both groups [(endurance exercise, strength exercise)] likely will benefit from diets containing more protein than the current RDA of 0.8 g.kg-1.day-1. Strength athletes probably need about 1.4-1.8 g.kg-1.day-1 and endurance athletes about 1.2-1.4 g.kg-1.day-1." Source
* At least .55g /pound/day [or 0.2494761001896018 per kg]. Depending upon your sport or training regimen, the daily requirement can go as high as .9 to 1 grams/pound [0.4082336184920757 to 0.4535929094356397 per kg]. Source
* "Lean body mass (density) was maintained in bodybuilders consuming 1.05 g protein.kg-1.day-1. Source
* "strength training might need to consume as much as 1.6 to 1.7 g protein x kg(-1) x day(-1) (approximately twice the current RDA) while those undergoing endurance training might need about 1.2 to 1.6 g x kg(-1) x day(-1) (approximately 1.5 times the current RDA)." Source
* Based on laboratory measures, daily protein requirements are increased by perhaps as much as 100% vs.recommendations for sedentary individuals (1.6–1.8 vs. 0.8 g/kg). Source
* Moderate protein (MP) = 1.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1, or high protein (HP) = 2.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1. [For strength athletes] The MP diet resulted in a state of adaptation [increase in  whole body protein synthesis (WBPS) (vs. LP) and no change in leucine oxidation (vs. LP)]. The HP diet did not result in increased WBPS compared with the MP diet, but leucine oxidation did increase significantly, indicating a nutrient overload. Source
Thomas Slee (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amounts of protein for aerobic and anaerobic exercise 

message: The article contains this paragraph:
"Most animal and certain vegetable proteins are considered complete proteins with a full complement of essential amino acids in adequate proportions. People who avoid animal products for religious and health reasons may practice protein combining to get the essential amino acids in their diet.
Lentils and rice combined is a plant source of protein [dubious – discuss]."
Why are the reasons why people don't eat meat specified? Is the situation different for people who don't eat meat because it's not available, or they're trying to save money, or for ethical reasons than for the people who don't eat meat for religious or health reasons?
There seems to be a bit of a semantic issue with the first sentence. What is an animal protein? If it just means protein that's source is an animal then it seems like it might be complete or incomplete. Does it mean protein from an animal source that hasn't been processed? Then does every part of an animal provide a complete protein? If I hadn't read the above discussion I would have guessed that it meant that muscle meat from any animal provides a complete protein (meaning a mix of proteins that contains all the essential proteins in sufficient proportions). But was the term animal protein meant to include animal organs often eaten by humans as well? At any rate the sentence seems ambiguous enough that perhaps some editing would be justified. --Davefoc (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph marked dubious/discuss about people who don't eat meat and essential proteins 

message: What else should it focus on, plants n animals? It SHOULD focus on human nutrition. If it's felt that protein in animal n plant nutrition should be addressed, those separate articles could be written. Eternal Vigilante (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? : "Too focused on human nutrition." 

message: An image used in this article, File:Lentils and rice by paul goyette.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Lentils and rice by paul goyette.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The article describes nuts, seeds and legumes as "vegetarian sources of protein", but should it not describe them as "vegan sources" of
protein, as some one who is a vegetarian but not a vegan could obtain his/her protein from milk, cheese or eggs? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to vegan sources David notMD (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Vegetarian sources of protein

message: All the photos don't include meat. Stop ridiculing wikipedia and include the main source of protein. --89.210.3.234 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The animal sources of protein are well illustrated as the article contains the following multiple image:Rgdboer (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another vegatarian infested article. 

message: The Fitness Industry often recommends 1g of protein per kilo of total bodyweight. This article based on multiple studies would suggest otherwise.(Coachtripfan (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: have even seen 1g/pound recommended. 174.92.133.107 (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Coach's link is dead. The U.S. Institute of Medicine concludes that the Estimated Average Requirement is 0.66 g/kg body weight and the Recommended Dietary Allowance (allowing for people with higher than average needs) is 0.8 g/kg. There is still ongoing debate on whether athletes need more, or if much higher protein intake (1.5 to 2.0 g/kg) actually promotes increase in muscle mass.David notMD (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1g per kilo of total bodyweight - too high 

message: Having tried to access the pdf's listed in the references section I've found that most of them are either unavailable, or otherwise were blocked from being downloaded due to 'risk'. Please could someone update these PDF refs? Thanks you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.8.250 (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: These two references are in fact effectively identical. makeswell (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Protein (nutrient)]] 

message: Food allergies sometimes involve proteins, but then again so do lots of things. All of the enzymes in the body involve proteins. Should we create a section of this page for each enzyme? Then again this page is about human consumption of protein. Perhaps an inclusion of food allergies, even if the proteins those people are allergic to are only found in one specific food (which would distinguish these illnesses from those illnesses, like Maple syrup urine disease, which sufferers of must avoid a type of amino acid, not just one food type) would be appropriate. Whatever it is that's decided, I'm removing the following material from the page and placing it here because in addition to the question of how relevant it is to the topic of the article, it contains no functional citations.
"Specific proteins found in certain food items are often the cause of allergies and allergic reactions. This is because the structure of each form of protein is slightly different; some may trigger a response from the immune system while others remain harmless. Most people with milk allergy are allergic to the protein alpha S1 casein. Some people are allergic to gluten, the protein in wheat and other grains; the particular proteins found in peanuts; or those in shellfish or other seafoods. Food allergies should not be confused with food intolerance."
makeswell (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Subsection on protein allergies (with a link to Food allergy), with a reference, now within Dietary Recommendations. David notMD (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need a food allergies section? 

message: Currently, there seems to be little mention (here or elsewhere on Wikipedia?) of this relevant topic. Two recent MEDRS are  and . 81.153.161.75 (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also PMID: 24624051.  However, the U.S. RDAs for protein, last revised in 2002, do not conclude that elderly need more protein than younger adults. Ditto EFSA,  (for European Union), last updated in 2015. Or World Health Organization. The idea of higher for older could be presented as a (referenced) theory as long as there is recognition that government agencies do not agree. David notMD (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dietary needs in older people 

message: just changed "fibre" (UK) to "fiber" (US). I'm not sure what is the correct WP:ENGVAR for this article. I notice that it also has "synthesize" (US), but what really needs to happen is for someone to find the first non-stub version which established the variety of English for this article and then put the appropriate template here on the talk page. I'd do it, but I haven't the time right now. YBG (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ENGVAR 

message: Written this way, the implied precision is +/- 25%, which seems rather broad for this parameter. Would 4.0 not be more encyclopedic? — MaxEnt 12:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 kcal precision