Talk:Protein poisoning

message: " Clostridial necrotizing enteritis, a.k.a. pigbel, another lethal protein-related diet problem" 
absolute bogus:  Clostridial necrotizing enteritis is caused by a bacterial toxin: it has nothing to do with a protein related diet, other than that the bacteria can live in meat
Summarizing: regarding rabbit Starvation, I really havent seen a single medical publication on it. th epublications one sees seem to all parrot eachother.
Only eating Rabbits is the same as  only eating proteins, a diet meant to cuase weight loss, coz  one wil start burning body fat.
Only eating protein is just as much a wrong diet choice as only eating fat or only eating sugar -- Ed:2 january 2015  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.130.241 (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure why the text has been replaced again. This realy is in need of a rewrite. --Pappa 10:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: Per this development, I think someone needs to bring this article to North Korea's attention.--Daveswagon 01:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that just suck? "They're starving, Kim!" "Give them giant rabbits to eat." "Alright" (Some time later) "They're still starving!"--Planetary 09:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Glorious Democratic People's Republic of Korea

message: "It has been observed that the human liver cannot safely metabolise much more than 221–301 g of protein per day (for an 80 kg/176 pound person)" - This fact isn't supported by the citation it references.   The paper in question doesn't even contain the word liver.  It does talk about renal problems, where it estimates 300g of protein per day for an 80kg person to be a safe upper limit, which I feel is an entirely different characterization than what has been written in the encyclopedia.  David Hinkle (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It said a young male walking and hunting every day needs 3000 kilocarlories.  I'm not certain that's right but its not all that unreasonable.  Men typically need more calories than women.  A sedentary adult, or a very mildly active adult, male or female, would almost never need that many calories, but a very active man, or an extremely active woman (think world class athletic training), might need that much or more, and the article does site a source for the information.  twfowler (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Rabbits are not magical animals. Humans have survived on them for millennia. Kortoso (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible mechanisms 

message: The section "possible mechanisms" looks like one big original research. The numerous references are from various dietary sources which provide various piese of dietary data, but no one discusses rabbit starvation and its mechanisms. 71.146.93.236 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: The author Mark Schatzker wrote that 
"nineteenth-century explorers in the Canadian arctic who attempted to live on wild rabbits .... ate huge portions of rabbit meat, and yet no matter how they stuffed themselves, they constantly fought a gnawing hunger .... By day ten, their guts would be so distended with rabbit meat that the bulge was visible through layers of clothing .... they would speak of a constant craving for fat."  
Can anyone find references to this or other specific instances of Rabbit starvation in the historical record? Mang (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole thing is seeming apocryphal. Third-hand accounts from more than a century ago. You'd think there would be a better source.
Kortoso (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical examples 

message: Is there any cure for Rabbit Starvation? How long it lasts this malnutrition?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.63.68.33 (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cure? 

message: For a desciption of a condition that is presented as a medical condition, there doesn't appear to be any citations from medical authorities. What we are left with are anecdotes. Kortoso (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical cites??? 

message: The quote from Charles Darwin (in section "Observations") is flagged "[this quote needs a citation]".  It's easy enough to find the quote in Google Books:  "Voyage of the Beagle", 1845 edition (as reprinted in the Harvard Classics), volume 29 (this is apparently the volume number in the Harvard Classics, not Voyage of the Beagle), chapter VI, "September 17", page 123.  I'd revise the article myself, but I don't know the right way to format a citation like that. DWorley (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from Charles Darwin 

message: I've placed a copyvio redaction tag here, to address the claims described above on this talk page, and visible on the page history.  Although the original material does not seem to be online, the article was identified as "The Reality of Food in the Bush," by Stuart Goring, issue #2 of "Bushcraft" magazine, published by BushcraftUK, pg. 18.  --Lockley (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright redaction  

message: This is stated in the section Physiology, but  wrong.  I'm guessing it should be 250g/kg, but I'm on a phone and not 1000g/kg sure... 109.37.145.177 (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . Good catch. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

text: It can't be 250g/kg, because for an 80kg person that would mean a daily intake of 20000 grams of protein, which would be ~80000 calories. The source says "25% of energy requirements at approximately 2 to 2.5 g · kg−1 · d−1, corresponding to 176 g protein per day for an 80 kg individual". Using 2.2g/kg and an 80kg person you get to the 176g mentioned. 82.218.252.97 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  25% = 2.5g/kg 

message: I have removed 'Protein intakes above 35% of energy needs have also been shown to decrease testosterone and increase cortisol levels.[12] This is thought to be part of the body's attempt to upregulate the urea cycle, and increase nitrogen excretion.[12]'
This is currently only a hypothesis and there is no clinical evidence supporting this mechanism. Also, the study cited to support this is controversial and has been widely misquoted. There is an associated commentary article that explains this further - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10114259/
I am the author of both these articles, you may verify this by contacting the email address listed for the corresponding author on these papers. 
I apologies if this seems high-handed, I just wish to ensure the public are not misled in terms of what the evidence shows. Joseph Whittaker 123 (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of mechanism concerning hormonal regulation of urea cycle