tryptophan versus leucine, serotonin
First: whey protein will probably not decrease your lifespan. I don't buy this at all. But it's an interesting study, that has nothing to do with whey protein. So of course the headline is all about whey protein...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...90430091826.htm Quote:
Wasn't quite sure where to put this. Potatoes not Prozac and other carbs versus depression plans are based on some tryptophan versus leucine studies. It's a total misreading of the science. Feed an animal some carbohydrate, almost protein-free--insulin etc. increases protein synthesis, this draws leucine and other branched chain amino acids out of circulation, increased tryptophan to leucine etc. ratio results in increased tryptophan across the brain barrier, and increased serotonin. But it only works with very low protein, potatoes have too much protein for the effect. This study also looks a bit misreported. They talk about "foods rich in tryptophan" or leucine. But Quote:
This is too precise. Without a semi-purified diet, with added branched chain amino acids, they couldn't get these numbers while keeping things like protein content of the diet constant. Quote:
and Quote:
they don't quite specifically say that protein intake was kept constant, but that would be too much of a confounder, if they didn't keep it constant, I'm not sure how they could assume a ratio of this to that rather than absolute quantity of the aminos was to blame. Going from this, to food...Eating twice as much turkey is not going to increase leucine: tryptophan in the diet as a ratio. Can we make assumptions that high leucine whey will give poor results? Wait a minute, this is a mouse study. Switching mice to whey versus casein, at least, generally improves things. Cronometer gives whey as a fairly good source for leucine. But at a dose that shows 100 percent of the day's "requirement" for leucine, it shows 200 percent of the requirement for tryptophan. Looking at various other protein sources, that's a pretty good ratio if you think increasing tryptophan:leucine is a good idea. I'm not crazy about whey protein because it's got all the non-protein nutrition removed. But as a protein, it's probably fine. |
My understanding is this.
Tryptophan is a very small percentage of the amino acid/protein content. Ricotta is 0 .12g tryptophan per 100g serving. Three times the next highest source plain nongreek yogurt. Other sources are puny. The gut makes 90-95% of the total seratonin. This cannot pass the blood brain barrier. The brain apparently must makes its own supply. This requires tryptophan to cross. The problem seems to be it is competeing with other proteins. Two mechanisms I found are eating carbohydrates at the same time or working out to fatigue. I donot fully understand the biochemistry behind either. My son and I relied on 5-HTP but it has side effects reguarding growth of a youngster. We are trialing lc ricotta pancakes with real maple syrup. As for only consuming BCAA 's, IMHO eating a full spectrum of amino acids via real meat like beef, lamb, fish, etc is far more beneficial. My son was using whey protein to bulk up. When he stopped bothering with protein shakes, I said nothing. Our goal is a healthy mucsle mass from some weight lifting, running, hard farm work and eating high quality proteins like animal meat. As for appetite, and obesity I suspect real life is more complicated than a mouse study. Currently my youngest, 15yo, is very lean with a five pack,lol, and noticeably larger bicepts. Without using whey protein. He has youth and sports on his side for now. His older brother needs the seratonin boost, and if that includes adding body fat, yeah. Cant pinch 1/2 inch on that kid. He needs more mucsle and more body fat. Maybe worth trying him on a n=1 experiment with more whey. Bought reg yogurt instead of greek for his lunch , ricotta pancakes with maple syrup for breakfast. Will see how this works out. |
Ps. If whey increases body weight, does that mean milk does too ??
|
Quote:
|
Oh my. I should have been dead years ago.
|
So... if I'm reading this right...
...intentionally, substantially skewing your nutrition to somewhat deprive yourself of certain required nutrients... ...is less good. Getting a decent variety of required nutrients so you are not uber-high in one area and super-low in another... ...is more good. I'm surprised it required a rodent study to figure that out. When these scientists are old they will rediscover how eating 'whole animal' (wider range of amino acids) is even healthier than eating nothing but one type of muscle meat exclusively. Go figure. PJ |
Quote:
Well stated. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:23. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.