Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gatech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gatech!carter
From: carter@gatech.UUCP (Carter Bullard)
Newsgroups: net.med,net.veg
Subject: Re: Nutrition Puzzle Solved:  flames reply
Message-ID: <10494@gatech.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 21-Oct-84 20:17:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: gatech.10494
Posted: Sun Oct 21 20:17:03 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Oct-84 06:54:00 EDT
References: <70@azure.UUCP> <87@azure.UUCP>
Organization: School of ICS, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Lines: 110
Xref: gatech net.med:889 net.veg:278

> > 

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