Does Animal Protein have a detrimental effect on Bone Health?

[YukisHeart]

Picked this up from a link in a thread about dairy:

Debunking the Milk Myth: Why Milk is Bad for You and Your Bones | Save Our Bones

Like any other animal derived protein-rich food, milk has a positive potential renal acid load (PRAL) which triggers a protective biological reaction to neutralize all the damaging acidic protein before it reaches the kidneys.
The body is designed for survival, so it sacrifices bone density to protect the kidneys and urinary tract because the latter are essential to survival. And the most readily available source of acid neutralizer is in the bones. So even though milk contains calcium, it ends up sapping your bones of that crucial mineral.

Is there anything to the idea that animal proteins are "acidic" in this way? The same page makes mention of the "alkaline" effect of almonds - would it be wise to consume alkaline foods with meats, to help achieve "balance" nutritionally and without the body having to use calcium from the bones?

 

[Revok]

And the most readily available source of acid neutralizer is in the bones.

lolwut. For people without kidneys or lungs maybe, but then they might have more pressing problems than long-term bone demineralisation.

This sounds like a lot of bollocks from the vegetarian/alkaline diet crowd.

Edit: or worse, some quack with a fad diet book to shill. You should really try to avoid any dietary advice from vested interests.

 

[Gary Gross**]

I'm not an expert by any means, but based on what I've seen and heard, it's vegetarians and especially vegans who seem to have brittle bones and low muscle mass compared to meat eaters. I mean most vegan guys look like you could blow them away with a leaf blower. Genetics plays a large part in physique, but populations that have less access to meat tend to be smaller and weaker than those that do.

That's not to say that eating meat is inherently healthier than eating vegetarian food sources. A diet that balances lean meats, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and fruits is probably best. Just eating meat like Brock Lesnar used to do is not very healthy, but it certainly helped him build bone and muscle mass. He's lost a lot of mass since he changed his diet.

 

[scottm]

lolwut. For people without kidneys or lungs maybe, but then they might have more pressing problems than long-term bone demineralisation.

This sounds like a lot of bollocks from the vegetarian/alkaline diet crowd.

Edit: or worse, some quack with a fad diet book to shill. You should really try to avoid any dietary advice from vested interests.

This ^


I get so sick of hearing about acid/alkaline b.s. Everything in nature can be balanced by an equation, and this is how our bodies regulate too. Acid neutralization is handled by the the lungs, the kidneys, and buffers - which is basically a balance between bicarbonate and carbon dioxide. Healthy individuals have no issues. If you feel you have the need for additional acidic load neutralization, add some bicarbonate to your diet.

 

[Mae]

From what I've gathered, it is true that animal protein is not ideal for humans. However, there is no scientific proof that meat eaters have worse bones than veg*ns.

 

[largemansmay***]

From what I've gathered, it is true that animal protein is not ideal for humans. However, there is no scientific proof that meat eaters have worse bones than veg*ns.

Where exactly have you gathered this? Propaganda websites?

 

[Mae]

Where exactly have you gathered this? Propaganda websites?

Well its pretty much common sense. Our bodies are designed to be herbivores....

 

[largemansmay***]

Well its pretty much common sense. Our bodies are designed to be herbivores....

Ahhh, stupidity on the internet, why do you taunt me?

 

[Mae]

Ahhh, stupidity on the internet, why do you taunt me?

lol whats stupid?

 

[ChainFlow]

lol whats stupid?

Our bodies are not designed to be herbivores. We have the capacity to consume both animal and plant foods without deleterious effects.

This is simply a bit of unfortunately plausible propaganda spread by PETA and friends, which relies on information viewed through a very twisted skein. Remember, their moral objection to animal consumption means that they view preventing the deaths of animals as a moral good, even if it is achieved by deception.

 

[Mae]

Our bodies are not designed to be herbivores. We have the capacity to consume both animal and plant foods without deleterious effects.

This is simply a bit of unfortunately plausible propaganda spread by PETA and friends, which relies on information viewed through a very twisted skein. Remember, their moral objection to animal consumption means that they view preventing the deaths of animals as a moral good, even if it is achieved by deception.

I don't like PETA either. But do you deny that human bodies are far closer to herbivores than carnivores/omnivores?
Im not doubting that humans having been eating meat for a really long time. One amazing thing about humans is that we can survive. No meat? We can survive. A lot of meat? We can survive. Its just that when you start listing carnivore/omnivore characteristics versus humans, we fall almost 100% on the herbivore side.

 

[ChainFlow]

I don't like PETA either. But do you deny that human bodies are far closer to herbivores than carnivores? .... Its just that when you start listing carnivore/omnivore characteristics versus humans, we fall almost 100% on the herbivore side.

Yes, i do.
No, we do not. This is exactly what i was talking about. We are omnivores. Not herbivores who can eat meat. Omnivores. That infantile list that peta likes to circulate of "herbivore characteristics" has been refuted easily over and over. Look it up.

 

[Siderealmotion]

The great irony... we only have brains capable of contemplating whether or not we should eat meat because we ate meat.

I would also point out that a human dropped in just about any natural environment on earth would not be able to survive long term on just flora. The only thing that makes vegan and even vegetarian diets possible is modern cultivation and shipping.

 

[Mae]

Yes, i do.
No, we do not. This is exactly what i was talking about. We are omnivores. Not herbivores who can eat meat. Omnivores. That infantile list that peta likes to circulate of "herbivore characteristics" has been refuted easily over and over. Look it up.

No it hasn't. Look it up. See how easy that is? We have long intestines somewhere between 7-13 times the length of our upper body. That is the same length as all herbivores. Do you deny that? And related to that, real meat eaters have short intestines somewhere between 3-6 times their upper body. This is so they can push through rotting and decaying flesh quickly. Which is why it is impossible for a real meat eater to clog their arteries. What is the number 1 killer of humans who eat meat? Clogged arteries. We have carbohydrate digestive enzymes in our saliva. Only herbivores have that. Do you deny that we have it? Our jaw can move side to side in a grinding motion. Only Herbivores jaws do this. Carnivores and Omnivores jaws move up and down. Do you deny that our jaws move side to side? Our teeth are broad, short, and flat, just like other herbivores. Do you deny that? A major trademark of carnivores/omnivores are claws, humans have no claws. Do you deny this? The defining number one characteristic of carnivores/omnivores is killer instinct. If any young carnivore/omnivore needs to eat, and it is locked in a room with another animal, it has killer instinct to kill (or attempt) to kill and eat the animal. Place any young hungry human child in a room with another animal, you will get no attempt to kill and eat the animal. When we look at animals, our brain doesn't tell us "food". That is something we are taught.
And for the record, I'm not even arguing that humans were ever fully herbivores. I'm just saying that you can look at an animals body and be able to tell what type of diet it is designed to eat. Cows are not designed to eat meat. Humans are not designed to eat meat. Humans CAN eat meat, but that does not mean that our body doesn't line up with almost all herbivorous traits.

 

[Siderealmotion]

What is the number 1 killer of humans who eat meat? Clogged arteries.

Ignoring everything else for a second, I'd just like to address this right quick.

- Heart disease is also the number one cause of death for those who don't eat meat.

- The difference in heart disease levels between a vegan and someone who eats the S.A.D. works out to 5 in 1000 vs 7 in 1000.

- Meat probably isn't the cause of heart disease anyway, as Denise Minger points out.

 

[ChainFlow]

No it hasn't. Look it up. See how easy that is? We have long intestines somewhere between 7-13 times the length of our upper body.[ That is the same length as all herbivores. Do you deny that?

Yes. Our intestines are much shorter than true herbivores and are more comparable to pigs (omnivores).

And related to that, real meat eaters have short intestines somewhere between 3-6 times their upper body.This is so they can push through rotting and decaying flesh quickly. Which is why it is impossible for a real meat eater to clog their arteries. What is the number 1 killer of humans who eat meat? Clogged arteries.

Three BS myths in one! What joy. One, you are conflating omnivore and carnivore. Humans are not wolves (short intestines), so the length being more similar to an omnivorous animal makes sense. Two, meat does not "rot and decay" in the digestive tract - it is dissolves and digested by pepsin, trypsin, HCL, and other digestive devices in omnivores' and carnivores' systems. Three, artheroclerosis is not caused by consumption of meat and animal proteins or fats. It is caused by inflammation and oxidized LDL (primarily). What raises LDL? You'd be surprised. You might want to look around this forum a little more. :icon_neut

We have carbohydrate digestive enzymes in our saliva. Only herbivores have that. Do you deny that we have it? Our jaw can move side to side in a grinding motion. Only Herbivores jaws do this. Carnivores and Omnivores jaws move up and down. Do you deny that our jaws move side to side? Our teeth are broad, short, and flat, just like other herbivores.

1) You referring to amylase? It's a novel adaptation which further demonstrates our omnivory. Many primates do not have it, and they are actual 99% herbivores. Do you deny that? :icon_lol:

We also have canines and sharp teeth, and are omnivores, while pigs have similar teeth and are also omnivores. Chimpanzees have similar teeth and are omnivores. Baboons, too. Gorillas have quite imposing fangs, and are herbivores/insectivores. Teeth don't prove a thing by themselves. Nor does jaw action. Again, see pigs and our omnivorous relatives.

A major trademark of carnivores/omnivores are claws, humans have no claws. Do you deny this? The defining number one characteristic of carnivores/omnivores is killer instinct. If any young carnivore/omnivore needs to eat, and it is locked in a room with another animal, it has killer instinct to kill (or attempt) to kill and eat the animal. Place any young hungry human child in a room with another animal, you will get no attempt to kill and eat the animal. When we look at animals, our brain doesn't tell us "food". That is something we are taught.

Nonsense. You have records of fox cubs and bear cubs playing with each other, if you'd care to look. Mammalian young have a very strong instinct for play and friendliness. They're practically helpless, after all. Dogs are basically (mentally) wolf cubs that never grow up.

And for the record, I'm not even arguing that humans were ever fully herbivores. I'm just saying that you can look at an animals body and be able to tell what type of diet it is designed to eat. Cows are not designed to eat meat. Humans are not designed to eat meat. Humans CAN eat meat, but that does not mean that our body doesn't line up with almost all herbivorous traits.

Cows and other ruminants are truly herbivorous and can derive nutrition from cellulose-heavy plant matter by means of allowing bacteria to ferment it in their bodies, and then consuming the billions of bacteria resultant. We have no such fermentation devices in our belly.

Gorillas derive nutrition by fermenting plant matter into fatty acids in their belly, which is absorbed and used as fuel (in a similar manner as coconut's medium-chain fatty acids are in humans). We do not have the capacity to sustain ourselves by this novel digestive technique, but thankfully can enjoy it when we find such fatty acids pre-formed in our foods such as coconuts.

Humans have bile and related devices. Name an animal "designed to eat only plants" that has a gall bladder and bile production. Name an herbivore with similarly acidic stomachs. Name an herbivore without the capacity to produce B12 de novo - we lost that ability because we got enough to eat from eating animal foods, just as we didn't need to make vitamin C from eating collard green ancestors and fruits.

This is all off the top of my head. More thorough refutations of your oft-reposted list of myths are probably to be found if you'd care to look. I only have a modest (B.Sci) background in molecular biology and nutrition - some of the real heavyweights like Dr. Eades have probably nailed this subject in the past.

Edit: This link looks like a good roundup of some points that I missed, and This link has some good information even if there is a bit of a chicken-egg problem with the expensive tissue hypothesis. DHA and B12 requirements do seem to bear out that we are fully adapted to animal food consumption, however.

This link has a more thorough refutation.

 

[mtruitt76]

Well its pretty much common sense. Our bodies are designed to be herbivores....

lol whats stupid?

See statement number one.

 

[JornT]

I'm not a fan of using rationale.

That sounds like I'm an idiot lol.

But serieusly, you can try to figure out the effects of food by trying to analyse its ingredients and how they could theoretically influence the patways in the human body that we currently know. This type of approch rarely pans out. What you should do, it look at results that have been actual found in studies.

The current scientific consensus:

Concerns about dietary protein increasing urinary calcium appear to be offset by increases in absorption. Likewise, concerns about the impact of protein on acid production appear to be minor compared with the alkalinizing effects of fruits and vegetables. Perhaps more concern should be focused on increasing fruit and vegetable intake rather than reducing protein sources. The issue for public health professionals is whether recommended protein intakes should be increased, given the prevalence of osteoporosis and sarcopenia.
Amount and type of protein influences bone health

One sometimes encounters arguments that the protein and sodium of milk somehow negate the potential benefit of its calcium. These speculations are based on the established fact that both protein and sodium lead to increased urinary calcium excretion [160,161]. However, the negative effects of protein and sodium are observed mainly at low calcium intakes, when, with absorption already operating at an individual

 

[Mae]

Yes. Our intestines are much shorter than true herbivores and are more comparable to pigs (omnivores). Three BS myths in one! What joy. One, you are conflating omnivore and carnivore. Humans are not wolves (short intestines), so the length being more similar to an omnivorous animal makes sense. Two, meat does not "rot and decay" in the digestive tract - it is dissolves and digested by pepsin, trypsin, HCL, and other digestive devices in omnivores' and carnivores' systems. Three, artheroclerosis is not caused by consumption of meat and animal proteins or fats. It is caused by inflammation and oxidized LDL (primarily). What raises LDL? You'd be surprised. You might want to look around this forum a little more. :icon_neut 1) You referring to amylase? It's a novel adaptation which further demonstrates our omnivory. Many primates do not have it, and they are actual 99% herbivores. Do you deny that? :icon_lol:

We also have canines and sharp teeth, and are omnivores, while pigs have similar teeth and are also omnivores. Chimpanzees have similar teeth and are omnivores. Baboons, too. Gorillas have quite imposing fangs, and are herbivores/insectivores. Teeth don't prove a thing by themselves. Nor does jaw action. Again, see pigs and our omnivorous relatives. Nonsense. You have records of fox cubs and bear cubs playing with each other, if you'd care to look. Mammalian young have a very strong instinct for play and friendliness. They're practically helpless, after all. Dogs are basically (mentally) wolf cubs that never grow up.

Cows and other ruminants are truly herbivorous and can derive nutrition from cellulose-heavy plant matter by means of allowing bacteria to ferment it in their bodies, and then consuming the billions of bacteria resultant. We have no such fermentation devices in our belly.

Gorillas derive nutrition by fermenting plant matter into fatty acids in their belly, which is absorbed and used as fuel (in a similar manner as coconut's medium-chain fatty acids are in humans). We do not have the capacity to sustain ourselves by this novel digestive technique, but thankfully can enjoy it when we find such fatty acids pre-formed in our foods such as coconuts.

Humans have bile and related devices. Name an animal "designed to eat only plants" that has a gall bladder and bile production. Name an herbivore with similarly acidic stomachs. Name an herbivore without the capacity to produce B12 de novo - we lost that ability because we got enough to eat from eating animal foods, just as we didn't need to make vitamin C from eating collard green ancestors and fruits.

This is all off the top of my head. More thorough refutations of your oft-reposted list of myths are probably to be found if you'd care to look. I only have a modest (B.Sci) background in molecular biology and nutrition - some of the real heavyweights like Dr. Eades have probably nailed this subject in the past.

Edit: This link looks like a good roundup of some points that I missed, and This link has some good information even if there is a bit of a chicken-egg problem with the expensive tissue hypothesis. DHA and B12 requirements do seem to bear out that we are fully adapted to animal food consumption, however.

This link has a more thorough refutation.

-So our intestines do NOT fall in the range of 7-13 times the length of our torso? All herbivores intestines do not also fall in this range?
-I'm not saying all herbivores have it. If we were to make a list right now of animals that have it, do you think our list would contain more carnivores, omnivores, or herbivores?
-No, you can tell something by teeth. Most people are just idiots and try to point to canines proving we should eat meat. Most herbivores have canines so they can eat hard fruit such as apples. Our jaws are not designed to be able to rip and tear flesh off bodies, especially during rigor mortis.
-lol I didn't deny that animals can be friends or play with each other. Your confusing the situation. If an animal is starving to death, needs to eat now, and sees another animal, it is not going to try to befriend it. If 2 animals are well fed and don't feel the other is a threat, can they play and be friends? Of course......That is irrelevant.
-So we lost the ability because we got it from animal foods. That only proves evolution, not what the human body was designed for.....
-I only had the time to read one of your links right now. He doesn't even have a PHD, and it is listed under "Holistic, Spiritual & Self-Improvement Articles"....not exactly top of the line nutritional information source.
-On a more important side note, how do you quote just sections at a time? do you just add /quotes after each section or what? I'm a noob.

 

[NorthernComfort]

-So our intestines do NOT fall in the range of 7-13 times the length of our torso? All herbivores intestines do not also fall in this range?
-I'm not saying all herbivores have it. If we were to make a list right now of animals that have it, do you think our list would contain more carnivores, omnivores, or herbivores?
-No, you can tell something by teeth. Most people are just idiots and try to point to canines proving we should eat meat. Most herbivores have canines so they can eat hard fruit such as apples. Our jaws are not designed to be able to rip and tear flesh off bodies, especially during rigor mortis.
-lol I didn't deny that animals can be friends or play with each other. Your confusing the situation. If an animal is starving to death, needs to eat now, and sees another animal, it is not going to try to befriend it. If 2 animals are well fed and don't feel the other is a threat, can they play and be friends? Of course......That is irrelevant.
-So we lost the ability because we got it from animal foods. That only proves evolution, not what the human body was designed for.....-I only had the time to read one of your links right now. He doesn't even have a PHD, and it is listed under "Holistic, Spiritual & Self-Improvement Articles"....not exactly top of the line nutritional information source.
-On a more important side note, how do you quote just sections at a time? do you just add /quotes after each section or what? I'm a noob.

Incisors are used for hard apples, not canines.
Canine Teeth in Whitetails – Quality Deer Management Association
See paragraph 2, a deer's canine teeth are actually evolved to be flatter and closer to the front of the mouth, to be used as incisors.

If a human was starving, are you really trying to argue that they wouldn't instinctively kill an animal? Maybe an infant wouldn't, but many carnivorous infants are helpless without their mother.

RED - Yes, it proves evolution, and your body functions best when you treat it in a way that it has evolved to be treated. Unless you're religious, I don't understand your whole "body was designed" hypothesis.