4 ms·

Incredible, I've always hoped for something like this to be mandated. Here's one reason that should be convincing enough: Protein is not made equal. The compo

Incredible, I've always hoped for something like this to be mandated. Here's one reason that should be convincing enough: Protein is not made equal. The composition of amino acids in protein decides how much of it can be used (bioavailability) by your body. With eggs having a "perfect" score and setting the standard at 100, you have things like wheat/grain proteins which are some ~20% bioavailable (let's ignore pairing foods to make complete proteins for arguments sake) You read the label on your "healthy" whole grain "protein packed" <whatever> where it states it has 10g protein per serving. Boy, that's more than an egg or a cup of milk, you think! Wrong, think again, the adjusted value is closer to ~2g. But how many consumers know this?

sudden_dystopia 4y ago
Glad to validate my 2-3 whole egg per day lifestyle. Since starting eating a high protein, mostly unprocessed food based diet(without regard for fat or cholesterol consumption ), I have lowered my body fat percentage by 8% and lowered my LDL cholesterol by 50 points. Just by eating meat, eggs, cheese, whole milk, lots of fruit, non leafy/non stem vegetables (fruits botanically speaking), and protein shakes. My doctor was so impressed…at least until I told her how I did it:)
- datameta 4y ago
  Quietly hoping over here that 3 eggs per day won't be invalidated by a new study. Been doing it for 5-6 years
- q_watts 4y ago
mfer 4y ago
Taking a single food alone is bad. You should look at a full diet. For example, wheat/grain paired with beans, lentils, and other foods that provide a variety of needed proteins. You also need to look at the downside. Eggs have a lot of saturated fat and cholesterol. This have been reproducibly tied to high cholesterol in people. Eggs have also been tied to colon cancer. Pulling out a single nutrient in a single food is dangers because it doesn't give us a complete picture of a healthy diet.
- gavinray 4y ago
  Agreed, this is reductionist and nothing is ever so simple but compared to current nutrition "labels" we have it's miles better. I'm waiting for augmented reality to get far enough I can wear glasses that can scan the food I eat, estimate the composition + macros, and log it for me. That'll be the day.
- jononomo 4y ago
  High cholesterol is a good thing in the absence of obesity or any other negative health indicators. You want to have a lot of saturated fat and cholesterol in your diet, frankly. And eggs have not been tied to colon cancer in any meaningful sense. A person could eat a dozen eggs a day for years and be in perfect health.
  - mfer 4y ago
    High cholesterol is directly linked to heart disease. The negative side effects take years (decades really) to become an issue. Doctors know enough about it now to describe what's biologically happening. High cholesterol (and what causes it) being normalized is one of the reasons heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US[1]. High cholesterol has such an impact on health that the American Heart Association has a section dedicated to it[2]. So do many other health organizations around the world. The parents comments should not be taken seriously. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm [2] https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol
    - jononomo 4y ago
      Your first link is to the leading causes of death, which means nothing since high cholesterol lowers all cause mortality. And in elderly people it is protective against dementia. Your second link goes to a site that directly says that cholesterol is not bad. In fact, cholesterol is the foundation of the human hormone system -- it is likely the dearth of animal fats and red meat in our western diet over the last few decades that has led to the explosion in depression, ADHD, bi-polar disorder, and so forth.
strongpigeon 4y ago
I remember reading the nutrition label of a bag of chicarrones and seeing a remark about how despite having 7g of proteins, it isn’t a significant source of protein (e.g. [0]). Reading up about it, it turned out to be for the exact reason you mentioned, namely the low bio-availability. [0] http://www.osm-us.com/index.php?main_page=popup_image&pID=1239 http://www.osm-us.com/index.php?main_page=popup_image&pID=12...
- hn_user82179 4y ago
  That is crazy! I had some yesterday thinking it was a good protein snack. I’m glad I read this comment, thank you!
codemac 4y ago
I've been trying to actually read the source material for all this "bio availability" scoring like DIAAS and I keep finding weird things. For example, for DIAAS they took current food production, averaged the total protein ratios, and assumes that's ideal protein ratio for humans. It makes me think they're overstating the score of things like whey because of the severe amounts of cheese people eat. Do you have any source studies with test methodology described? I don't buy that humans should be devouring milk all day when dairy as a nutrition source is so wildly varied across the globe.
- valarauko 4y ago
  I think DIAAS is trying to calculate scores for average meals, since it accounts for missing amino acids in individual components. Meals that complement missing amino acids should yield good scores. AFAIK the DIAAS for individual protein sources are ultimately based on experimental pig models and nitrogen absorption by the pig gut.
elil17 4y ago
This model does not actually look at specific amino acids.
hammock 4y ago
You aren’t going to be happy with where eggs score on Food Compass (hint: it’s not 100, and it’s below Lucky Charms)
- O__________O 4y ago
  Confirmed whole-egg-cooked got a score of 52 and Lucky-Charms got a 56; possible score is per food type, for example grain, protein, etc — but unclear. Got the numbers from this document: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs43016-021-00381-y/MediaObjects/43016_2021_381_MOESM1_ESM.pdf https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs430...
- cityprestige 4y ago
  [dead]
olejorgenb 4y ago
> you have things like wheat/grain proteins which are some ~20% bioavailable Do you have a source for this claim? It seems very low. It seems to be different ways of measuring, but one source [1] claims 65% postprandial retention (not 100% sure what it means). Another claims "The real ileal digestibility of dietary wheat nitrogen amounted to 90.3 ± 4.3%." [2] EDIT: So the 20% number somehow account for the low lysine content (seems strange to call that bioavailability, but I'm not a biologist) [1] https://hal-agroparistech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01569102 https://hal-agroparistech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01569102 [2] https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/81/1/87/4607685 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/81/1/87/4607685

sudden_dystopia 4y ago

Glad to validate my 2-3 whole egg per day lifestyle. Since starting eating a high protein, mostly unprocessed food based diet(without regard for fat or cholesterol consumption ), I have lowered my body fat percentage by 8% and lowered my LDL cholesterol by 50 points. Just by eating meat, eggs, cheese, whole milk, lots of fruit, non leafy/non stem vegetables (fruits botanically speaking), and protein shakes. My doctor was so impressed…at least until I told her how I did it:)

datameta 4y ago
Quietly hoping over here that 3 eggs per day won't be invalidated by a new study. Been doing it for 5-6 years
q_watts 4y ago

mfer 4y ago

Taking a single food alone is bad. You should look at a full diet. For example, wheat/grain paired with beans, lentils, and other foods that provide a variety of needed proteins. You also need to look at the downside. Eggs have a lot of saturated fat and cholesterol. This have been reproducibly tied to high cholesterol in people. Eggs have also been tied to colon cancer. Pulling out a single nutrient in a single food is dangers because it doesn't give us a complete picture of a healthy diet.

gavinray 4y ago
Agreed, this is reductionist and nothing is ever so simple but compared to current nutrition "labels" we have it's miles better. I'm waiting for augmented reality to get far enough I can wear glasses that can scan the food I eat, estimate the composition + macros, and log it for me. That'll be the day.
jononomo 4y ago
High cholesterol is a good thing in the absence of obesity or any other negative health indicators. You want to have a lot of saturated fat and cholesterol in your diet, frankly. And eggs have not been tied to colon cancer in any meaningful sense. A person could eat a dozen eggs a day for years and be in perfect health.
- mfer 4y ago
  High cholesterol is directly linked to heart disease. The negative side effects take years (decades really) to become an issue. Doctors know enough about it now to describe what's biologically happening. High cholesterol (and what causes it) being normalized is one of the reasons heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US[1]. High cholesterol has such an impact on health that the American Heart Association has a section dedicated to it[2]. So do many other health organizations around the world. The parents comments should not be taken seriously. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm [2] https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol
  - jononomo 4y ago
    Your first link is to the leading causes of death, which means nothing since high cholesterol lowers all cause mortality. And in elderly people it is protective against dementia. Your second link goes to a site that directly says that cholesterol is not bad. In fact, cholesterol is the foundation of the human hormone system -- it is likely the dearth of animal fats and red meat in our western diet over the last few decades that has led to the explosion in depression, ADHD, bi-polar disorder, and so forth.

strongpigeon 4y ago

I remember reading the nutrition label of a bag of chicarrones and seeing a remark about how despite having 7g of proteins, it isn’t a significant source of protein (e.g. [0]). Reading up about it, it turned out to be for the exact reason you mentioned, namely the low bio-availability. [0] http://www.osm-us.com/index.php?main_page=popup_image&pID=1239 http://www.osm-us.com/index.php?main_page=popup_image&pID=12...

hn_user82179 4y ago
That is crazy! I had some yesterday thinking it was a good protein snack. I’m glad I read this comment, thank you!

codemac 4y ago

I've been trying to actually read the source material for all this "bio availability" scoring like DIAAS and I keep finding weird things. For example, for DIAAS they took current food production, averaged the total protein ratios, and assumes that's ideal protein ratio for humans. It makes me think they're overstating the score of things like whey because of the severe amounts of cheese people eat. Do you have any source studies with test methodology described? I don't buy that humans should be devouring milk all day when dairy as a nutrition source is so wildly varied across the globe.

valarauko 4y ago
I think DIAAS is trying to calculate scores for average meals, since it accounts for missing amino acids in individual components. Meals that complement missing amino acids should yield good scores. AFAIK the DIAAS for individual protein sources are ultimately based on experimental pig models and nitrogen absorption by the pig gut.

elil17 4y ago

This model does not actually look at specific amino acids.

hammock 4y ago

You aren’t going to be happy with where eggs score on Food Compass (hint: it’s not 100, and it’s below Lucky Charms)

O__________O 4y ago
Confirmed whole-egg-cooked got a score of 52 and Lucky-Charms got a 56; possible score is per food type, for example grain, protein, etc — but unclear. Got the numbers from this document: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs43016-021-00381-y/MediaObjects/43016_2021_381_MOESM1_ESM.pdf https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs430...
cityprestige 4y ago
[dead]

olejorgenb 4y ago

> you have things like wheat/grain proteins which are some ~20% bioavailable Do you have a source for this claim? It seems very low. It seems to be different ways of measuring, but one source [1] claims 65% postprandial retention (not 100% sure what it means). Another claims "The real ileal digestibility of dietary wheat nitrogen amounted to 90.3 ± 4.3%." [2] EDIT: So the 20% number somehow account for the low lysine content (seems strange to call that bioavailability, but I'm not a biologist) [1] https://hal-agroparistech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01569102 https://hal-agroparistech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01569102 [2] https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/81/1/87/4607685 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/81/1/87/4607685