9 types of protein reviewed

[-TDS-]

I'll save MuscleMama the effort of posting real information or the risk of contradicting herself again...

This is the definition of BV I found at http://www.propernutrition.com/articleprtn3.html:

Biological Value (BV)

One test to biologically determine protein quality includes a consideration of protein losses in the urine as well as the losses in feces. Test results are referred to as the Biological Value (BV) of a test protein. The formula is

BV of test protein = I - (F - Fo) - (U - Uo)x 100 / (I - (F - Fo))

where I is intake of nitrogen; F is fecal nitrogen; Fo is obligatory fecal nitrogen; U is urinary nitrogen; and Uo is obligatory urinary nitrogen. Obligatory nitrogen values for feces and urine are calculated when subjects are on a nitrogen-free diet. It is a measure of the loss of nitrogen from the normal ongoing breakdown of tissue constituents and not those losses from dietary sources. By subtracting obligatory losses from total values obtained, we theoretically get those losses from just the dietary.

BV is a measure of dietary nitrogen retained for the body's use and is expressed as a percentage of nitrogen utilized.

Proteins exhibit a higher BV when fed at levels below the amount necessary for nitrogen equilibrium; that is, when the amount of nitrogen being eaten balances that amount lost. We'll discuss various concepts involved with this idea of nitrogen equilibrium in a future article in this series. We note here, however, that equilibrium testing is the means by which protein requirements in humans are determined.

So I interpret it like this... It IS a percentage, but if during the nitrogen consumption test you actually lose less nitrogen than was determined inevitable, you can score higher than 100. I presume this is what has happend when they've done BV tests on whey (yeilding the 105 or whatever).

Plug this arbitrary-value example into the formula:

I = 100
F = 10
Fo = 10
U = 10
Uo = 10

You lose exactly as much nitrogen as was thought unavoidable, so BV=100. But if:

I = 100
F = 5 (less N is lost when eating the N-source than when eating no N at all)
Fo = 10
U = 10
Uo = 10

This says BV=105. This is just my theory -- does that make sense though?

[-TDS-]

Originally posted by 4banger
Quoted from a Muscle media magazine...

BTW thanks for this post 4banger!

Was there any scale to it, or was it just an order?

[MuscleMama]

Shredded: It wasn't a company; it's general, common knowledge.

TDS: I didn't contradict myself; you just didn't understand what I said.

~ MuscleMama ~

[Shredded]

Originally posted by -TDS-
I'll save MuscleMama the effort of posting real information or the risk of contradicting herself again...

This is the definition of BV I found at http://www.propernutrition.com/articleprtn3.html:

Biological Value (BV)

One test to biologically determine protein quality includes a consideration of protein losses in the urine as well as the losses in feces. Test results are referred to as the Biological Value (BV) of a test protein. The formula is

BV of test protein = I - (F - Fo) - (U - Uo)x 100 / (I - (F - Fo))

where I is intake of nitrogen; F is fecal nitrogen; Fo is obligatory fecal nitrogen; U is urinary nitrogen; and Uo is obligatory urinary nitrogen. Obligatory nitrogen values for feces and urine are calculated when subjects are on a nitrogen-free diet. It is a measure of the loss of nitrogen from the normal ongoing breakdown of tissue constituents and not those losses from dietary sources. By subtracting obligatory losses from total values obtained, we theoretically get those losses from just the dietary.

BV is a measure of dietary nitrogen retained for the body's use and is expressed as a percentage of nitrogen utilized.

Proteins exhibit a higher BV when fed at levels below the amount necessary for nitrogen equilibrium; that is, when the amount of nitrogen being eaten balances that amount lost. We'll discuss various concepts involved with this idea of nitrogen equilibrium in a future article in this series. We note here, however, that equilibrium testing is the means by which protein requirements in humans are determined.

So I interpret it like this... It IS a percentage, but if during the nitrogen consumption test you actually lose less nitrogen than was determined inevitable, you can score higher than 100. I presume this is what has happend when they've done BV tests on whey (yeilding the 105 or whatever).

Plug this arbitrary-value example into the formula:

I = 100
F = 10
Fo = 10
U = 10
Uo = 10

You lose exactly as much nitrogen as was thought unavoidable, so BV=100. But if:

I = 100
F = 5 (less N is lost when eating the N-source than when eating no N at all)
Fo = 10
U = 10
Uo = 10

This says BV=105. This is just my theory -- does that make sense though?

BV of test protein = I - (F - Fo) - (U - Uo)x 100 / (I - (F - Fo)) is close but wrong
BV = N retained / N absorbed
BV = [dietary N – (urine N + fecal N)]/ (dietary N – fecal N)

[4banger]

How can you use more than 100% of the nitrogen you ingest, it has to come from somewhere.
If you eat 5 grams of nitrogen with a serving of protein how the hell can your body use 6g???
Last time I checked our bodies don't have a nitrogen machine inside...
Just my $0.02.
Anyway if it can be more than 100% or not is not the point, my point was just to show that there was no relation between BV and absortion rate.

[4banger]

Originally posted by -TDS-
BTW thanks for this post 4banger!

Was there any scale to it, or was it just an order?

No problem.
They had it in order with a little explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of each type of protein.
It's in the September of 2002 issue.

[Shredded]

Originally posted by 4banger
How can you use more than 100% of the nitrogen you ingest, it has to come from somewhere.
If you eat 5 grams of nitrogen with a serving of protein how the hell can your body use 6g???
Last time I checked our bodies don't have a nitrogen machine inside...
Just my $0.02.
Anyway if it can be more than 100% or not is not the point, my point was just to show that there was no relation between BV and absortion rate.

I know what your point was but the subject was brought up earlier in the thread.And as common sense would tell you ya can't have more than 100% absoption of anything

[Steve]

Thanx everybody.

Steve

[4banger]

Originally posted by Steve
Thanx everybody.

Steve

De nada

[-TDS-]

Originally posted by Steve
Absorbtion rates, anyone?

Thanks for giving us something to talk about!

[MuscleMama]

Whew. Glad all the confusion has settled.

If I had a pen, paper and calculator, I could sit down with each of you and just zip right through everything ... and you'd actually understand it. But it's sometimes very difficult to explain things in detail via a computer.

Train smart,
MuscleMama

[4banger]

Originally posted by MuscleMama
Whew. Glad all the confusion has settled.

If I had a pen, paper and calculator, I could sit down with each of you and just zip right through everything ... and you'd actually understand it. But it's sometimes very difficult to explain things in detail via a computer.

Train smart,
MuscleMama

Naaahhhhhhh, I'll pass...

[MuscleMama]

4banger:

It wasn't an offer. Do you know the meaning of "rhetoric"?

Now shut up and gimme a pizza, dude.

~ MuscleMama ~

[4banger]

Originally posted by MuscleMama
4banger:

It wasn't an offer. Do you know the meaning of "rhetoric"?

Now shut up and gimme a pizza, dude.

~ MuscleMama ~

Yeah, that means a nicelly developed sentence that doens't really have any meaning, like asking a question that doesn't have a logical answer

Just give me your address and I'll deliver you some pizza

[MuscleMama]

4banger:

Hmmm ... not really - but close enough, I suppose. (It's actually a question that doesn't require an answer - because the answer is obvious.)

My address? Wow ... I didn't realize that you delivered long distance.

Keep pumpin',
MuscleMama