Talk:Biological value

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Getting started

I started this article as a primer on the Biological Value method of protein rating for human consumption that was used by the FDA and is currently used by other organizations. It simplifies the process so any elaboration is welcome and appreciated. Be bold when you edit it as I welcome any corrections to its points. I myself think if I remember correctly the score of the egg was modified to 93.7 because of the 97% digestibility rate. However it may have been due to the testing of whey protein that caused its number to drop. In either event I think it's a start and would welcome any input and improvements. Quadzilla99 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If any doctors or researchers could describe the process of testing including the fasting period and go into a little more detail it would be greatly appreciated.Quadzilla99 17:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physiological error in criticism, or misleading summary of BV?

I notice a criticism (first paragraph under criticisms) suggests that BV fails to account for gluconeogensis of a certain amino acid. But, this claim makes no sense given the summary of BV as something computed by measuring nitrogen wastes. After all the nitrogen always has to go somewhere. Gluconeogensis produces nitrogenes wastes in the form of urea, as such it would be accounted for in BV. So either a.) the criticism makes no sense and should be removed, or else b.) there is something incorrect or confusing (to this reader anyhow) about the definition of what BV is. Bmord 20:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Biological Utilization section (formely Criticisms which I appropriately renamed) is POV and unencyclopedic.

Calling this section Criticism gives an unfair (and POV impression I might add) message that biological value of protein methodology is bad or even worse wrong!

The way these sentences are written is unencyclopedic and is bashing the biological value methodology. This is more than obvious. I know it may be hip to take a boring article and try to create conflict where there is no conflict but this is Wikipedia -- a world class encyclopedia! -63.17.93.101 15:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it outlines the criticism that several researchers have of the methodology of BV. Articles on Wikipedia should attempt to present all views on a subject. It's only your opinion that the material is unjustly "bashing" the BV methodology.Yankees76 15:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees claims their are "several researchers who have criticisms of the methodology of BV. In order to keep those sentences in the are you must demonstrate and prove their are researchers who debate about BV or otherwise it is just another POV. 63.17.93.101 15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms sections are in thousands of articles in Wikipedia. They don't indicate bias. Quadzilla99 02:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

63.17.73.220, nice job providing the references for the undisputed material. Most of the information you referenced is a fact found in most general reference sources and is easily locatable by anyone. However it's a nice start to see you getting your feet wet by properly citing sources. Though I must say, some of those sources appear to be a bit spotty - is turnuptheheat.com really a credible third party source with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? Mind you none of the information really asserts anything that isn't common knowledge, but good work nonetheless. Yankees76 05:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yankees76 when he says some of those sources (references) appear to be spotty. With that said, so some of the materials may actually be POV or false which is a dispute since Yankees believes "some sources appear a bit spotty." Perhaps rewriting the last section about critics may be in order. That tone and language seems unencyclopedic or worse -- spotty. -63.17.93.101 15:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References 1-4 may not qualify under Wikipedia rules as a reliable published source. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Perhaps an explanation on how websites like turnuptheheat.com passes based on this criteria is in order. Yankees76 16:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is spotty. Also the Critics section seems to be one-sided. Unfairly bashing the methodology. Perhaps a few sentences to balance out that section is in order 63.17.93.101 16:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree with you there - the whole purpose of the section is to outline criticism of the use of Biological value as an indicator of protein value - the rest of the article is entirely supportive of it - there should be more than one side presented.Yankees76 16:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how Yankees76 believes that section is about criticism. I believe that section should be about the facts, not unfailry criticising BV. So in fact it may be POV. There needs to be balance in that section not unfair criticism. 63.17.93.101 16:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it unfairly criticising BV? All of the information in there is correct. No the oringial author did not cite references, but in turn did not write false information - unless you have an agenda to supress the information. Yankees76 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yankee76 when he says the original author did not cite references. That said, the info could be original information or something from someone's imagination which is not allowed on Wikipedia. 63.17.64.192 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, becaue I've cited two of the claims and looking for an online version of the third claim. Yankees76 17:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable References to support strong claims

63.17.71.101, since PCDAAS has only been used since 1989, would you care to explain how citing sources that were published in 1909, 1924 and 1926 like these:

Methods of Estimating Protein Quality by D.M. Hegsted. ^ a b Thomas, K. Ueber die biologische Wertigkeit der stickstoff-substanzen in 1909 verschiedenen Nahrungsmitteln. Arch. Physiol., 219. ^ a b Mitchell, H.H. A method for determining the biological value of protein. 1924 J. Biol. Chem., 58, 873. ^ a b Mitchell, H.H. and G.G. Carman. The biological value of the nitrogen of mixtures 1926 of patent white flour and animal foods. J. Biol. Chem., 68, 183.

Demonstrate that BV is is more accurate to both the PER and the PDCAAS for the measurement of protein utilization in humans? I'd be curoius to know how Hegsted, Mitchell and Carman could have possibly written in these journals about something that was 70 years after their time.

And what page does Colgan make this claim in his book Optimum Sports Nutrition -- Your Competitive Edge -- A Complete Nutritional Guide For Optimizing Athletic Performance? Considering it was published in 1993 shortly after PCDAAS was accepted by the FDA, I'd be interested in seeing just where he'd be able to make this assumption. I've reverted your edits until you provide an explanation for this gross oversight is given. Do you have a background in nutrition at all or access to any up-to-date journals that you can use as a verifiable source, because I'm finding your claims about BV to be outlandish and very hard to verify Yankees76 01:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about this too. Am I reading this right? Are these studies really from the early 20th century, or do those numbers mean something else? It might be more clear to use a citation template such as {{cite journal}}. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 04:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are -one is a foreign language journal from 1909 (Thomas, K) - probably pulled from here [1], HH Mitchell was published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in 1924, and the second Mitchell reference was from the same journal - in 1926. Yankees76 04:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid information in the critcs section.

1)

The analytical method that is universally recognized by the FAO/WHO as well as the FDA and USDA when judging the quality of protein in the human is not Biological Value but the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), as it was deemed superior when accurately measuring the correct relative nutritional value of animal and vegetable sources of protein in the diet. [9],[10]

FAO/WHO (1991) Protein Quality Evaluation Report of Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Food and Nutrition Paper No. 51, Rome.

Schaafsma, G. (2000) 'The protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score. Journal of Nutrition 130, 1865S-1867S

These two above references do not prove PDCAAS to be superior in any way shape or form to BV scientific methodology. These two Weasel References (invalid references) were only added to wrongly ERASE the validity of the information I contructively contributed to.

2)

Which is more accurate to you?

Soy is 1.0 and whey is 1.0 according to PDCAAS method which claims plant proteins are as high as whey and egg.

Or the more relevant and accurate methodology: >>> BV 100 for egg and 74 for soy? <<<

3)

Oh, by the way, anyone can read the book I references for the facts. Protein for growth chapter 12. Turn page by page for the facts. According to the PDCAAS measurement, the FDA has decreed that some vegetable proteins, especially soy, does score equal to egg and whey.

FDA scores 1.0 soy and egg 1.0. (I believe, as many atheletes agree, that animal proteins especially egg is higher than other proteins. But according to Yankees76 he believes soy is equal to eggs. He believes the PDCAAS is superior to BV. ARE you serious? (This must be a joke.)

Biological Value (on the other hand) scores egg 100 and soy 74. <<< (This is accurate to me!)


Even a child or better yet any athelete can tell which one is more accurate. Lets get real here! Yankees76 claims PDCAAS is "superior" to the BV method by his invalid (quack) info he added.

P.S. I will like to see how long the POV sentences and false references will stay in the article. 63.17.55.215 03:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you're really a piece of work aren't you? I'm reverting back and requesting a moderator, and I'm requesting that this page be protected - as it's obvious that your grasp of this subject is weak at best. Yankees76 03:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree Wow. Thanks for the words of confidence. I will continue my research and contributions to make a masterpiece article. With all do respect (and seriousness I might add) we should both keep are I on the ball (batter up) on improving the article for a NPOV and encyclopedic tone from this moment on and on. 63.17.58.67 05:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment on your "claims":

1)The issue in question here isn't wether I beleive egg and soy are the same. I've never posted that, never insinuated it either. This article is not about athletes, its' about Biological value. What you think an athletes opinion would be makes no difference here even though many top athletic nutritionists (like John Berardi) [2] recognize PCDAAS as a valuable tool for athletes and measuring protein quality. You're baiting again, and posing strawman arguements. And actually Soy is scored at 0.91 - not 1.00. It's not ranked the same as whey or egg.(so you've stuck out when you say that "according to Yankees76 he believes soy is equal to eggs").

2)The analytical method that is universally recognized by the FAO/WHO as well as the FDA and USDA when judging the quality of protein in the human is not Biological Value but the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), as it was deemed superior when accurately measuring the correct relative nutritional value of animal and vegetable sources of protein in the diet. [9],[10] (*** <<< second half of sentence original info 63.17.58.67 06:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

"These two above references do not prove PDCAAS to be superior in any way shape or form to BV scientific methodology. These two Weasel References (invalid references) were only added to wrongly ERASE the validity of the information I contructively contributed to."

They show that The analytical method that is universally recognized by the FAO/WHO as well as the FDA and USDA when judging the quality of protein in the human is not Biological Value but the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score This is a fact. So it is as well when it says superior when accurately measuring the correct relative nutritional value of animal and vegetable sources of protein in the diet. There's no POV involved! I'm not sure what a "weasel reference" is but quoting a source from the United Nations is about as solid as it gets - considering all I'm doing to showing that the governing bodies involved recognized PCDAAS instead of BV as their analyical method because of the reason listed. And even the wording the text is pulled from is nearly identical so that it would be easy to find in the referenced literature.

Off topic question, but if BA is so superior why hasn't the FDA ever used it? They even used PER over BV!

3)"Which is more accurate to you? Soy is 1.0 and whey is 1.0 according to PDCAAS method which claims plant proteins are as high as whey and egg. Or the more relevant and accurate methodology: >>> BV 100 for egg and 74 for soy?"

Neither, that's not what I'm here to determine. And since Soy is 0.91 and Whey Concentrate, Whole Egg, Isolates Milk, Egg White Cottage Cheese all score 1.00, it looks like the PDCAAS method doesn't claim plant protein are as high as whey and egg. Another stirke out. What PCDAAS method does is determines the indispensable amino acid content of the protein measured. These values are then compared to the known amino acid requirements for growth in humans. BV doesn't do that. The BV of a protein is calculated by measuring the percentage of protein eaten and absorbed into the blood, but not excreted. It makes no adjustments for the digestion and interaction of protein with other foods before absorption. That's a critcism of BV and that's what I've plainly referenced.

Now I'd like to ask again, how can researchers from the 1920's claim that BV is better than PCDAAS as you've quoted under "Advantages"? And can you please provide the exact wording from "Methods of Estimating Protein Quality by D.M. Hegsted" that backs up this claim? You haven't provided enough info for anyone to go search that out (no publication or year). And finally the line "has long been considered the method of choice for estimating the nutritive value of proteins due to its relevance and accuracy" - considered by who, and the method of choice for who? Bodybuilders and athletes? But not the FDA, USDA, FAO or WHO. Qualifying statements like this might be a good idea. Yankees76 05:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedians and Onlookers,

An off topic answer to Yankees76 question) The reason the FDA has not adopted the BV is quite obvious. The BV is more accurate. FDA does what business wants. If the FDA adapted the accurate mesurement American Corprations would not like that. Example: The US government denies there is any global warming at all. (I think things are just starting to heat up.)

This sentence below says clearly "as it was deemed superior..." So in fact it may be POV. I wonder where you got the second half of that sentence from.*** Who deems it superior. The FDA does not deem it. They just use it. How is it deemd superior. In what whey is it superior. Just curious.

as it was 'deemed' 'superior' when accurately measuring the correct relative nutritional value of animal and vegetable sources of protein in the diet. [9],[10] The FDA does not respresent science or authority of protein methodology in any shape or form.

The issue in question here there is not enough detailed information to explain about BV versus other measurements.

In another article about PDCAAS I read soy is equal to eggs. There needs to be better accurate and cited references in the article.

The second half of this sentence is claiming that it is superior. This is obvious POV. It will be erased or rewritten by an experienced editor anyways. Why? The FDA does not claim PDCAAS is superior. Just because they use it does not mean it is better in any way shape or form. What is the methodology in other countries. The FDA is not an authority over the world standards, period.

The study titled Methods of Estimating Protein Quality by D.M. Hegstad proves everthing I convincingly contructively collaberated completely to by being conscious of my contributions, period. Thnaks for your concerns kind fellow. I hope this helps. 63.17.58.67 06:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you didn't really address anything I've discussed.

I've quantified the claim in the sentence: "when accurately measuring the correct relative nutritional value of animal and vegetable sources of protein in the diet." The biological value method is unable to to do this - it does not measure the correct relative values of animal and vegetable sources. And it's not just he FDA and USDA that recognizes this, the World Health Organization does as well.

Secondly, nobody compared soy vs. eggs in the article. I'm not sure where you're seeing this in the aricle and the only place it's popped up is here in unrelated strawman arguments.

What year was the D.M. Hegstad paper published in? (never mind, I've found it - 1971 - 18 years before PCDAAS was established - another instance of a time-traveling scientist writing about the future?) No, because I've read the report and not a single comparison of BV and PDCAAS is made by Hegstad anywhere. There are comparisons to PER, NPU and Chemical Scores, but no mention of the claim you're making. How does this "convincingly prove" your claim?

Lastly, "The reason the FDA has not adopted the BV is quite obvious. The BV is more accurate. FDA does what business wants. If the FDA adapted the accurate mesurement American Corprations would not like that. Example: The US government denies there is any global warming at all. (I think things are just starting to heat up.)" - another strawman argument that shows a strong POV. Yankees76 13:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. The FDA has a strong POV with respect to scientific information.

THE FDA has compared soy vs. eggs in their POV view. I wonder why the USA FDA today has claims soy equals whey.

Example 1)

The FDA has not adapted the Glycemic Index Level for food. Just as BV is relevant so is the Glycemic Index Level.

Example 2)

The FDA has decreed that some plant sources of protein, especially soy, will show a score on food labels as high as whey or egg protein. This is abvious POV fron the US Government.

Soy is not has high as whey. Just ask anybody. But according the FDA soy is = to whey. What do you think?

With that said, Biological Value is more accurate than PDCAAS since animals proteins are well known (just ask any scientist or athelete or Dr. Colgan) to be a higher quality complete source of protein than vegetable sources of protein!!!

Thanks for making my points, case, and edits proven undisputably sound. 63.17.90.25 19:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've 'won' the strawman argument. A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
So, can we get back on topic now? I beleive there a number issues raised above that still requires your attention. Yankees76 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedians,

Read*** this the sentence below that is in the article (This is the second half of a larger sentence.) How can the PDCAAS be so accurate when the FDA claims soy is equal to whey. I do not get it. This is proof (soy is the same as whey according to the FDA's PDCAAS) this sentence is misleading when soy is not equal to whey.

      • but the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), as it is viewed as accurately measuring the correct relative nutritional value of animal and vegetable sources of protein in the diet.[14][15]

How can this PDCAAS be so accurate when it is not accurate! Ask anyone. Animal sources of protein are higher than vegetable sources according to BV. BV is more accurate and relevant. Take a look at the table in the article. Its about science not opinions of the FDA!!! The FDA has not demonstrated a scientific peer-reviewed study in a science journal on "PDCAAS" for accuracy on PDCAAS. 63.17.90.25 20:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask anyone? Not really the verifiable source we've been looking for. I don't think you're aware of this but animal products score better on both the BV and PCDAAS scales. And I know you're not aware of this, based on your posts, but whey does score higher than soy on the FDA chart as well. You see in 1990 at a FAO/WHO meeting it was decided that proteins having values higher than 1.0 would be rounded down to 1.0 as scores above 1.0 are considered to indicate that the protein contains essential amino acids in excess of the human requirements. Whey scores higher than 1.0, but it's rounded down. Any other questions? Yankees76 21:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

This section is for Requests for comment discussion.

I advise all editors involved to start by reading Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Physical_sciences.2C_mathematics_and_medicine. In particular, note the following: 1. "The scientific consensus can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs." (emphasis added) 2. "In science, avoid citing the popular press." --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 16:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An additional note to all editors: It is a good idea and strongly recommended that you not edit the article during the RfC process. Considering the rancor of this debate, it's best to put all edit-warring to a halt while we work towards consensus. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deemed Superior is POV (Nice Joke).

Hello Kind Folks,

Speculation and opinions is POV. Who claims is it "deemed superior". In what way is it superior. Who has made such strong statements as to proclaim which method is the absolute best and so superior.

Original information (as from a good imagination) is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia not rumors or implications as to what method is superior. Where is the scientific proof which method it is DEEMED SUPERIOR ??? 63.17.90.25 19:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation and opinions aren't able quote two verifiable sources. And just for fun, here's yet a third source[3] (it's a reprint, but the original newsletter it appeared in won't be difficult to located. It's written by L. Lee Coyne, Ph.D.[4] It's appears Dr. Coyne supports the argument as well. Here's a direct quote from the article. PDCAAS (Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score) - A mouthful but currently the protein quality system considered to be most reliable. And about Biological Value? He describes it as outdated. Aren't things that are outdated generally inferior? If you like I can add in the sentence in question "more reliable" instead of "deemed superior" - it's the same thing. Yankees76 20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Folks,

According to Yankees76 PDCAAS is more reliable. Not so fast. Here is the information form your link about PDCAAS!!!! Vegetable and animals sources scored the same according to your link. So how in the world could it ever be more reliable??? Your spotty sources are fantasies. Nice try though in trying to blurr the truth. How could soy, egg, and whey scored 1.0 on the test and then you think this is more reliable???

PDCAAS (Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score) A mouthful but currently the protein quality system considered to be most reliable. The highest score is 1.0 and this is given to any protein source considered complete for use by the human body. Soy protein isolates, egg white, whey protein isolates and casein proteins supplements all scored 1.0 on this test.

63.17.90.25 21:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to the source I'm quoting it's most reliable - not more. But I'll take "more" too. See my last post above as to why nothing measured with the PCDAAS method can score above 1. Yankees76 21:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Really,

According to Yankees76, PDCAAS is most reliable. Here is the information from your link*** about PDCAAS!!!! Vegetable and animals sources scored the same according to your link. So how in the world could it ever be most reliable??? Your spotty sources are fantasies. Nice try though in trying to blurr the truth. How could soy, egg, and whey scored the exactly the same 1.0 on the test and then you think this is most reliable???

Information from the link Yankees76 provided that proves PDCAAS is not reliable at all!


***PDCAAS (Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score)

A mouthful but currently the protein quality system considered to be most reliable. The highest score is 1.0 and this is given to any protein source considered complete for use by the human body. Soy protein isolates, egg white, whey protein isolates and casein proteins supplements all scored 1.0 on this test.


According to PDCAAS soy is = to whey. (A score of 1.0 for both which is the highest possible score for PDCAAS. It was not rounded down as Yankees76 suggested) Impossible to be accurate. This is a falshood.

BV is obviously more reliable and accurate too. BV of whey is 104 and soy is 74.

Which method is most reliable, accurate, and precise. BV of course!

63.17.90.25 21:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've presented my case - all you're doing now is presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refuting it, and pretending that the opponent's actual position has been refuted. I'd even call contextomy here too. Yankees76 21:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have shown my case too. 63.17.90.25 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the PCDAAS score*** of common foods. The highest possible score is 1.0 which was not rounded.

The score was not rounded down to 1.0 as Yankees76 alleged.

In fact, quite the opposite, the highest possible score is 1.0 which is obviously inaccurate.

Biological value of protein is so precise it even has a difference between whey at 104 versus egg at a 100.

Notice how soy, egg white, casein, milk, and whey are all equal according to the FDA, the PDCAAS standard, and Wikipedia's article om PDCAAS.

This info below was obtained from another article on wikipedia on PDCAAS.

A PDCAAS value of 1 is the highest, and 0 the lowest.

Some ratings*** of commons foods include soy (1.0), egg white (1.0), casein (1.0), milk (1.0), whey (1.0), beef (0.92), kidney beans (0.68), rye (0.68), whole wheat (0.54), lentils (0.52), peanuts (0.52), seitan (0.25).

Checkmate. 63.17.78.66 00:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Do some reading. [5] See Methods of Assessing Protein Quality - point #2. Therefore, in 1990 at a FAO/WHO

meeting it was decided that proteins having values higher than 1.0 would be rounded down to 1.0. Again you're presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refuting it, and pretending that the opponent's actual position has been refuted. Yankees76 01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference proves my point. Thanks. The highest number score possible is just 1.0 even though some proteins including whey are higher. If the score was not 1.0 as the highest then it would be reliable. Since all scores are leveled off at 1.0 then it is, in fact, does not show the different with higher quality protein which is a weakness for the PDCAAS. With that said, the article needs to be updated now based on your link. Rounded numbers when other proteins are higher clearly shows the weaknness for PDCAAS.

Biological value is more precise. Why? It does show a difference with egg at 100 to whey ar 104 when PDCAAS claims whey, soy, and eggs are equal. Nice try though. I wil give you that. Do you get it now? 63.17.78.66 02:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still a strawman argument. The source was provided to show that the numbers were rounded by the WHO and nothing more. Again you're presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refuting it, and pretending that the opponent's actual position has been refuted. Yankees76 02:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gig is Up

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010 - I'll let the evidence inside speak for itself. And you can read the nice message left on my talk page regarding this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yankees76#What.27s_Up. (just below the 'civility'sub head) Regards. Yankees76 05:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal & vegetable sources

6317 repeatedly states here that animal sources of protein are more usable than all vegetable sources of protein. Is there a source that states this? I'm serious. What is the basis for this statement, other than "ask anyone" or "bodybuilders know"? I am looking for a reputable published source. Thanks. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

I do not understand specifically what is your question.

BV of animal sources of protein are higher than legumes, soy, and other plant sources. I do not understand what is so hard to understand here.

Reference:

{http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/AnimalvsVegetable.htm The Great Animal Versus Vegetable Protein Debate What Is The Best Protein For Muscle Growth?}

BV is more accurrate than other method of measuring protein. Why? and How? BV of whey is 104 BV of eggs is 100 BV of soy is 74. Other methods are not even close to being this precise.

FDA scores using the PDCAAS method 1.0 soy and egg 1.0.**

(Are you serious. The FDA is using a methodology that alleges whey and soy are practically that same in protein utilization for muscle growth and synthesis.)

References:

Young VR. Soy protein in relation to human protein and amnio acid nutrition. J Am Dietet Assoc 191;91:828-835.

Henley EC. Food and Drug Association's proposed labeling rules for protein. J Am Dietet Assoc 1992;92:293-296.**

(I believe, as many atheletes agree, that animal proteins especially egg is higher than plant proteins.)

I really would like to know what do you think on this subject. That is the different ways of measuring protein values which overlaps many many articles on Wikipedia! I think BV is more precise. The other methodologies are NOT as accurate as is the Biological Value Scale! Hello G. and Y. 21:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citecheck template

After browsing the discussion on this talk page I think that Template:Citecheck may be the wrong template for one of your disputed sections. Citecheck doesn't question the reliability of a source and it doesn't question whether a source is up to date; it only questions whether the text in Wikipedia's article gives an accurate reflection of what the source says. Citecheck is meant, for example, to call attention to quotes out of context. I suggest you review this to see whether this really represents the dispute as the editors see it. Durova 21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put it there because I don't beleive the text in that particular section of the article gives an accurate reflection of what the source(s) listed say - especially the text immediately below the Citecheck template and the source that says that Dr. Michael Colgan supports BV as a reliable method for protein value (I've clicked the link and there is no mention of Colgan in that source. Yankees76 21:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The reference that Yankees76 intentially removed is a study about the Biological Value of protein. This is a useful reference.

Here is a website below that has the reference that was deleted by Yankees76:

http://www.21cecpharm.com/nutri/whey.htm Look at number seven please.

7. Renner E, Milk and Dairy Products in Human Nutrition. Munich, Germany, 1983.

Yankees76 continues to blank (this could be preceived as vandalism maybe) this reference above. I think it is very abnormal to remove a good reference. Someone should look into it. 67.150.244.19 18:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you have no idea what you're quoting because you're merely referencing a source that another website referenced. What page is your information on in that book? Who published that book? Is is self-published or not? Do you even know? No, because you're merely copying and pasting it from another (possibly unverifiable source) and passing it off as a verifiable source that matches your claim. Not a verifiable source under Wikipedia guidelines. Lastly lose the uncivil claims about edit warring - you're only a thinly disguised sockpuppet of AndyCanada (talk · contribs) being used to get around being blocked for violating the 3RR rule. Yankees76 18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yankees76 is right about citations: it is inappropriate to cite a source that the editor hasn't actually read. In that situation both the reference and the template should be removed from the article until or unless the editor who added the citation locates the appropriate passage in the book itself (which can be accessed through interlibrary loan from any public library). However, accusations of sockpuppetry are counterproductive and uncivil. Please initiate a formal complaint if the matter is worth mentioning at all. I am an active administrator at WP:RFI and would look into this if it's still current. DurovaCharge! 04:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Durova, I've already run a WP:RFCU that showed user 67.150 is a sock of AndyCanada (talk · contribs) [6]. Yankees76 07:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference provided by anon IP is valid.

I actually agree with the anon IP. The reference is good. We should assume good faith and the reference is important. Strange enough, Yankees76 is changing other editors sentences. A quick look at the history of the talk shows a deletion by Yankees76. Hopefully Yankees76 will stop edit warring on this and other articles including the soybean article. Talk:Biological Value - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABiological_Value&diff=86798886&oldid=86761585 --AndyCanada 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but a WP:RFCU has already proven that you are the anon IP - your input here agreeing with yourself isn't required, nor is it valid. Defamatory statements about editors can be removed under the remove personal attacks WP:RPA guideline. As for the validity of the reference, see my questions regarding this reference above. Yankees76 21:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are sorry but removing other user's comments must be done under the proper channels. Not by you. Thanks anyways. AndyCanada 22:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory statements about an editor may be removed immediately. And under the circumstances I could have removed it as vandalism by anon IP, only it had an issue that needed addressing. By the way stop vandalizing this page with your sockpuppets, the two references that have been removed have not been sourced properly and within the guidelines and therefore should be removed. Yankees76 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verification Needed

This is why some sources list whey as having a BV 104, even though as noted above, it is physically impossible.[citation needed] --Messenger2010 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metabolic Pathways task force

Re: "This article, on a method for evaluating biological utilizations rates of proteins in human and animal consumption, was started in August and is in desperate need of an expert. We are having trouble locating one and the article desperately needs it. This method is used constantly in bodybuilding magazines and products and is the subject of much misinformation and half-truths. On the other hand it does appear to have some value. Please help if possible. Quadzilla99 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)"

Hopefully, as a biochemists, we can help clear up some of the misconceptions and inaccuracies in this article! I have started by taking a quick glance over the article and considering the plausibility of all the science. All in all it seems all right, but I haven't trawled through the criticisms section in detail.
  • Dietary proteins are the major (but not the only) intake of nitrogen in all animals. This makes this test to some extent valid. There will, however, be major limitations.
  • Some proteins are indigestible and will be excreted in the faeces.
  • Some protein taken in will be deemed by the body as surplus to requirements and be broken down to provide energy or carbohydrate. The nitrogen will be removed from the compounds and mostly excreted as urea in the urine. Some may be excreted through sweat.
  • The extent to which these processes are carried out can be used as a measure of how much protein is taken into and incorporated into the body.
  • "BV = (nitrogen retained / nitrogen absorbed) * 100" doesn't make clear sense! Presumably this means BV = ((Ni - Ne)/Ni)*100 where Ni = nitrogen intake in proteins and Ne = nitrogen excreted. The amount of nitrogen stored in the body would be very hard to directly determine.
  • BV can take any value below 100, even negative. It cannot go above 100. If you look at the formula I have given above if Ne is larger than Ni then BV will be negative. Ne cannot go negative, therefore the maximum value of BV is 100.
  • If a different scale is used, ie. by setting one particular protein (eg. egg albumen) to 100, then it is possible to go above 100. There will, however, be an absolute limit to how high the scale can go; probably around 105-110.
  • BV is dependant on both the foodstuff and the individual eating it.
  • Foods where protein is inaccessible (for example trapped in tough cells) will have low BV. For example grass where the cells are protected by cellulose cell walls.
  • Most unprocessed plant proteins will be relatively inaccessible (low BV) due to the tough cell walls not seen on animal cells.
  • Foods where the protein is tough and resistant to digestion will have low BV. For example hair which, despite being largely keratin, cannot be broken down by the digestive system.
  • Foods which induce the breakdown of proteins already in the body will have low, potentially negative, BV. I dont know any examples but its a conceptual possibility.
  • On a side note all non-protein (non nitrogen-containing) foods will have negative BV.
  • Foods where the protein is unprotected and 'weak' will have a low BV. For example eggs.
  • An individual who has been starved of protein will experience a raised BV of any food.
  • An individual who has been on a protein only diet will experience a lowered BV of any food. Their body is forced to break down some protein for energy.
  • BV of a food will vary significantly person to person due to their individual metabolic properties, however the trends seen across foods will be similar.
  • Fasting prior to any test of BV is vital for any repeatability, and will still vary person to person. BV will vary massively depending on what a person has recently eaten.
- Zephyris Talk 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a ton for responding, I've got my fingers crossed that this could be a quality article in the future. Quadzilla99 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, hopefully it provides some extra help for people to decide which references are more reliable and correct! Unfortunately references will have to be found for all these statements which I have variously been taught over the years. A couple of further comments:
  • Proteins are broken down (by digestion) into their subunits; amino acids. Not all amino acids are in equal demand - some are only used infrequently. If a protein source consists of lots of these unusual amino acids then they cannot all be incorporated into the body and will be broken down.
  • PDCAAS is a measure of the usability of amino acids which make up a protein source. It doesn't take into account the digestibility of a protein, only the usability (in rats(!)) of the amino acids which make it up.
  • The PER doesn't seem have anything which makes it inherently worse than BV. I would have to read the references to see why this is thought.
- Zephyris Talk 00:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have started a draft article at User:Zephyris/BVDraft to attempt to tidy this article; feel free to chip in! - Zephyris Talk 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated; and hopefully makes a lot more sense now... Its a bit under-referenced but all the fundamental details (formulae etc.) have solid original papers for references. I haven't touched the criticisms section, which is still very non-NPOV, but with the unbiased and factual intro should make more sense. Similarly I haven't confirmed the example BV values. Any further queries/comments are welcome, this page is on my watch list! - Zephyris Talk 14:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typical values: Units?

The typical values section doesn't list units, suggesting that it's giving the values relative to egg protein. However, egg protein is listed at 93.7, which is its absolute percentage value, not its relative value (which would obviously be 100). However, whey protein is listed as 100, even though its value relative to egg is described elsewhere in the article as 104. So it looks like this section is a mix of absolute and relative values. Can someone with primary sources straighten it out? Inhumandecency 16:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are 100% correct. However you are correct only on a relative scale so you don't get an A+. (joke) I have added notes to the two charts so they can both be used. It makes sense that proteins digested into individual amino acids, as they are in those whey supplements you see at GNC, would have a higher value than eggs. Since eggs were the old standard at 100, for 100%, the new relative scales have to go beyond 100. Its confusing the first time you read it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Pellett" :
    • Pellett, PL and Young, VR. Nutritional evaluation of protein foods. United Nations University, 1980.
    • Pellet et al., concluded that "biological measures of protein quality conducted at suboptimal levels in either experimental animals or human subjects may overestimate protein value at maintenance levels." As a result, while BV may be important for rating proteins where intake is below requirements, it has little bearing on individuals with protein intakes far above requirements. This flaw is supported by the FAO/WHO/UNU, who state that BV and NPU are measured when the protein content of the diet is clearly below that of requirement, deliberately done to maximize existing differences in quality as inadequate energy intake lowers the efficiency of protein utilization and in most N balance studies, calorie adequacy is ensured. And because no population derives all of its protein exclusively from a single food, the determination of BV of a single protein is of limited use for application to human protein requirements.<ref>[http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/MEETING/004/M2835E/M2835E00.HTM The Use Of Biological Value Of A Protein In Evaluating Its Quality For Human Requirements.]

DumZiBoT (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference for soy biological values is now a dud meaning clicking on reference brings a blank page..The reference is to textbook I sent to the Yankee from Canada several years ago after a big fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.21.192 (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - we still have the references to the physical textbook. --Yankees76 (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This statement contradicts another Wikipedia article

From Properties of the protein source "Amino acid composition is the principal effect. All proteins are made up of combinations of the 21 biological amino acids."

The Wikipedia article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_amino_acid states the number as 22. Most internet references I see list 22 as well.

72.144.234.135 (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)David[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Biological_value"