I found a table that gives grams protein per ounce of various foods:
I found it interesting that beef, chicken, fish and eggs all have roughly the same amount of protein, but ostrich has significantly more. Granted, its game rather than a domesticated animal, but more protein than fish?
http://www.aw-bc.com/mathews/ch16/fi16p6.htm
or a easer to read one:
from http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:h5RoYNFksR4J:www.degussa-health-nutrition.com/degussa/html/e/health/eng/kh/c5.htm+gluconeogenesis&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
which is cached
This one goes into the protiens involved:
http://chemistry.gsu.edu/glactone/PDB/Proteins/glycolys/glyco.html
Or common sense can be used, the body has a limited amount of carbs, the brain requires carbs to work as other fuels can’t pass the blood-brain barrior. Where do the carbs come from during times of no carbs or no food intake?
also Here a very nice animated diagram of the process:
http://www.science.gmu.edu/~jmirick/csi803/page1.htm
No matter if the cattle eat grains or eat grass, the unsaturated fatty acids of the plants are converted to saturated fatty acids by the time the fat is absorbed by the animal. In ruminants, in many cases you’re feeding the bacteria that live in the rumen, not the animal itself, and the bacteria then produce the things the animal needs. Plants (and their fat) are first digested by the bacteria, and they take the polyunsaturated chains and hydrogenize them. This process means that even if the animal ate what a human would consider a healthy PUFA, the animal stored it as a SFA, probably stearic acid.
Some amino acids (components of proteins) can be converted to glucose or some other intermediate in the glycolysis and Kreb’s cycle. This are the non-essential amino acids, mainly because the reactions are reversible and the body can make those amino acids from carbohydrates (and nitrogen).
The process of converting the amino acid to carbohydrate uses energy (more energy than doing just glycolysis)… So obtaining energy from proteins is less efficient than obtaining energy from fats or carbohydrates.
I could not access one of your links, but the other ones do not demonstrate that the protein is converted into glucose, but show enzymes involve in the process of ATP production. Common sense? Common sense shows that if you don’t eat, you die. Your link in your next post is merely a diagram of the Krebs cycle, in which protein is not converted into glucose.
KarlGrenze:
Amino acids do not enter the Krebs cycle, and neither does glucose. “Some other intermediate[s]” are involved in the resynthesis of ATP. Indeed protein can be used for the resynthesis of ATP, but it is not converted into glucose.
The Krebs cycle describes the breakdown of glucose to produce energy in the form of ATP, but the glucose itself does not enter the cycle. Overall the following events occur during the Krebs cycle: transformation of the carbon skeleton; release of carbon dioxide; production of ATP, NADH, and FADH; and the reduction of carrier molecules. The carbon compound is transformed (after several stages) to citric acid, which then loses one carbon in the form of carbon dioxide, which in turn loses another carbon in the same manner and then rearranges itself several times to form a new 4-carbon and begin the cycle again. The cycle occurs twice due to the presence of two acetic acid molecules from the previous stage. ATP is produced by attaching a third phophate group to ADP with a special high energy bond. At various points in the cycle, two carrier molecules, NAD+ (niacin) and FAD (riboflavin) pick up H atoms and become reduced. These H atoms will be used to generate additional ATP molecules.
Upon reconsideration, I stand corrected. Protein can be converted into glucose, but fat cannot. Sorry for the error. But in all other respects, my prior post stands.
If the cell can convert the amino acid(or any other compound) to glyceraldehyde-3 phosphate, then it can convert it to glucose by using the neoglucogenesis pathway (reverse of glycolysis, uses different enzymes for some key parts).
I was not trying to imply that glucose enters the Kreb’s cycle, sorry if there was confusion that way.
Fat can be converted to glucose… not the free fatty acids, but the glycerol in triglyceride can be converted to glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate.
KarlGrenze, i am not talking about eating lard, but eating lean meat.
fat which is stored, is indeed saturated. but i am talking about fats which are incorporated into cell membranes and all that, functional fat so to say, not calorie storage fat 
since we only need a few grams of EFAs per day, i think eating a pound or two of grass-fed lean meat should be sufficient.
There is no difference.
Fat is fat is fat.
Well, of course, there are many differences between fats: saturated, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, and trans fatty acids, to begin with. But that’s a topic for another OP, and I’m sure there have been plenty, as well as on the Web.
So you’d say that trans-fatty acids and omega-3 acids both have the same effects on the body?
To sum up, in brief:
“Can a human exist on a diet of protein alone?”
but …
“Can a human exist on a diet of meat alone?”
“What would that do to your digestion?”
Fecal fossils from Neanderthal sites indicate that they subsisted on a diet consisting almost exculsively of meat. I’d call Neanderthals “human”, as most anthropologists would.
What was it about the old timey sailors diets’ that caused droves of them to die of scurvy? I thought they ate a lot of meat.
Lack of Vitamin C.
They found out (accidentally, I guess) that if they sucked on limes they would not get scurvy. Hence, they were called Limeys.
Yeah I know. But a number of posts have said that you can exist consuming meat alone. Hence I just assumed meat must contain vitamin C. If not then how do you keep from getting scurvy?
IIRC organ meat contains enough Vit C, I guess it’s not the most deseriable, perservable type of meat for long ship voyages, esp. w/o refridgeration.
also what about things like Calcium ?
i think that its unlikely one can survive on meat alone. eating whole animals ( organs and bones included ) though, could work probably ? dont know though.
No, I wouldn’t, but maybe I made my answer to short. Sorry about that, and to you barbitu8.
what I meant to say was that fat, in the context used by vasyachkin:
was all the same.
Are you saying it that the fat which does work within the cells of the body is constitutionally different to the fat which is laid down by that same body as storage?
Well, consider my ignorance fought.