Protein and nutritional value

I have been reading labels lately, noting the grams of protein. Then I started thinking, what is protein anyway, for the purposes of measuring it for these labels? There is not just one type of protein. Just to muddy the issue, years ago I read Diet for a Small Planet which makes the case for a vegetarian diet based on effective use of resources. One point made is that humans get protein from a combination of seven, I think, amino acids, in particular proportions. The closer your diet comes to supplying these in the correct proportions, the better is the quality of protein you get. Thence a description of how to combine various vegetable foods to get high-quality protein (e.g., grains and legumes). This suggests that the human body can synthesize whatever protein it needs from these amino acids, and doesn’t have to ingest actual protein molecules. So if I eat a combination of black beans and rice am I getting more protein than the sum of what the labels tell me?

So just what am I getting when I get 14g of protein in my yogurt, or 42g in a cup of beans?

I haven’t cracked a biology since I helped my son with his ninth grade homework last year so let’s keep this at the level of high-school biology. Thanks.

I’m not a dietitian, nor an expert on the subject. I’m just some guy who’s interested in nutrition and reads a lot. So my overview may be oversimplified, incomplete, or possibly just plain wrong. You should take my post as a starting point for your further research.

OK, that disclaimer out of the way, so let’s get some terminology straight.
[ul]
[li]Protein: A big molecule that consists of a chain or chains of…[/li][li]Amino acid: A smaller, organic molecule. Often called the “building block” of proteins. There are a lot of different kinds—on the order of 500—but only twenty-one are relevant to nutrition. Our body knows how to produce twelve of these from other components, so these are classified as “nonessential”. The other nine are…[/li][li]Essential amino acid¹: Amino acids the body does not know how to produce, and so must acquire through protein in food. This is the idea I think you read about.[/li][li]Complete protein: A protein that contains all nine essential amino acids.² This can be either a single food source (e.g. eggs), or a meal (e.g. lentils and rice).[/li][/ul]
Now, to be healthy, your intake of protein must be adequate in those essential amino acids. Pretty much no one in the developed world has a problem getting adequate protein; meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are complete sources all by themselves. Most plant sources are deficient in at least one essential amino acid (soy is an exception; it’s a complete protein), but luckily they’re not always the same one. So it’s easy to combine plant foods to get the full smörgåsbord of amino acids: Beans and rice, for instance, or succotash³. So as you can see, you’re not getting “more protein” than the labels say from a dinner of black beans and rice, but you are, at least, getting a more balanced intake than you’d get from eating either one separately.

Once you’ve reached your body’s requirement for essential amino acids—which is not difficult to do, even for strict vegans (soy products are everywhere and are good protein sources)—you start to get into murkier waters, scientifically. Higher protein intake seems to allow for more muscular hypertrophy (i.e. bigger muscles) when combined with strength training, which is why bodybuilders tend to eat lots of protein, to the point of adding supplements like those giant tubs of whey or soy protein. Recommendations vary, so this number is not without controversy. But most people who aren’t bodybuilders should probably be getting about 15% of their Calories from protein⁴ (protein provides 4 Calories per gram⁵, so on a 2000 Calorie diet, that’s 75 g).

Footnotes:
[ol][li] The essential amino acids are phenylalanine, valine, threonine, tryptophan, isoleucine, methionine, leucine, lysine, and histidine. You make recognize a couple of these; tryptophan is the stuff some people incorrectly say makes you sleepy after a big turkey dinner on Thanksgiving. Phenylalanine is mentioned on the label of aspartame or any aspartame-containing food, as there is a rare disease called phenylketonuria which makes people incapable of metabolizing phenylalanine.[/li][li] There’s a thing called the protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score which looks at the completeness and digestibility of protein sources. Eggs, milk, and soy score high on this; beans, vegetables, fruits, and grains tend to score lower.[/li][li] A combination of corn and beans. Sylvester the Cat’s “sufferin’ succotash” is probably a minced oath of “suffering savior”.[/li][li] The Dietary Guidelines for America say 10-35% for healthy adults. I think most people can agree that this is a large, unhelpful range.[/li][*] Per the Atwater system.[/ol]

Small additions to the above excellent summary - there is no need that every meal contain complete protein, just that over the course of several meals you get enough of all of those essential amino acids.

The “large, unhelpful range” advised for percent dietary protein is because there is reasoned debate over what is “ideal.” Most Americans end up with about 15% of their calories coming from protein and probably would benefit from increasing that a bit and having a bit less added sugars and fats. There is specific concern that many older Americans are not getting adequate protein in their diets.

VERY helpful. But what does the protein amount on the label mean? Complete protein? Or just whatever essential amino acids are present in that food?

Any amino acids, essential or not, count as protein on the label. Breaking that value down isn’t a priority, since having a deficiency in an essential amino acid is very, very rare (absent some kind of metabolic disorder, you’d have to be eating a very unbalanced diet to accomplish that).

There’s a lot of unreasoned debate on the subject, too. :slight_smile: I was just pointing out that the government was very much hedging when it came up with that range.

Higher protein intake can add stress to the liver, which is bad for people who already have marginal livers. People with healthy livers shouldn’t really have a problem with it, though. And yes, I think lowering sugar intake is probably the most helpful thing the ISO-standard American could do to improve their health. I haven’t heard that we have a problem with inadequate protein intake, though; as a country, we already eat quite a lot of meat. Per capita, the most in the world, as of 2009.

I think you are mixing up the liver for the kidney and then “higher” to be avoided in chronic kidney disease is over 20% of daily calories (although some advise “protein restricition” in chronic kidney disease at 0.8g/kg/d). Up to 35% of calories from protein would not be a problem for most people.

As for “inadequate”, well of course that does depend on who is defining the term. Protein malnutrition is definitiely rare in the United States. According to the study I citied however, “7.7% of adolescent females and 7.2–8.6% of older adult women reported consuming protein levels below their estimated average requirement.”

Personally I respect the government hedging some. When there is not enough information to know if one approach or another is better then it is better for the official position to acknowledge that they have no overwhlemingly convincing reason to recommend one or the other.

Please don’t misunderstand: I am not saying Americans should eat more meat. It is completely possible to hit the higher end of that recommended range with little or even no meat. And there are very good arguments to support doing so.

Pfft, kidney, liver, same thing. :smack: (This is why I am not a doctor.)

I think I can agree with all this. Refined carbs are certainly at the core of a lot of lifestyle diseases, and it stands to reason that if you take them out, something has to go in. Fiber and protein are good candidates.