First of all it is necessary to determine how much protein humans need. This question remains controversial for a long time already. From popular sources we learn that people need at least one gram protein for every kilogram of body weight and a growing body needs more. According to naturists' viewpoint, World Health Organization has set quite high standards for protein intake: 37-62 gram protein for a man with the weight of 65 kg and 29-48 gram for a woman with the weight of 55 kg. The lower limits of this standard seem more reasonable for naturists.
It is not surprising, if we consider how small is the amount of protein defended by vegetarians. They claim that it should be, say, 18 gram for an average adult person per day. Is it possible? For example, professor H.
Karstrom believes that this amount is quite sufficient if protein is "full-value", i.e. not denaturated and raw. It should have all amino acids in appropriate proportions. Raw protein never loses its important qualities - hydrophily (the ability to dissolve in water) and enzymatic activity.
Karstrom presented this figure in his report "Can vegetarianism be scientifically proved" held on World Vegetarian Congress in Sweden in 1973.
I can't forget the face expression of those people who sat near me on the lecture of academic Amosov. Answering the questions how much protein the diet of an adult person should contain,
Amosov said that a small piece of melted cheese would be enough.
Elizabeth Wiloch says that Asian vegetarians remain healthy consuming 30-40 gram protein per day. Tarasov and Bokhanovskaya in
their book "Raw food and its preparation" write about the amount that is closer to
Karstrom's figure: "People who do mostly mental work and lead sedentary lifestyle must restrict themselves to 25-20 or even 15 gram protein per day. This amount of protein can be covered with 100 gram of almonds or other nuts".
The honored scientist professor K.I. Stepashkina and professor B.N. Moshkov in the book "Therapeutic nutrition at home" (Kiev, 1967, p. 51) warn: "Prolonged protein restriction is harmful to human health. Low-protein diet should contain 40-50 gram protein per day. The restriction of daily protein to 25 gram can still cover minimal protein needs. Further limitation is a hunger regime.:" Let's remember this statement keeping in mind that the authors say nothing about protein quality.
Here is one more interesting fact from the book of Tarasov and Bokhanovskaya: "Raw foodist and fruitarian colonies existed already in 1924 in California, Argentina and Australia. Fruitarians still enjoy their lifestyle in California (see magazine "Wendepunkt", 1929, No. 2). Their diet contains less than 22 gram protein a day. They get this amount from fruits.
What is it? Fairy tales? Certainly not, these are facts. Facing them one can think of Stefan Zweig's words "there is nothing more beautiful than truth that seems to be untrue"
In fact, experienced and honored dietologists are quite familiar with conditions when it is possible to survive on minimum-protein diet. K.I. Stepashkina and B.N. Moshkov in the mentioned book note: "the restricted diet can be easily kept when one includes "fruit" and "vegetable" days.
Should it be explained that on a raw diet every day is "fruit" and "vegetable"? That is why raw foodists feel great and are healthy despite such low protein intake.
It seems that the last word in this protein debate belongs to Papuans, inhabitants of New Guinea. Their case demonstrates that argued protein balance is not a dogma. According to our textbooks, our daily diet must contain at least the amount of protein that is dissociated and eliminated from the body. The investigation of Papuan diet shows that while 30-40 gram protein dissociates and goes out, the daily protein intake counts only 20-30 gram. Where do Papuans get missing 10-15 gram? And how do they dare under such circumstances to remain healthy and have strong muscles!? World science, perplexed by this case, failed to explain this phenomenon until the findings of
Kruijsvijk, Bergerson and Hipsley were published in 1968-1970. They found that Papuans survive due to intestinal bacteria that
fixed the dissolved in digestive juices nitrogen and built protein out if it.
It should be mentioned that this data is widely used by experts on microflora when they need to demonstrate what intestinal bacteria are able to do. They are completely right but nutritional experts somehow ignore this protein source. Curiously, such protein is obtained for free, just out of the air! One shouldn't stand in a line to get it, like for a favorite sausage sort. And the most important thing is that this is not a trifle but one third of all protein requirements. If peoples of Asia and Africa, who suffer from protein deficiency, made a transition to Papuan diet the problem would disappear. Even ten Nobel Prizes would not be enough for those who would manage to do that. Where are you, scientists?
It is necessary to underline that these bacteria are quite common. They live in bowels of every person. The secret of Papuan diet is in its composition: it consists mainly of yam and sweet potato that is rich in carbohydrates (sugar and starch) and contains
few high quality protein. Such protein can be found also in usual potato. Papuans don't eat grains. That is why they don't complain about protein deficiency. However, they have to use unhealthy fat, coconut oil, which doesn't let them become long-livers. But only for such a valuable hint for solving the world problem of protein deficiency UNO should reward these people with free best-quality olive oil!
But let us return from New Guinea to our table. Let us see if those who criticized Tarasov and Bokhanovskaya and other raw foodists labeling them as fanatics and claimed that it is impossible to feed such a big country as Russia with nuts and imported dates, were right. We really don't have enough nuts yet, but USSR is a leading country in sunflower agriculture (30 % of world market). Sunflower seed contains high quality protein, which is now mostly fed to cattle. Seed flour that remains after oil extraction contains 88 %
of protein and has ridiculous costs. So it doesn't worth anything to introduce the production of raw shelled seeds for vegetarians and naturists.
Popular medical science always stated that plant protein has low nutritional value, speaking about grains first of all. As a result we believed that full-value protein with all indispensable amino acids could be found only in animal products. However, such full-value protein can be found not only in nuts and seeds but also in grass eaten by cattle that receives all "indispensable substances" in a ready form. They are not synthesized in either human or animal body. Leaves and green tops of plants are the most perspective foods in terms of nutritive full-value protein. The work in this direction is being conducted and the resources are practically unlimited. It is much easier and cheaper than sailing trough the ocean searching for all types of marine species and fishing them out.
It has been counted that cattle breeding for protein production doesn't worth it. How much protein can we get from a hectare of cultivated land? Here are the numbers: experiments show that vegetables deliver 7 tons of highest-quality protein, alfalfa - 3 tons, soybeans - about 600 kg, corn - 360 kg of low-value protein, wheat - 200 kg of low-value protein. After feeding this crops to animals we can get 110 kg of milk protein or 50-60 kg of meat protein. So, it becomes clear that only quite primitive and wild peoples can use their land resources so wastefully while population of the planet is growing.
Alexander Chuprun, 1991
|
