Is it generally recognized that eating proteins does nothing good for us until we hydrolyze those proteins? People are sometimes "allergic" to foods and sometimes get sick - I think from the proteins. The worst case I can think of is the human equivalent of Mad Cow disease. It seems possible that proteins are merely a risk that we must take in order to obtain their constituents. Is this the current view?

 

Jim Adrian

Edited December 2, 201312 yr by jamesadrian

It is not quite that trivial. The uptake of amino acids in form of digested proteins (i.e. peptides) can differ quite from pure amino acids. We have essentially evolved to utilize proteins as a nutrient but are not quite as well in utilizing pure amino acids (some metabolic studies showed differences in utilization of different protein sources and amino acid supplements).

 

On top of that (and note that I am no expert on it) it appears that the regulation of protein/amino acid uptake and metabolism can be somewhat dependent on the way it is taken up, but I do not know whether there are detrimental effects.

 

Overall there has been various attempts (usually from the industrial sector) to break down food into its constituents and rebuild it to create artificial food or nutrient supplements (baby food is an obvious example). The issue is that rarely it provides benefits over regular healthy diets. In cases were essential components were missed (e.g. lack of taurine in baby food) or when pure components were utilized differently the results could be detrimental.

 

With regards to risks, it is not clear whether protein intake is a higher risk factor than anything else we eat. From a clinical viewpoint carbohydrate are properly the highest risk, considering the diseases and issues associated with it. Food allergies appear to be rising, but that is obviously not due to dietary reasons (i.e. if it was our food, we would expect it to be fairly constant).