I believe it was the Chinese writer Sun Tzu who first said, "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer." And I try to do that in the nutritional field. I like to keep track of what my adversaries are saying. And among them is Dr. Michael Eades M.D. who (with his wife Mary, also an M.D.) is the author of The Protein Power Diet, which is essentially another ultra-high-protein/ultra-low-carbohydrate diet, very heavy in meat. And he aligns himself with the Paleolithic diet concept, which is that eons of living as hunter/gatherers (with an emphasis on the hunting, not the gathering) has made human beings confirmed carnivores. In fact, Dr. Eades goes so far as to say that we are closer to being cats than primates.! He says that we are "behavioral omnivores" which to him means that we evolved to eat meat and we stray from our natural diet any time we eat plant food.

Recently, Dr. Eades posted on his blog an article about the carnivorous nature of humans based on the Theory of Evolution and how our human brains evolved because we ate meat.
Here it is................................
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-library/are-we-meat-eaters-or-veg...



I have written enough about the Theory of Evolution, of how bogus and unsubstantiated it is, for you to realize that I am not impressed with any musings that are based on it. But to be clear: I maintain that the whole notion that biological changes were driven by accidental genetic mutations that were "naturally selected" is bogus. But, I am not going to say any more about that now because it is not what this article is about. But, I will say that Dr. Eade's musing, about brain size and metabolism increasing at the expense of gut size and metabolism, and that it was only possible because our ancestors ate a lot of meat, is just a speculation, and it doesn't prove anything. Really, it's just a flight of fancy. But again, I'm not here to talk about that either.

What I want to talk about is my comment to him at the end of the article. (And you can scroll down to the bottom of his article to read it.) Many other people had submitted responses, mostly praising him, but then I came along and threw him a curveball. Here is what I said:

"The protein requirement of mammals is reflected in the protein content of their respective milks. Vegetarian mammals tend to need less protein and have lower concentrations of protein in their milk than do carnivorous mammals. For instance, cow's milk is about 3.5 percent protein and goat's milk is 2.9 percent, whereas cat milk is about 9 percent protein, and dog's milk is a whopping 11 percent. Even omniverous rats have about 10 percent protein in their milk. How much do humans have in breast milk? An average of 1.1 percent. Some analyses have shown as low as .9 percent protein, and yet human infants can double their weight on it in six months. This is far more relevant than a grandose hypothesis about human evolution."

And how did Dr. Eades respond? Here is what he said:

"Even if your figures were correct, your statement that the protein requirement of mammals is reflected in the protein content of their respective milks is false. But, due to the fact that you've obviously been listening to way too much vegetarian propaganda, your figures aren't even close. The amount of protein in human breast milk is about 6 percent, not an average of 1.1 percent. I don't know what the protein content of cows milk is, but it is greater than that of human milk, which means that it must be more than 6 percent, not the 3.5 percent that you list. Cows have practically no requirement for dietary protein, so how does that square with your theory? Sadly, your grandiose hypothesis is the one that is flawed. "

My goodness! It would be very hard to cram more falsehood and misinformation into one small paragraph than Dr. Eades did here. Dr. Eades is confusing the amount of protein as a percentage of weight versus the amount of protein as a percentage of calories. My figures, which were based on the former, were and are correct. By weight, human breast milk is about 1 percent protein. In other words, 100 grams of breast milk has about 1 gram of protein. And 100 grams of cows milk has about 3.5 grams of protein. Yes, the numbers go up when you look at it as a percentage of calories but that's because you are removing the water, and milk has a lot of water. But the numbers go up accordingly for all mammalian milks when you look at them as a percentage of calories. The important thing is not to confuse the two things, and I think it makes more sense to look at the actual weight content because that's what you start with. The calories come later after the food has been eaten, digested, metabolized, etc. But the main thing is that you have to compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges, and not confuse the two.

But then he commits a real whopper when he says that cows have practically no requirement for dietary protein. What does he think cow's are made of? Even if their brains are small, they have a lot of bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, fascia, etc., and all of that is made of protein. How ironic that he thinks "cows have practically no requirement for dietary protein," and yet he thinks that eating cows is the best way to get dietary protein.

But, I think we should take this argument out of the ethereal realm of Evolutionary Theory, where just about anything goes, where you can bend it, twist it, shape it any way you want. I say we take it into the realm of mathematics.

We know that 90 percent of the calories a human being consumes are burned as fuel. It's either burned now or burned later, but it winds up being used as fuel. But what about storing protein? Of course, we store it, but if we're talking about a grown up person (and not someone who is trying to pack on a lot of new muscle, rather they are just trying to maintain) then it's doubtful that even 10 percent goes into muscle replacement. And these aren't just my figures. The U.S. government says that 10 percent of calories from protein is plenty. The World Health Organization says 7.5 percent from protein is enough.

What happens if a person eats more protein that that? Does the protein leap into their muscles? No, it doesn't. Just because you eat more protein doesn't mean that you make more muscle. There is a picture of Dr. Eades on his blog, and from looking at it, I would say that he doesn't look any more muscular than I am. And yet, he's eating a lot more protein than I am. So, what is happening to all that protein? I have to conclude that much of it is being de-aminized, where the amino acids are dismantled and burned, either like carbohydrates in the citric acid cycle, or like fats (ketones) in the beta oxidation cycle. But either way, there is that 16 percent nitrogenous radical that is left behind that can't be burned. What happens is that the nitrogenous radical from the amino acid automatically picks up another hydrogen and becomes ammonia. Of course, you know from common experience that ammonia is a caustic chemical; it irritates; it burns. Ammonia also raises the ph of the blood to a dangerous level. So, the body has a very low tolerance for ammonia. So very quickly, the body combines two molecules of ammonia with one molecule of carbon dioxide, and the result is: urea. Urea is a safe way to handle ammonia because unlike ammonia, urea is not caustic. However, it's still a waste product, and it has to be cleared from the blood, which is the job of the kidneys.

When people eat high-protein diets, as per Dr. Eades, they tend to have higher blood levels of urea. Oftentimes, the BUN (blood urea nitrogen) is in the high 20s, and not infrequently it can rise into the 30s. Ideally, it should be in the teens. What is the harm from having this extra uriniferous waste floating around your bloodstream? We could debate that, but I guarantee you that it's not doing you any good. It isn't making life any easier for your kidneys.

Just recently, I attended a wedding, and I had the good fortune to be seated next to an experienced nephrologist (kidney specialist). I asked him whether it was a strain on the kidneys to process high-protein diets, and he said it was a strain on the kidneys, and it caused kidney fibrosis, which is irreversible.

Not long ago on his blog, Dr. Eades posted a picture of what he described as an ideal breakfast. I'm not sure he used the word "ideal" but it was something like that. He was sure raving about it. I think it was a meal he was served in England. And what it consisted of was: eggs, bacon, sausage, and there may have been other stuff on the plate, but not anything that I could identify as a plant. There were no berries. No melon. No other fruit. There was nothing on the plate that I consider breakfast food. And just think: if he's going to eat that way first thing in the morning, piling on the protein in that manner, what happens at lunch and supper? Well, it's more of the same! Dr. Eades is, apparently, saturating himself with all that protein three times a day! Good luck, Dr. Eades. You're going to need it.