Talk:Biological value - Knowledge (XXG)

442:

exercise (or during ketosis). The idea that protein, simply because it's absorbed quickly, will automatically trigger this process, in a person with adequate glucose (or glycogen) stores, does not make sense. Unless the person is starving or exhausted, and doesn't consume carbs with the whey, this won't happen. It is extremely misleading (wrong) to make this claim generally for regular dietary patterns, where most people eat carbs with every meal, don't go more than a few hours without eating, and have (American average) 15-hour daily food intake windows, meaning a maximum of 9 hours fasting a day (not quite long enough to run out of glucose if you're just sleeping). Such people have glucose in their blood and glycogen in their muscles during the daytime, barring a HIIT workout or a marathon. They don't need to go through the complications of manufacturing it from whey when it's already available.

313: 2047:

it has little bearing on individuals with protein intakes far above requirements. This flaw is supported by the FAO/WHO/UNU, who state that BV and NPU are measured when the protein content of the diet is clearly below that of requirement, deliberately done to maximize existing differences in quality as inadequate energy intake lowers the efficiency of protein utilization and in most N balance studies, calorie adequacy is ensured. And because no population derives all of its protein exclusively from a single food, the determination of BV of a single protein is of limited use for application to human protein requirements.<ref: -->

257: 233: 812:

for anyone to go search that out (no publication or year). And finally the line "has long been considered the method of choice for estimating the nutritive value of proteins due to its relevance and accuracy" - considered by who, and the method of choice for who? Bodybuilders and athletes? But not the FDA, USDA, FAO or WHO. Qualifying statements like this might be a good idea.

202: 589:

be able to make this assumption. I've reverted your edits until you provide an explanation for this gross oversight is given. Do you have a background in nutrition at all or access to any up-to-date journals that you can use as a verifiable source, because I'm finding your claims about BV to be outlandish and very hard to verify

350:

corrections to its points. I myself think if I remember correctly the score of the egg was modified to 93.7 because of the 97% digestibility rate. However it may have been due to the testing of whey protein that caused its number to drop. In either event I think it's a start and would welcome any input and improvements.

895:"The reason the FDA has not adopted the BV is quite obvious. The BV is more accurate. FDA does what business wants. If the FDA adapted the accurate mesurement American Corprations would not like that. Example: The US government denies there is any global warming at all. (I think things are just starting to heat up.) 2007:

The typical values section doesn't list units, suggesting that it's giving the values relative to egg protein. However, egg protein is listed at 93.7, which is its absolute percentage value, not its relative value (which would obviously be 100). However, whey protein is listed as 100, even though its

1700:

Re: "This article, on a method for evaluating biological utilizations rates of proteins in human and animal consumption, was started in August and is in desperate need of an expert. We are having trouble locating one and the article desperately needs it. This method is used constantly in bodybuilding

1559:

Yankees76 is right about citations: it is inappropriate to cite a source that the editor hasn't actually read. In that situation both the reference and the template should be removed from the article until or unless the editor who added the citation locates the appropriate passage in the book itself

1475:

may be the wrong template for one of your disputed sections. Citecheck doesn't question the reliability of a source and it doesn't question whether a source is up to date; it only questions whether the text in Knowledge (XXG)'s article gives an accurate reflection of what the source says. Citecheck

844:

The second half of this sentence is claiming that it is superior. This is obvious POV. It will be erased or rewritten by an experienced editor anyways. Why? The FDA does not claim PDCAAS is superior. Just because they use it does not mean it is better in any way shape or form. What is the methodology

803:

claim plant protein are as high as whey and egg. Another stirke out. What PCDAAS method does is determines the indispensable amino acid content of the protein measured. These values are then compared to the known amino acid requirements for growth in humans. BV doesn't do that. The BV of a protein is

580:

Methods of Estimating Protein Quality by D.M. Hegsted. ^ a b Thomas, K. Ueber die biologische Wertigkeit der stickstoff-substanzen in 1909 verschiedenen Nahrungsmitteln. Arch. Physiol., 219. ^ a b Mitchell, H.H. A method for determining the biological value of protein. 1924 J. Biol. Chem., 58, 873.

1490:

I put it there because I don't beleive the text in that particular section of the article gives an accurate reflection of what the source(s) listed say - especially the text immediately below the Citecheck template and the source that says that Dr. Michael Colgan supports BV as a reliable method for

1225:

A mouthful but currently the protein quality system considered to be most reliable. The highest score is 1.0 and this is given to any protein source considered complete for use by the human body. Soy protein isolates, egg white, whey protein isolates and casein proteins supplements all scored 1.0 on

1167:

811:

Now I'd like to ask again, how can researchers from the 1920's claim that BV is better than PCDAAS as you've quoted under "Advantages"? And can you please provide the exact wording from "Methods of Estimating Protein Quality by D.M. Hegsted" that backs up this claim? You haven't provided enough info

588:

And what page does Colgan make this claim in his book Optimum Sports Nutrition -- Your Competitive Edge -- A Complete Nutritional Guide For Optimizing Athletic Performance? Considering it was published in 1993 shortly after PCDAAS was accepted by the FDA, I'd be interested in seeing just where he'd

2046:

Pellet et al., concluded that "biological measures of protein quality conducted at suboptimal levels in either experimental animals or human subjects may overestimate protein value at maintenance levels." As a result, while BV may be important for rating proteins where intake is below requirements,

1668:

Defamatory statements about an editor may be removed immediately. And under the circumstances I could have removed it as vandalism by anon IP, only it had an issue that needed addressing. By the way stop vandalizing this page with your sockpuppets, the two references that have been removed have not

1336:

Your reference proves my point. Thanks. The highest number score possible is just 1.0 even though some proteins including whey are higher. If the score was not 1.0 as the highest then it would be reliable. Since all scores are leveled off at 1.0 then it is, in fact, does not show the different with

1207:

Here is the information from your link*** about PDCAAS!!!! Vegetable and animals sources scored the same according to your link. So how in the world could it ever be most reliable??? Your spotty sources are fantasies. Nice try though in trying to blurr the truth. How could soy, egg, and whey scored

754:

The analytical method that is universally recognized by the FAO/WHO as well as the FDA and USDA when judging the quality of protein in the human is not Biological Value but the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), as it was deemed superior when accurately measuring the correct

748:

recognize PCDAAS as a valuable tool for athletes and measuring protein quality. You're baiting again, and posing strawman arguements. And actually Soy is scored at 0.91 - not 1.00. It's not ranked the same as whey or egg.(so you've stuck out when you say that "according to Yankees76 he believes soy

728:

Thank you. I agree Wow. Thanks for the words of confidence. I will continue my research and contributions to make a masterpiece article. With all do respect (and seriousness I might add) we should both keep are I on the ball (batter up) on improving the article for a NPOV and encyclopedic tone from

648:

494:

References 1-4 may not qualify under Knowledge (XXG) rules as a reliable published source. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Perhaps an explanation on how websites like turnuptheheat.com passes based on this criteria is

2017:

You are 100% correct. However you are correct only on a relative scale so you don't get an A+. (joke) I have added notes to the two charts so they can both be used. It makes sense that proteins digested into individual amino acids, as they are in those whey supplements you see at GNC, would have a

987:

Read*** this the sentence below that is in the article (This is the second half of a larger sentence.) How can the PDCAAS be so accurate when the FDA claims soy is equal to whey. I do not get it. This is proof (soy is the same as whey according to the FDA's PDCAAS) this sentence is misleading when

889:

What year was the D.M. Hegstad paper published in? (never mind, I've found it - 1971 - 18 years before PCDAAS was established - another instance of a time-traveling scientist writing about the future?) No, because I've read the report and not a single comparison of BV and PDCAAS is made by Hegstad

479:

I agree with Yankees76 when he says some of those sources (references) appear to be spotty. With that said, so some of the materials may actually be POV or false which is a dispute since Yankees believes "some sources appear a bit spotty." Perhaps rewriting the last section about critics may be in

437:

The source for the first paragraph doesn't mention 'gluconeogenesis' at all. It's an article in a bodybuilding mag, discussing whether whey or casein protein powders have a bigger anabolic effect. The other two guys dispute his claims about whey anyway, but (again) his claim has nothing to do with

1983:

The article has been updated; and hopefully makes a lot more sense now... Its a bit under-referenced but all the fundamental details (formulae etc.) have solid original papers for references. I haven't touched the criticisms section, which is still very non-NPOV, but with the unbiased and factual

1617:

I actually agree with the anon IP. The reference is good. We should assume good faith and the reference is important. Strange enough, Yankees76 is changing other editors sentences. A quick look at the history of the talk shows a deletion by Yankees76. Hopefully Yankees76 will stop edit warring on

1160:

Not so fast. Here is the information form your link about PDCAAS!!!! Vegetable and animals sources scored the same according to your link. So how in the world could it ever be more reliable??? Your spotty sources are fantasies. Nice try though in trying to blurr the truth. How could soy, egg, and

966:

argument. A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful

441:

Gluconeogenesis occurs when the body is short of fuel, eg, glycogen, glucose. The body needs this to power the brain, eyes, and other organs, as well as exercise. If it is not supplied by the diet, then (and only then) glucose can be created from protein. This is during prolonged fasts or intense

1705:

Hopefully, as a biochemists, we can help clear up some of the misconceptions and inaccuracies in this article! I have started by taking a quick glance over the article and considering the plausibility of all the science. All in all it seems all right, but I haven't trawled through the criticisms

824:

An off topic answer to Yankees76 question) The reason the FDA has not adopted the BV is quite obvious. The BV is more accurate. FDA does what business wants. If the FDA adapted the accurate mesurement American Corprations would not like that. Example: The US government denies there is any global

1535:

Firstly, you have no idea what you're quoting because you're merely referencing a source that another website referenced. What page is your information on in that book? Who published that book? Is is self-published or not? Do you even know? No, because you're merely copying and pasting it from

782:

There's no POV involved! I'm not sure what a "weasel reference" is but quoting a source from the United Nations is about as solid as it gets - considering all I'm doing to showing that the governing bodies involved recognized PCDAAS instead of BV as their analyical method because of the reason

744:

1)The issue in question here isn't wether I beleive egg and soy are the same. I've never posted that, never insinuated it either. This article is not about athletes, its' about Biological value. What you think an athletes opinion would be makes no difference here even though many top athletic

470:. Though I must say, some of those sources appear to be a bit spotty - is turnuptheheat.com really a credible third party source with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? Mind you none of the information really asserts anything that isn't common knowledge, but good work nonetheless. 373:

I notice a criticism (first paragraph under criticisms) suggests that BV fails to account for gluconeogensis of a certain amino acid. But, this claim makes no sense given the summary of BV as something computed by measuring nitrogen wastes. After all the nitrogen always has to go somewhere.

349:

I started this article as a primer on the Biological Value method of protein rating for human consumption that was used by the FDA and is currently used by other organizations. It simplifies the process so any elaboration is welcome and appreciated. Be bold when you edit it as I welcome any

1036:

score higher than soy on the FDA chart as well. You see in 1990 at a FAO/WHO meeting it was decided that proteins having values higher than 1.0 would be rounded down to 1.0 as scores above 1.0 are considered to indicate that the protein contains essential amino acids in excess of the human

828:

This sentence below says clearly "as it was deemed superior..." So in fact it may be POV. I wonder where you got the second half of that sentence from.*** Who deems it superior. The FDA does not deem it. They just use it. How is it deemd superior. In what whey is it superior. Just curious.

391:

The way these sentences are written is unencyclopedic and is bashing the biological value methodology. This is more than obvious. I know it may be hip to take a boring article and try to create conflict where there is no conflict but this is Knowledge (XXG) -- a world class encyclopedia!

1394:

6317 repeatedly states here that animal sources of protein are more usable than all vegetable sources of protein. Is there a source that states this? I'm serious. What is the basis for this statement, other than "ask anyone" or "bodybuilders know"? I am looking for a reputable published

374:

Gluconeogensis produces nitrogenes wastes in the form of urea, as such it would be accounted for in BV. So either a.) the criticism makes no sense and should be removed, or else b.) there is something incorrect or confusing (to this reader anyhow) about the definition of what BV is.

584:

Demonstrate that BV is is more accurate to both the PER and the PDCAAS for the measurement of protein utilization in humans? I'd be curoius to know how Hegsted, Mitchell and Carman could have possibly written in these journals about something that was 70 years after their time.

1456:

I really would like to know what do you think on this subject. That is the different ways of measuring protein values which overlaps many many articles on Knowledge (XXG)! I think BV is more precise. The other methodologies are NOT as accurate as is the Biological Value Scale!

465:

63.17.73.220, nice job providing the references for the undisputed material. Most of the information you referenced is a fact found in most general reference sources and is easily locatable by anyone. However it's a nice start to see you getting your feet wet by properly

767:"These two above references do not prove PDCAAS to be superior in any way shape or form to BV scientific methodology. These two Weasel References (invalid references) were only added to wrongly ERASE the validity of the information I contructively contributed to." 658:

These two above references do not prove PDCAAS to be superior in any way shape or form to BV scientific methodology. These two Weasel References (invalid references) were only added to wrongly ERASE the validity of the information I contructively contributed to.

1536:

another (possibly unverifiable source) and passing it off as a verifiable source that matches your claim. Not a verifiable source under Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. Lastly lose the uncivil claims about edit warring - you're only a thinly disguised sockpuppet of

1560:(which can be accessed through interlibrary loan from any public library). However, accusations of sockpuppetry are counterproductive and uncivil. Please initiate a formal complaint if the matter is worth mentioning at all. I am an active administrator at 1357:

argument. The source was provided to show that the numbers were rounded by the WHO and nothing more. Again you're presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refuting it, and pretending that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

697:

egg 1.0. (I believe, as many atheletes agree, that animal proteins especially egg is higher than other proteins. But according to Yankees76 he believes soy is equal to eggs. He believes the PDCAAS is superior to BV. ARE you serious? (This must be a joke.)

1904:

No problem, hopefully it provides some extra help for people to decide which references are more reliable and correct! Unfortunately references will have to be found for all these statements which I have variously been taught over the years. A couple of

874:

I've quantified the claim in the sentence: "when accurately measuring the correct relative nutritional value of animal and vegetable sources of protein in the diet." The biological value method is unable to to do this - it does not measure the correct

804:

calculated by measuring the percentage of protein eaten and absorbed into the blood, but not excreted. It makes no adjustments for the digestion and interaction of protein with other foods before absorption. That's a critcism of BV and that's what I've

1694: 413:

Yankees claims their are "several researchers who have criticisms of the methodology of BV. In order to keep those sentences in the are you must demonstrate and prove their are researchers who debate about BV or otherwise it is just another POV.

515:

Can't agree with you there - the whole purpose of the section is to outline criticism of the use of Biological value as an indicator of protein value - the rest of the article is entirely supportive of it - there should be more than one side

402:

No, it outlines the criticism that several researchers have of the methodology of BV. Articles on Knowledge (XXG) should attempt to present all views on a subject. It's only your opinion that the material is unjustly "bashing" the BV

526:

Notice how Yankees76 believes that section is about criticism. I believe that section should be about the facts, not unfailry criticising BV. So in fact it may be POV. There needs to be balance in that section not unfair criticism.

537:

How is it unfairly criticising BV? All of the information in there is correct. No the oringial author did not cite references, but in turn did not write false information - unless you have an agenda to supress the information.

1250:

I've presented my case - all you're doing now is presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refuting it, and pretending that the opponent's actual position has been refuted. I'd even call contextomy here too.

1006:

How can this PDCAAS be so accurate when it is not accurate! Ask anyone. Animal sources of protein are higher than vegetable sources according to BV. BV is more accurate and relevant. Take a look at the table in the article.

1297:

Some ratings*** of commons foods include soy (1.0), egg white (1.0), casein (1.0), milk (1.0), whey (1.0), beef (0.92), kidney beans (0.68), rye (0.68), whole wheat (0.54), lentils (0.52), peanuts (0.52), seitan (0.25).

772:

1786:

If a different scale is used, ie. by setting one particular protein (eg. egg albumen) to 100, then it is possible to go above 100. There will, however, be an absolute limit to how high the scale can go; probably around

1337:

higher quality protein which is a weakness for the PDCAAS. With that said, the article needs to be updated now based on your link. Rounded numbers when other proteins are higher clearly shows the weaknness for PDCAAS.

1915:. Not all amino acids are in equal demand - some are only used infrequently. If a protein source consists of lots of these unusual amino acids then they cannot all be incorporated into the body and will be broken down. 1112:

Original information (as from a good imagination) is not allowed on Knowledge (XXG). This is an encyclopedia not rumors or implications as to what method is superior. Where is the scientific proof which method it is

322: 243: 164: 1922:

PDCAAS is a measure of the usability of amino acids which make up a protein source. It doesn't take into account the digestibility of a protein, only the usability (in rats(!)) of the amino acids which make it

599:

I was wondering about this too. Am I reading this right? Are these studies really from the early 20th century, or do those numbers mean something else? It might be more clear to use a citation template such as

1231:

According to PDCAAS soy is = to whey. (A score of 1.0 for both which is the highest possible score for PDCAAS. It was not rounded down as Yankees76 suggested) Impossible to be accurate. This is a falshood.

718:

Wow you're really a piece of work aren't you? I'm reverting back and requesting a moderator, and I'm requesting that this page be protected - as it's obvious that your grasp of this subject is weak at best.

2066:

The reference for soy biological values is now a dud meaning clicking on reference brings a blank page..The reference is to textbook I sent to the Yankee from Canada several years ago after a big fight.

303: 1719:

Some protein taken in will be deemed by the body as surplus to requirements and be broken down to provide energy or carbohydrate. The nitrogen will be removed from the compounds and mostly excreted as

997:

but the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), as it is viewed as accurately measuring the correct relative nutritional value of animal and vegetable sources of protein in the diet.

1701:

magazines and products and is the subject of much misinformation and half-truths. On the other hand it does appear to have some value. Please help if possible. Quadzilla99 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)"

793:

3)"Which is more accurate to you? Soy is 1.0 and whey is 1.0 according to PDCAAS method which claims plant proteins are as high as whey and egg. Or the more relevant and accurate methodology: : -->

2166: 446: 2008:

value relative to egg is described elsewhere in the article as 104. So it looks like this section is a mix of absolute and relative values. Can someone with primary sources straighten it out?

799:

Neither, that's not what I'm here to determine. And since Soy is 0.91 and Whey Concentrate, Whole Egg, Isolates Milk, Egg White Cottage Cheese all score 1.00, it looks like the PDCAAS method

705:

Even a child or better yet any athelete can tell which one is more accurate. Lets get real here! Yankees76 claims PDCAAS is "superior" to the BV method by his invalid (quack) info he added.

652:

FAO/WHO (1991) Protein Quality Evaluation Report of Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Food and Nutrition Paper No. 51, Rome.

1106:

Speculation and opinions is POV. Who claims is it "deemed superior". In what way is it superior. Who has made such strong statements as to proclaim which method is the absolute best and

1427:

BV is more accurrate than other method of measuring protein. Why? and How? BV of whey is 104 BV of eggs is 100 BV of soy is 74. Other methods are not even close to being this precise.

1340:

Biological value is more precise. Why? It does show a difference with egg at 100 to whey ar 104 when PDCAAS claims whey, soy, and eggs are equal. Nice try though. I wil give you that.

886:

Secondly, nobody compared soy vs. eggs in the article. I'm not sure where you're seeing this in the aricle and the only place it's popped up is here in unrelated strawman arguments.

2151: 935:

The FDA has decreed that some plant sources of protein, especially soy, will show a score on food labels as high as whey or egg protein. This is abvious POV fron the US Government.

297: 505:

I agree. This article is spotty. Also the Critics section seems to be one-sided. Unfairly bashing the methodology. Perhaps a few sentences to balance out that section is in order

856:

proves everthing I convincingly contructively collaberated completely to by being conscious of my contributions, period. Thnaks for your concerns kind fellow. I hope this helps.

2036:, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 949:

since animals proteins are well known (just ask any scientist or athelete or Dr. Colgan) to be a higher quality complete source of protein than vegetable sources of protein!!!

1143:. Aren't things that are outdated generally inferior? If you like I can add in the sentence in question "more reliable" instead of "deemed superior" - it's the same thing. 1640:

the anon IP - your input here agreeing with yourself isn't required, nor is it valid. Defamatory statements about editors can be removed under the remove personal attacks

1525:

continues to blank (this could be preceived as vandalism maybe) this reference above. I think it is very abnormal to remove a good reference. Someone should look into it.

158: 1709:

Dietary proteins are the major (but not the only) intake of nitrogen in all animals. This makes this test to some extent valid. There will, however, be major limitations.

1373: 2171: 1476:

is meant, for example, to call attention to quotes out of context. I suggest you review this to see whether this really represents the dispute as the editors see it.

2018:

higher value than eggs. Since eggs were the old standard at 100, for 100%, the new relative scales have to go beyond 100. Its confusing the first time you read it. --

1833:

Foods which induce the breakdown of proteins already in the body will have low, potentially negative, BV. I dont know any examples but its a conceptual possibility.

273: 359:

If any doctors or researchers could describe the process of testing including the fasting period and go into a little more detail it would be greatly appreciated.

388:

Calling this section Criticism gives an unfair (and POV impression I might add) message that biological value of protein methodology is bad or even worse wrong!

1089:

edit the article during the RfC process. Considering the rancor of this debate, it's best to put all edit-warring to a halt while we work towards consensus. --

581:^ a b Mitchell, H.H. and G.G. Carman. The biological value of the nitrogen of mixtures 1926 of patent white flour and animal foods. J. Biol. Chem., 68, 183. 90: 1984:

intro should make more sense. Similarly I haven't confirmed the example BV values. Any further queries/comments are welcome, this page is on my watch list! -

1433:(Are you serious. The FDA is using a methodology that alleges whey and soy are practically that same in protein utilization for muscle growth and synthesis.) 967:

rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

577:

63.17.71.101, since PCDAAS has only been used since 1989, would you care to explain how citing sources that were published in 1909, 1924 and 1926 like these:

890:

anywhere. There are comparisons to PER, NPU and Chemical Scores, but no mention of the claim you're making. How does this "convincingly prove" your claim?

2146: 1326:

Again you're presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refuting it, and pretending that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

1856:

BV of a food will vary significantly person to person due to their individual metabolic properties, however the trends seen across foods will be similar.

833:

as it was 'deemed' 'superior' when accurately measuring the correct relative nutritional value of animal and vegetable sources of protein in the diet. ,

264: 238: 1853:

An individual who has been on a protein only diet will experience a lowered BV of any food. Their body is forced to break down some protein for energy.

1288:

Notice how soy, egg white, casein, milk, and whey are all equal according to the FDA, the PDCAAS standard, and Knowledge (XXG)'s article om PDCAAS.

55: 96: 1068:, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs." (emphasis added) 2. "In science, avoid citing the popular press." -- 1414:

BV of animal sources of protein are higher than legumes, soy, and other plant sources. I do not understand what is so hard to understand here.

1137:

PDCAAS (Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score) - A mouthful but currently the protein quality system considered to be most reliable.

1805:

Foods where protein is inaccessible (for example trapped in tough cells) will have low BV. For example grass where the cells are protected by

1726:

The extent to which these processes are carried out can be used as a measure of how much protein is taken into and incorporated into the body.

2161: 2123: 327: 41: 783:

listed. And even the wording the text is pulled from is nearly identical so that it would be easy to find in the referenced literature.

2074: 2019: 689:

According to the PDCAAS measurement, the FDA has decreed that some vegetable proteins, especially soy, does score equal to egg and whey.

450: 687:

Oh, by the way, anyone can read the book I references for the facts. Protein for growth chapter 12. Turn page by page for the facts.

110: 841:

In another article about PDCAAS I read soy is equal to eggs. There needs to be better accurate and cited references in the article.

1934:

doesn't seem have anything which makes it inherently worse than BV. I would have to read the references to see why this is thought.

1028:? Not really the verifiable source we've been looking for. I don't think you're aware of this but animal products score better on 552:

That said, the info could be original information or something from someone's imagination which is not allowed on Knowledge (XXG).

115: 31: 312: 1592: 1547: 780:

superior when accurately measuring the correct relative nutritional value of animal and vegetable sources of protein in the diet.

85: 1502:

The reference that Yankees76 intentially removed is a study about the Biological Value of protein. This is a useful reference.

623: 179: 1819:

Most unprocessed plant proteins will be relatively inaccessible (low BV) due to the tough cell walls not seen on animal cells.

1132:(it's a reprint, but the original newsletter it appeared in won't be difficult to located. It's written by L. Lee Coyne, Ph.D. 213: 2113:"Amino acid composition is the principal effect. All proteins are made up of combinations of the 21 biological amino acids." 146: 1826:

Foods where the protein is tough and resistant to digestion will have low BV. For example hair which, despite being largely

76: 2156: 1870:

repeatability, and will still vary person to person. BV will vary massively depending on what a person has recently eaten.

1061: 1376:- I'll let the evidence inside speak for itself. And you can read the nice message left on my talk page regarding this. 1190:. But I'll take "more" too. See my last post above as to why nothing measured with the PCDAAS method can score above 1. 972:

So, can we get back on topic now? I beleive there a number issues raised above that still requires your attention.

838:

The issue in question here there is not enough detailed information to explain about BV versus other measurements.

655:

Schaafsma, G. (2000) 'The protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score. Journal of Nutrition 130, 1865S-1867S

1684:

This is why some sources list whey as having a BV 104, even though as noted above, it is physically impossible. --

1596: 927:

The FDA has not adapted the Glycemic Index Level for food. Just as BV is relevant so is the Glycemic Index Level.

140: 120: 673:

Soy is 1.0 and whey is 1.0 according to PDCAAS method which claims plant proteins are as high as whey and egg.

384:

The Biological Utilization section (formely Criticisms which I appropriately renamed) is POV and unencyclopedic.

1931: 2127: 1129:

Speculation and opinions aren't able quote two verifiable sources. And just for fun, here's yet a third source

219: 2078: 1893:

Thanks a ton for responding, I've got my fingers crossed that this could be a quality article in the future.

136: 1285:

Biological value of protein is so precise it even has a difference between whey at 104 versus egg at a 100.

2070: 1130: 1767:

value below 100, even negative. It cannot go above 100. If you look at the formula I have given above if N

1453:(I believe, as many atheletes agree, that animal proteins especially egg is higher than plant proteins.) 938:

Soy is not has high as whey. Just ask anybody. But according the FDA soy is = to whey. What do you think?

66: 1962: 604: 272:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

186: 1658:

but removing other user's comments must be done under the proper channels. Not by you. Thanks anyways.

709: 701:

Biological Value (on the other hand) scores egg 100 and soy 74. <<< (This is accurate to me!)

562:

Actually no, becaue I've cited two of the claims and looking for an online version of the third claim.

553: 528: 506: 485: 415: 393: 81: 1276:

Here is the PCDAAS score*** of common foods. The highest possible score is 1.0 which was not rounded.

1586: 1541: 1458: 2090: 2043:

Pellett, PL and Young, VR. Nutritional evaluation of protein foods. United Nations University, 1980.

1670: 1645: 1599: 1551: 1492: 1381: 1359: 1327: 1252: 1191: 1144: 1038: 973: 898: 879:

values of animal and vegetable sources. And it's not just he FDA and USDA that recognizes this, the

813: 720: 627: 590: 563: 539: 517: 496: 471: 404: 201: 2094: 2009: 1011:

The FDA has not demonstrated a scientific peer-reviewed study in a science journal on "PDCAAS" for

172: 1644:

guideline. As for the validity of the reference, see my questions regarding this reference above.

1620:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ABiological_Value&diff=86798886&oldid=86761585

708:

P.S. I will like to see how long the POV sentences and false references will stay in the article.

2057: 1992: 1973: 1947: 1883: 1685: 1526: 1472: 1324:

meeting it was decided that proteins having values higher than 1.0 would be rounded down to 1.0.

1618:

this and other articles including the soybean article. Talk:Biological Value - Knowledge (XXG)

426:

Criticisms sections are in thousands of articles in Knowledge (XXG). They don't indicate bias.

1424:

The Great Animal Versus Vegetable Protein Debate What Is The Best Protein For Muscle Growth?}

1282:

In fact, quite the opposite, the highest possible score is 1.0 which is obviously inaccurate.

1135:

It's appears Dr. Coyne supports the argument as well. Here's a direct quote from the article.

835:

The FDA does not respresent science or authority of protein methodology in any shape or form.

619:

They are -one is a foreign language journal from 1909 (Thomas, K) - probably pulled from here

269: 152: 62: 1633: 1578: 1032:

the BV and PCDAAS scales. And I know you're not aware of this, based on your posts, but whey

1894: 1421: 1344: 1302: 1265: 1241: 1173: 1120: 1015: 953: 857: 758: 730: 620: 427: 360: 351: 35: 1641: 1561: 1053: 1659: 1623: 1582: 1537: 256: 232: 1396: 1315: 1215:

Information from the link Yankees76 provided that proves PDCAAS is not reliable at all!

1847:

Foods where the protein is unprotected and 'weak' will have a low BV. For example eggs.

1491:

protein value (I've clicked the link and there is no mention of Colgan in that source.

1400: 1090: 1069: 1037:

requirements. Whey scores higher than 1.0, but it's rounded down. Any other questions?

611: 467: 1850:

An individual who has been starved of protein will experience a raised BV of any food.

2140: 2053: 1986: 1967: 1941: 1877: 1840:

On a side note all non-protein (non nitrogen-containing) foods will have negative BV.

649:

relative nutritional value of animal and vegetable sources of protein in the diet. ,

17: 755:

relative nutritional value of animal and vegetable sources of protein in the diet. ,

438:

the creation of carbohydrates from protein. Definitely not everytime you drink whey!

1133: 1064:. In particular, note the following: 1. "The scientific consensus can be found in 845:

in other countries. The FDA is not an authority over the world standards, period.

1669:

been sourced properly and within the guidelines and therefore should be removed.

1235:

BV is obviously more reliable and accurate too. BV of whey is 104 and soy is 74.

746: 1566: 1478: 626:

in 1924, and the second Mitchell reference was from the same journal - in 1926.

1912: 1505:

Here is a website below that has the reference that was deleted by Yankees76:

1062:

Knowledge (XXG):Reliable_sources#Physical_sciences.2C_mathematics_and_medicine

375: 1439:

Young VR. Soy protein in relation to human protein and amnio acid nutrition.

1809: 1806: 1518:

Renner E, Milk and Dairy Products in Human Nutrition. Munich, Germany, 1983.

1446:

Henley EC. Food and Drug Association's proposed labeling rules for protein.

1508: 909:

I agree. The FDA has a strong POV with respect to scientific information.

2131: 2098: 2082: 2061: 2022: 2012: 1997: 1978: 1952: 1897: 1888: 1688: 1673: 1662: 1648: 1626: 1602: 1572: 1554: 1529: 1495: 1484: 1461: 1403: 1384: 1362: 1347: 1330: 1305: 1291:

This info below was obtained from another article on wikipedia on PDCAAS.

1268: 1255: 1244: 1194: 1176: 1147: 1123: 1093: 1072: 1041: 1018: 976: 956: 901: 860: 816: 761: 733: 723: 712: 630: 614: 593: 566: 556: 542: 531: 520: 509: 499: 488: 474: 454: 430: 418: 407: 396: 378: 363: 354: 2120:

states the number as 22. Most internet references I see list 22 as well.

1354: 963: 2117: 1756:= nitrogen excreted. The amount of nitrogen stored in the body would be 1161:

whey scored 1.0 on the test and then you think this is more reliable???

952:

Thanks for making my points, case, and edits proven undisputably sound.

1863: 1827: 1377: 1550:) being used to get around being blocked for violating the 3RR rule. 1238:

Which method is most reliable, accurate, and precise. BV of course!

1716:

Some proteins are indigestible and will be excreted in the faeces.

1655: 2089:

Fixed - we still have the references to the physical textbook. --

1720: 786:

Off topic question, but if BA is so superior why hasn't the FDA

445:

And regardless: the article doesn't claim what is written here.

825:

warming at all. (I think things are just starting to heat up.)

480:

order. That tone and language seems unencyclopedic or worse --

912:

THE FDA has compared soy vs. eggs in their POV view. I wonder

369:

Physiological error in criticism, or misleading summary of BV?

195: 26: 1911:

Proteins are broken down (by digestion) into their subunits;

1779:

cannot go negative, therefore the maximum value of BV is 100.

1471:

After browsing the discussion on this talk page I think that

1279:

The score was not rounded down to 1.0 as Yankees76 alleged.

1220:***PDCAAS (Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score) 868:

Sorry but you didn't really address anything I've discussed.

311: 1430:

FDA scores using the PDCAAS method 1.0 soy and egg 1.0.**

2105:

This statement contradicts another Knowledge (XXG) article

1165:

PDCAAS (Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score)

1965:

to attempt to tidy this article; feel free to chip in! -

1422:

http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/AnimalvsVegetable.htm

1736:

doesn't make clear sense! Presumably this means BV = ((N

1411:

I do not understand specifically what is your question.

1212:

on the test and then you think this is most reliable???

757:(*** <<< second half of sentence original info 2033: 1619: 1378:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Yankees76#What.27s_Up

1294:

A PDCAAS value of 1 is the highest, and 0 the lowest.

897:" - another strawman argument that shows a strong POV. 171: 1317:

See Methods of Assessing Protein Quality - point #2.

1734:"BV = (nitrogen retained / nitrogen absorbed) * 100" 1374:

Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010

676:

Or the more relevant and accurate methodology: : -->

268:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2167:

WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology articles

185: 1060:I advise all editors involved to start by reading 302:This article has not yet received a rating on the 1723:in the urine. Some may be excreted through sweat. 1830:, cannot be broken down by the digestive system. 1564:and would look into this if it's still current. 573:Questionable References to support strong claims 44:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1380:. (just below the 'civility'sub head) Regards. 1139:And about Biological Value? He describes it as 2152:Unknown-importance Molecular Biology articles 1182:No, according to the source I'm quoting it's 1009:Its about science not opinions of the FDA!!! 282:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Molecular Biology 8: 2118:http://en.wikipedia.org/Essential_amino_acid 679:BV 100 for egg and 74 for soy? <<< 550:the original author did not cite references. 639:Invalid information in the critcs section. 227: 2028:Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 323:the Molecular and Cell Biology task force 1509:http://www.21cecpharm.com/nutri/whey.htm 2172:All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages 1613:Reference provided by anon IP is valid. 229: 199: 1794:BV is dependant on both the foodstuff 447:2001:1970:5D5F:600:A4FB:2339:F00E:6A18 285:Template:WikiProject Molecular Biology 1866:prior to any test of BV is vital for 1581:that showed user 67.150 is a sock of 850:Methods of Estimating Protein Quality 790:used it? They even used PER over BV! 7: 262:This article is within the scope of 1752:= nitrogen intake in proteins and N 1099:Deemed Superior is POV (Nice Joke). 622:, HH Mitchell was published in the 548:I agree with Yankee76 when he says 218:It is of interest to the following 34:for discussing improvements to the 2147:C-Class Molecular Biology articles 1961:I have started a draft article at 1577:Thanks Durova, I've already run a 1203:According to Yankees76, PDCAAS is 883:Health Organization does as well. 745:nutritionists (like John Berardi) 741:Just to comment on your "claims": 25: 2116:The Knowledge (XXG) article here 1156:According to Yankees76 PDCAAS is 821:Hello Wikipedians and Onlookers, 796:BV 100 for egg and 74 for soy?" 61:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 2111:Properties of the protein source 778:. So it is as well when it says 255: 231: 200: 56:Click here to start a new topic. 1319:Therefore, in 1990 at a FAO/WHO 1081:editors: It is a good idea and 624:Journal of Biological Chemistry 2020:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1390:Animal & vegetable sources 1264:Hi, I have shown my case too. 1: 2099:14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 2083:16:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 2023:22:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 1695:Metabolic Pathways task force 1603:07:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC) 1573:04:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC) 1511:Look at number seven please. 916:the USA FDA today has claims 667:Which is more accurate to you 320:This article is supported by 276:and see a list of open tasks. 265:WikiProject Molecular Biology 53:Put new text under old text. 1674:22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1663:22:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1649:21:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1636:has already proven that you 1627:21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1555:18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1530:18:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1496:21:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 1485:21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 1462:21:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 1404:20:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 1385:05:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 1363:02:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 1348:02:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 1331:01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 1306:00:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 1269:21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 1256:21:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 1245:21:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 1195:21:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 1177:21:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 1148:20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 1124:19:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 1094:21:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 1073:16:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 1042:21:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 1019:20:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 977:20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 957:19:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 902:13:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 861:06:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 817:05:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 762:06:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 734:05:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 724:03:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 713:03:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 631:04:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 615:04:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 594:01:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 567:17:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 557:17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 543:16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 532:16:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 521:16:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 510:16:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 500:16:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 489:15:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 475:05:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 419:15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 408:15:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 397:15:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 379:20:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 2162:Mid-importance MCB articles 2062:07:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 1775:then BV will be negative. N 1760:hard to directly determine. 1689:01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 431:02:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC) 364:17:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 355:19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2188: 2034:the last revision I edited 1998:14:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 988:soy is not equal to whey. 288:Molecular Biology articles 2013:16:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 1979:01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC) 1953:00:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 1898:00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 1889:00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 1798:the individual eating it. 319: 301: 250: 226: 91:Be welcoming to newcomers 2132:18:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 455:19:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 729:this moment on and on. 2003:Typical values: Units? 1077:An additional note to 962:Yes, you've 'won' the 945:is more accurate than 316: 208:This article is rated 86:avoid personal attacks 1963:User:Zephyris/BVDraft 1654:I understand you are 1208:the exactly the same 1085:recommended that you 315: 212:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 111:Neutral point of view 18:Talk:Biological Value 2157:C-Class MCB articles 1054:Requests for comment 1052:This section is for 749:is equal to eggs"). 116:No original research 1706:section in detail. 1680:Verification Needed 1450:1992;92:293-296.** 1013:accuracy on PDCAAS. 693:FDA scores 1.0 soy 1473:Template:Citecheck 1467:Citecheck template 1342:Do you get it now? 1103:Hello Kind Folks, 983:Hello Wikipedians, 317: 214:content assessment 97:dispute resolution 58: 2073:comment added by 1907:further comments: 1448:J Am Dietet Assoc 1441:J Am Dietet Assoc 1314:Do some reading. 848:The study titled 342: 341: 338: 337: 334: 333: 279:Molecular Biology 270:Molecular Biology 239:Molecular Biology 194: 193: 77:Assume good faith 54: 16:(Redirected from 2179: 2085: 1771:is larger than N 1571: 1569: 1481: 1443:191;91:828-835. 943:Biological Value 941:With that said, 918:soy equals whey. 609: 603: 304:importance scale 290: 289: 286: 283: 280: 259: 252: 251: 246: 235: 228: 211: 205: 204: 196: 190: 189: 175: 106:Article policies 36:Biological value 27: 21: 2187: 2186: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2137: 2136: 2107: 2068: 2030: 2005: 1995: 1976: 1950: 1886: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1698: 1682: 1615: 1567: 1565: 1479: 1469: 1459:Hello G. and Y. 1392: 1371: 1186:reliable - not 1115:DEEMED SUPERIOR 1101: 1050: 770:They show that 641: 607: 601: 575: 463: 386: 371: 347: 345:Getting started 287: 284: 281: 278: 277: 241: 209: 132: 127: 126: 125: 102: 72: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 2185: 2183: 2175: 2174: 2169: 2164: 2159: 2154: 2149: 2139: 2138: 2124:72.144.234.135 2106: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2044: 2029: 2026: 2010:Inhumandecency 2004: 2001: 1991: 1972: 1960: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1946: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1917: 1916: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1882: 1872: 1871: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1854: 1851: 1848: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1835: 1834: 1831: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1814: 1813: 1800: 1799: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1781: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1761: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1724: 1717: 1711: 1710: 1697: 1692: 1681: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1652: 1651: 1614: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1501: 1499: 1498: 1468: 1465: 1391: 1388: 1370: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1322: 1321: 1310: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1259: 1258: 1230: 1218: 1205:most reliable. 1198: 1197: 1158:more reliable. 1151: 1150: 1100: 1097: 1058: 1049: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 980: 979: 969: 968: 872: 871: 870: 869: 776:This is a fact 739: 738: 737: 736: 704: 640: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 574: 571: 570: 569: 546: 545: 524: 523: 503: 502: 468:citing sources 462: 459: 458: 457: 443: 439: 435: 434: 433: 411: 410: 385: 382: 370: 367: 346: 343: 340: 339: 336: 335: 332: 331: 328:Mid-importance 318: 308: 307: 300: 294: 293: 291: 274:the discussion 260: 248: 247: 236: 224: 223: 217: 206: 192: 191: 129: 128: 124: 123: 118: 113: 104: 103: 101: 100: 93: 88: 79: 73: 71: 70: 59: 50: 49: 46: 45: 39: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2184: 2173: 2170: 2168: 2165: 2163: 2160: 2158: 2155: 2153: 2150: 2148: 2145: 2144: 2142: 2135: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2119: 2114: 2112: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2075:71.123.21.192 2072: 2064: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2045: 2042: 2041: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2035: 2027: 2025: 2024: 2021: 2015: 2014: 2011: 2002: 2000: 1999: 1996: 1994: 1989: 1988: 1981: 1980: 1977: 1975: 1970: 1969: 1964: 1954: 1951: 1949: 1944: 1943: 1938: 1933: 1929: 1928: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1903: 1899: 1896: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1887: 1885: 1880: 1879: 1874: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1862: 1861: 1855: 1852: 1849: 1846: 1845: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1832: 1829: 1825: 1824: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1811: 1808: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1792: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1766: 1762: 1759: 1748:)*100 where N 1735: 1732: 1731: 1725: 1722: 1718: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1708: 1707: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1696: 1693: 1691: 1690: 1687: 1686:Messenger2010 1679: 1675: 1672: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1661: 1657: 1650: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1625: 1621: 1612: 1604: 1601: 1597: 1594: 1591: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1570: 1563: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1553: 1549: 1546: 1543: 1539: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1528: 1527:67.150.244.19 1524: 1520: 1519: 1516: 1512: 1510: 1506: 1503: 1497: 1494: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1483: 1482: 1474: 1466: 1464: 1463: 1460: 1454: 1451: 1449: 1444: 1442: 1437: 1434: 1431: 1428: 1425: 1423: 1418: 1415: 1412: 1409: 1406: 1405: 1402: 1398: 1389: 1387: 1386: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1369:The Gig is Up 1368: 1364: 1361: 1356: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1346: 1343: 1338: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1329: 1320: 1316: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1308: 1307: 1304: 1299: 1295: 1292: 1289: 1286: 1283: 1280: 1277: 1270: 1267: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1257: 1254: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1243: 1239: 1236: 1233: 1228: 1227: 1222: 1221: 1216: 1213: 1211: 1206: 1201: 1196: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1175: 1171: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1159: 1154: 1153:Hello Folks, 1149: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1131: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1122: 1119: 1116: 1110: 1109: 1104: 1098: 1096: 1095: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1075: 1074: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1057: 1055: 1047: 1043: 1040: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1017: 1014: 1010: 998: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 985: 984: 978: 975: 971: 970: 965: 961: 960: 959: 958: 955: 950: 948: 944: 939: 936: 933: 932: 928: 925: 924: 920: 919: 915: 910: 908: 904: 903: 900: 896: 891: 887: 884: 882: 878: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 859: 855: 851: 846: 842: 839: 836: 834: 830: 826: 822: 819: 818: 815: 809: 807: 802: 797: 791: 789: 784: 781: 777: 774: 768: 765: 763: 760: 756: 750: 747: 742: 735: 732: 727: 726: 725: 722: 717: 716: 715: 714: 711: 706: 702: 699: 696: 691: 690: 685: 684: 680: 674: 671: 670: 665: 664: 660: 656: 653: 650: 646: 645: 638: 632: 629: 625: 621: 618: 617: 616: 613: 606: 598: 597: 596: 595: 592: 586: 582: 578: 572: 568: 565: 561: 560: 559: 558: 555: 551: 544: 541: 536: 535: 534: 533: 530: 522: 519: 514: 513: 512: 511: 508: 501: 498: 493: 492: 491: 490: 487: 483: 477: 476: 473: 469: 460: 456: 452: 448: 444: 440: 436: 432: 429: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 417: 409: 406: 401: 400: 399: 398: 395: 389: 383: 381: 380: 377: 368: 366: 365: 362: 357: 356: 353: 344: 329: 326:(assessed as 325: 324: 314: 310: 309: 305: 299: 296: 295: 292: 275: 271: 267: 266: 261: 258: 254: 253: 249: 245: 240: 237: 234: 230: 225: 221: 215: 207: 203: 198: 197: 188: 184: 181: 178: 174: 170: 166: 163: 160: 157: 154: 151: 148: 145: 142: 138: 135: 134:Find sources: 131: 130: 122: 121:Verifiability 119: 117: 114: 112: 109: 108: 107: 98: 94: 92: 89: 87: 83: 80: 78: 75: 74: 68: 64: 63:Learn to edit 60: 57: 52: 51: 48: 47: 43: 37: 33: 29: 28: 19: 2122: 2115: 2110: 2108: 2065: 2052: 2040:"Pellett" : 2031: 2016: 2006: 1990: 1985: 1982: 1971: 1966: 1959: 1945: 1940: 1906: 1881: 1876: 1867: 1795: 1764: 1763:BV can take 1757: 1733: 1699: 1683: 1653: 1637: 1632:Sorry but a 1616: 1589: 1544: 1522: 1521: 1517: 1514: 1513: 1507: 1504: 1500: 1477: 1470: 1455: 1452: 1447: 1445: 1440: 1438: 1436:References: 1435: 1432: 1429: 1426: 1419: 1416: 1413: 1410: 1407: 1399:. Thanks. -- 1393: 1372: 1341: 1339: 1335: 1325: 1323: 1318: 1309: 1300: 1296: 1293: 1290: 1287: 1284: 1281: 1278: 1275: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1229: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1217: 1214: 1209: 1204: 1202: 1199: 1187: 1183: 1172: 1169: 1164: 1163: 1157: 1155: 1152: 1140: 1136: 1117: 1114: 1111: 1108:so superior. 1107: 1105: 1102: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1076: 1065: 1059: 1056:discussion. 1051: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1012: 1008: 1005: 996: 986: 982: 981: 951: 946: 942: 940: 937: 934: 930: 929: 926: 922: 921: 917: 913: 911: 906: 905: 894: 892: 888: 885: 880: 876: 873: 854:D.M. Hegstad 853: 849: 847: 843: 840: 837: 832: 831: 827: 823: 820: 810: 808:referenced. 805: 800: 798: 792: 787: 785: 779: 775: 771: 769: 766: 753: 751: 743: 740: 710:63.17.55.215 707: 703: 700: 694: 692: 688: 686: 682: 681: 675: 672: 668: 666: 662: 661: 657: 654: 651: 647: 643: 642: 605:cite journal 587: 583: 579: 576: 554:63.17.64.192 549: 547: 529:63.17.93.101 525: 507:63.17.93.101 504: 486:63.17.93.101 481: 478: 464: 416:63.17.93.101 412: 403:methodology. 394:63.17.93.101 390: 387: 372: 358: 348: 321: 263: 220:WikiProjects 182: 176: 168: 161: 155: 149: 143: 133: 105: 30:This is the 2069:—Preceding 1913:amino acids 1895:Quadzilla99 1417:Reference: 1345:63.17.78.66 1303:63.17.78.66 1301:Checkmate. 1266:63.17.90.25 1242:63.17.90.25 1200:Oh Really, 1174:63.17.90.25 1121:63.17.90.25 1016:63.17.90.25 954:63.17.90.25 858:63.17.58.67 759:63.17.58.67 731:63.17.58.67 428:Quadzilla99 361:Quadzilla99 352:Quadzilla99 159:free images 42:not a forum 2141:Categories 1810:cell walls 1660:AndyCanada 1624:AndyCanada 1583:AndyCanada 1538:AndyCanada 1226:this test. 1168:this test. 931:Example 2) 923:Example 1) 516:presented. 495:in order. 461:References 2091:Yankees76 1807:cellulose 1671:Yankees76 1646:Yankees76 1600:Yankees76 1552:Yankees76 1523:Yankees76 1493:Yankees76 1401:Ginkgo100 1382:Yankees76 1360:Yankees76 1328:Yankees76 1253:Yankees76 1192:Yankees76 1145:Yankees76 1091:Ginkgo100 1070:Ginkgo100 1039:Yankees76 974:Yankees76 899:Yankees76 814:Yankees76 721:Yankees76 628:Yankees76 612:Ginkgo100 591:Yankees76 564:Yankees76 540:Yankees76 518:Yankees76 497:Yankees76 472:Yankees76 405:Yankees76 99:if needed 82:Be polite 32:talk page 2071:unsigned 2054:DumZiBoT 1987:Zephyris 1968:Zephyris 1942:Zephyris 1878:Zephyris 1787:105-110. 1593:contribs 1548:contribs 1355:strawman 1353:Still a 1141:outdated 1083:strongly 964:strawman 893:Lastly, 877:relative 67:get help 40:This is 38:article. 1864:Fasting 1828:keratin 1634:WP:RFCU 1579:WP:RFCU 1408:Reply: 806:plainly 801:doesn't 482:spotty. 210:C-class 165:WP refs 153:scholar 2134:David 1642:WP:RPA 1568:Durova 1562:WP:RFI 1480:Durova 1397:source 1066:recent 1026:anyone 947:PDCAAS 216:scale. 137:Google 2109:From 1656:sorry 881:World 795:: --> 794:: --> 773:Score 678:: --> 677:: --> 376:Bmord 180:JSTOR 141:books 95:Seek 2128:talk 2095:talk 2079:talk 2058:talk 1993:Talk 1974:Talk 1948:Talk 1930:The 1884:Talk 1758:very 1721:urea 1587:talk 1542:talk 1188:more 1184:most 1034:does 1030:both 1024:Ask 788:ever 610:. -- 451:talk 173:FENS 147:news 84:and 2032:In 1932:PER 1923:up. 1868:any 1796:and 1765:any 1744:)/N 1740:- N 1638:are 1210:1.0 1118:??? 1087:not 1079:all 1048:RfC 914:why 907:Yes 852:by 695:and 298:??? 244:MCB 187:TWL 2143:: 2130:) 2097:) 2081:) 2060:) 1939:- 1875:- 1622:-- 1598:. 1595:) 1515:7. 764:) 752:2) 683:3) 663:2) 644:1) 608:}} 602:{{ 453:) 330:). 242:: 167:) 65:; 2126:( 2093:( 2077:( 2056:( 1812:. 1777:e 1773:i 1769:e 1754:e 1750:i 1746:i 1742:e 1738:i 1590:· 1585:( 1545:· 1540:( 1420:{ 669:? 484:- 449:( 392:- 306:. 222:: 183:· 177:· 169:· 162:· 156:· 150:· 144:· 139:( 69:. 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.