Are we getting enough sulfur in our diet? (2007) | Hacker News Reader

Are we getting enough sulfur in our diet? (2007)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

52 pointsPaulHoule53 comments

For every plus there is a minus:

A review of methionine dependency and the role of methionine restriction in cancer growth control and life-span extension

http://www.cancertreatmentreviews.com/article/S0305-7372(12)...

Methionine is an essential amino acid with many key roles in mammalian metabolism such as protein synthesis, methylation of DNA and polyamine synthesis. Restriction of methionine may be an important strategy in cancer growth control particularly in cancers that exhibit dependence on methionine for survival and proliferation. Methionine dependence in cancer may be due to one or a combination of deletions, polymorphisms or alterations in expression of genes in the methionine de novo and salvage pathways. Cancer cells with these defects are unable to regenerate methionine via these pathways. Defects in the metabolism of folate may also contribute to the methionine dependence phenotype in cancer. Selective killing of methionine dependent cancer cells in co-culture with normal cells has been demonstrated using culture media deficient in methionine. Several animal studies utilizing a methionine restricted diet have reported inhibition of cancer growth and extension of a healthy life-span. In humans, vegan diets, which can be low in methionine, may prove to be a useful nutritional strategy in cancer growth control. The development of methioninase which depletes circulating levels of methionine may be another useful strategy in limiting cancer growth. The application of nutritional methionine restriction and methioninase in combination with chemotherapeutic regimens is the current focus of clinical studies.

Details, details, details.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Epner/publicatio...

> Alternatively, weight loss experienced by patients in the trial may have been independ - ent of energy intake but, rather, attributable to “obligatory” muscle catabolism related to methionine restriction per se. A recent study designed to quantify dietary methionine re - quirements in normal subjects sheds light on this issue (22). In that study, stable isotope methods were used to measure obligatory methionine oxidation in normal subjects on a diet completely devoid of sulfur amino acids (methionine and cysteine) for 5 days. Although somewhat controversial (23), obligatory oxidation rates are considered by many to repre - sent the minimum requirement for amino acids, that is, the amount that is oxidized despite maximal body conservation. The obligatory oxidative loss of methionine was 13 mg/kg/ day in that study (22). Patients in our trial, who were re - stricted to 2 mg methionine/kg/day, therefore, consumed 11 mg/kg/day less than the minimum requirement. However, they consumed adequate amounts of cysteine, which is pres - ent in Hominex-2. They therefore may have had obligatory methionine oxidation rates < 13 mg/kg/day. The fact that all patients reversibly lost weight, despite what would normally be considered adequate energy and protein intake, may actu - ally be encouraging, since it confirms that patients adhered to the diet. The basic premise of this strategy is that dietary methionine restriction will have a greater deleterious effect on tumors than on normal host tissues.

Unless you actually have cancer, obligate muscle catabolism secondary to methionine restriction is a high price to pay.

Interesting, also interesting that this is a 9 year old article.

I'm surprised that the elderly are noted as not getting enough sulfur, because I believe eggs are a good source and (barring incidents like the avian disease outbreak last year) are a generally inexpensive source of protein as well.

My experience is that older people fear eggs because of the bad campaign against them in the 80s (70s?).

Can't eat eggs, they have cholesterol!

It is somewhat depressing how much of the stuff we have done "for health reasons" ends up being less healthy than the original.

Cholesterol is good but the antinutrients in egg whites are not ideal. Egg yolks are extremely good for you though.

What is an 'antinutrient'?.

Googling antinutrient with egg whites seems to bring up relatively few highly spurious 'paleo' type sites.

Anything that interferes with the absorption of nutrients. Most commonly they would be inhibitors of the catalysts that break down foods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinutrient

But yes, the paleo theories mostly focus on it having some kind of effect on your stomach lining. It's a bit speculative. It seems they all point to this discussion as the original source: http://thepaleodiet.blogspot.com/2010/01/paleo-diet-q-29-jan...

All those egg eating dinosaurs really had it coming didn't they?

Raw eggs contain the anti-nutrient avidin, a protein that binds to biotin, making it unavailable as vitamin. If you eat large quantities of raw egg you could theoretically become biotin deficient. Cooking destroys the avidin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avidin

Additionally, the protein in raw eggs is poorly absorbed, which could be because of other unidentified anti-nutrients. Again, cooking solves the problem:

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/128/10/1716.full

Good thing no one eats raw eggs then

Seriously! It's like someone complaining about hamburgers and then enumerating all of the problems with eating raw hamburger.

People certainly do eat raw eggs. In the UK, the vast majority of eggs are from vaccinated chickens ("Lion Mark") and are considered safe to eat raw. Raw egg yolks taste much better than cooked egg yolks IMO. And there is an old idea of eating raw eggs as a protein supplement for athletes, eg. Sylvester Stallone does it in Rocky. This is now discredited but eggs are cheap and easily available so people probably still do it.

They're hard to find because most grocery stores don't stock them, but you can actually buy pasteurized eggs at some places in the states too. They pasteurize by putting the eggs in hot water for a few minutes, so it's a simple process that you could actually do at home (but getting it right is tricky).

I have a prairie oyster for breakfast sometimes: one unbeaten raw egg, a few dashes of worcestershire sauce, a little Tabasco, salt and pepper, and then you kindof eat it like it's a raw oyster. It's an acquired taste.

In Western Canada, prairie oysters are cooked bull testicles, so another acquired taste (one I never acquired)

if you eat cake at my house you do, Royal Icing is made using raw egg white :)

That counts as eating raw eggs about as much as gelatin and pork rinds are protein supplements.

Of course they do. Eating raw eggs has been a fitness fad in the past. But besides things like chocolate mousse and whiskey sours, a lot of people eat their eggs only slightly warmed but not fully cooked.

We eat raw egg all the time in our house. Over rice with shoyu and its awesome.

I consider that to be at least partially cooked. Enough to destroy the anti-nutrients? I dunno.

If you've ever had proper mayonnaise, you've eaten raw egg.

Yes, because people eat raw egg whites all the time.

........

.............................

It's big in Korea

Not sure why you were downvoted, by I re-upped what I could for adding information.

There are people who eat raw or undercooked eggs. Not just some fad diet either, in some countries it's mainstream. In Japan it's common to mix a raw egg into rice or soup... very tasty and their eggs have a deep rich color in their yolk too.

Eggs contain everything you need to make a chicken with the exception of air. They can't be that bad. ;-)

Oh yes. After Linus Pauling advocated high vitamin C doses, lots of people started taking synthetic vitamin C, which turns out to be carcinogenic. A product called Geritol was marketed to the elderly for many years on the premise that they were iron deficient. Geritol was behind lots of cases of iron poisoning.

We laugh at the quaintness of the snake oil salesman or yore -- but he never left, not really. ==== Edit ==== Not calling Pauling a snake oil salesman :-)

Synthetic vitamin C is exactly the same as real vitamin C. [1]

When I Googled "synthetic vitamin C carcinogenic" I found a bunch of quackery and the Scientific American article. Mostly the sites were screaming "IT'S A CHEMICAL!! CHEMICALS ARE BAD!!!!" as if water and foods aren't also made up of chemicals... :|

[1] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natural-vs-sy...

Yes, but there has been plenty of well-researched, highly-repeatable evidence linking taking supplements of the antioxidant vitamins (A, C & E) with higher cancer risk.

Not to do with synthetic vitamins, of course, but certainly to do with the selling of vitamins as something you need to supplement.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to say [Citation Needed]. From what I can tell, large doses of Beta Carotene (one kind of Vitamin A) and Folic Acid (a vitamin in the B family) are correlated with higher cancer risk. But if you avoid mega-doses of those, it's all good.

Here's my reference: [1] Key Quote:

>One of the largest, longest, and most carefully conducted human trials on multivitamins, the Physicians’ Health Study II, showed that the daily consumption of these supplements over 11 years reduced total cancer incidence by 8%, better than any pharmaceutical drug to date. This could translate into 130,000 fewer cancer cases in the U.S. every year.

[1] http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/feature-story/vitamins-do-not-cau...

1. Your article is from the Linus Pauling Institute, which, as has been noted upthread, is the biggest pusher of the high-dose vitamin C myth, which has been pretty much debunked by now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research...

2. One of the whole arguments against supplements (which is what we're talking about here, not the quantities found in an every-day diet) is that they tend to mega-dose. But not "mega-dose" in some scary, doping type way. The vast majority of bottles of supplements list RDA values of 200%-1000%, as if that's a good thing.

3. The studies that show cancer link do so with double-blind, placebo-controlled studies using normal, grocery-store supplement levels of antioxidants. e.g. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199404143301501, http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104493

4. When you look at reviews that are not pushed by the Linus Pauling Institute, you get quotes like

> A recent review of the last 20 years of literature on the subject, presented at the American Association for Cancer Research 2015 meeting, found an overall increased risk of cancer among vitamin users.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vitamins-and-cancer-ris...

I don't remember where I picked up the bit about synthetic C. Thanks for pointing this out.

Some of it is the taste. My in-laws raise chickens and the eggs taste awesome, but even the organic+free-range chicken eggs in the store have little flavor.

Additional interesting thoughts on sulfer and health in this Weston Price Foundation article:

http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/...

Weston A Price foundation is not a reliable or useful source of health information. It is more of a religion, or cult, based on a bunch of anecdotes from Price's travels and dental practice. They never let science get in the way of a good story from their founder.

As with other religions, they get some things right, but I think I'll take my nutritional guidance from the best science I can find on the topic, rather than a 19th century dentist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Aren't brassicas (cauliflower, bok choy, kale, etc) contain sulfur?

Are they not a good source of sulfur? I'm confused as to why this article proclaims proteins to be the only dietary source of sulfur.

Yep they are. Onions and garlic family vegetables too. Eggs/fish/meat simply have much higher concentrations.

Interesting too look at how diets vary across generations / this generation seems to eat foods with a lot less sulfur and sodiums I wonder does that affect health on a greater scale.

Interesting. A quick look suggest MSM (Methylsulfonylmethane) might be the easiest way to absorb this.

One-off unscientific anecdote: A weightlifting coach advised me to take MSM for improved recovery. I tried it for a few months and never noticed a difference, but I was eating plenty of eggs during that time.

I know someone who was given a sulfur supplement/treatment in the ER. The doctors did not know if the low sulfer level is what caused her issue or not, but noted that it was odd.

Let's see: Some rotten eggs smell like hydrogen sulfide. So, it figures that if eat some eggs, will get enough sulfur? Likely!

I wouldn't worry about this too much. There'll be lots of time for sulfur later where we're all going.

I just skimmed the article, but the figures seem to prove we are getting enough. Why did you post it?

(2007)

I thought sulfur was put in prison food to quell the libido. Maybe a wise tale.

I thought it was potassium chloride (salt Peter)

Ah, salt Peter has potassium chloride AND sulfur.

I think you're confusing it with some kind of extremely low-quality gunpowder.

Yep, that was it. Or maybe just salt on your peter.

Saltpeter is potassium nitrate. It's a diuretic, not sure why it would have any particular effect on libido.

http://www.snopes.com/military/saltpeter.asp

This is specifically about the military, but searching for "saltpeter prisons" gets similar results:

http://www.snopes.com/military/saltpeter.asp

Reply on news.ycombinator.com