Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:39:57.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of protein requirements by nitrogen balance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2017

D. S. Miller  and
P. R. Payne
D. S. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, Queen Elizabeth College, LondonW8
P. R. Payne
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Gower Street, LondonWC1
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The earliest estimates of protein requirements, such as those of Smith (1863) and Pavy (1874) who recommended about 125 g per day for the average working man, were based on studies of the diets of individuals or of groups of subjects who were considered to be healthy and leading normal active lives. Such estimates were simply a reflection of the dietary habits of those under study, but helped to establish minimum standards of feeding in institutions. About the turn of the century, similar recommendations ranging from 118 to 150 g were made by Voit (1881), Atwater (1895) and Rubner (1903) (Fig. 1), and these came to be vigorously defended as representing not merely feeding standards but as irreducible minima below which a proper state of health and vigour could not be maintained.

Type
Symposium Proceedings
Information
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , September 1969 , pp. 225 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 1969

References

Atwater, W. O. (1895). Bull. U.S. Dep. Agrie. no. 21.Google Scholar
Baker, G. (1767). Report to the College of Physicians. Google Scholar
Bras, G. & Ross, M. H. (1966). Proc. int. Congr. Nutr. VII. Hamburg. Vol. 4.Google Scholar
Bricker, M. L., Shively, R. F., Smith, J. M., Mitchell, H. H. & Hamilton, T. S. (1949). J. Nutr. 37, 163.Google Scholar
British Medical Association (1950). Report of the Committee on Nutrition. London: British Medical Association.Google Scholar
Chan, H. & Waterlow, J. C. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 775.10.1079/BJN19660079Google Scholar
Chittenden, R. H. (1905). Physiological Economy in Nutrition. London: Heineman.Google Scholar
Chittenden, R. H. (1911). Br. med. J. ii, 656.Google Scholar
Cornaro, L. (1558). The Sure and Certain Method of Attaining a Long and Healthful Life. Padua.Google Scholar
Costa, G. (1960). Nature, Lond. 188, 549.10.1038/188549a0Google Scholar
Costa, G., Ulbrich, L., Kantor, F. & Holland, J. F. (1968). Nature, Lond. 218, 546.10.1038/218546a0Google Scholar
FAO (1957). FAO Nutr. Stud. no. 16.Google Scholar
FAO (1965). FAO Nutr. Mtg Rep. Ser. no. 37.Google Scholar
Fomon, S. J. (1967). Infant Nutrition. Philadelphia and London: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
Gopalan, C. & Rao, N. (1966). J. Nutr. 90, 213.Google Scholar
James, W. H. (1960). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 19, 1009.Google Scholar
League of Nations (1936). Report on the Physiological Basis of Nutrition. No. A. 12(a) 1936 II B.Google Scholar
McKay, D. (1912). The Protein Element in Nutrition. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Donoso, G. (1965). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 14, 345.Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Mumford, P. (1967). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 20, 1212.Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1961a). Br. J. Nutr. 15, 11.10.1079/BJN19610004Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1961b). J. Nutr. 74, 413.Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1961c). J. Nutr. 75, 225.Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1964). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 23, 11.10.1079/PNS19640005Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1968). Expl Geront. 3, 231.10.1016/0531-5565(68)90006-5Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. H., Hamilton, T. S., Steggerda, F. R. & Bean, H. W. (1945). J. biol. Chem. 158, 625.Google Scholar
Munro, H. N. (1968). In Single-Cell Protein. [Mateles, R. I. and Tannenbaum, S. R., editors.] Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The M. I. T. Press.Google Scholar
Naismith, D. J. (1969). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 28, 25.10.1079/PNS19690005Google Scholar
National Research Council (1953). Pubis natn. Res. Coun., Wash. no. 302.Google Scholar
Orraca-Tetteh, R. (1964). PhD thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Pavy, F. W. (1874). Food and Dietetics. New York: William Wood & Co. Google Scholar
Platt, B. S., Dema, I. S. & Miller, D. S. (1960). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 19, xi.Google Scholar
Rose, W. C. & Wiscom, R. L. (1955). J. biol. Chem. 217, 997.Google Scholar
Rubner, M. (1903). Handbuch der Ernährungstherapie, i, 153.Google Scholar
Sherman, H. C., Gillett, L. H. & Osterberg, E. (1920). J. biol. Chem. 41, 97.Google Scholar
Sivén, V. O. (1901). Skand. Arch. Physiol. 11, 308.10.1111/j.1748-1716.1901.tb00494.xGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. (1863). Report to the Privy Council on the Food of the Labouring Classes.Google Scholar
Tanner, J. M., Whitehouse, R. H. & Takaishi, M. (1966). Archs Dis. Childh. 41, 613.10.1136/adc.41.220.613Google Scholar
Terroine, E. F. (1936). Q. Bull. Hlth Org. L. of N. no. 5, p. 427.Google Scholar
United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Security (1969). Rep. pubi. Hlth med. Subj., Land. no. 120.Google Scholar
Voit, C. (1881). Handbuch der Physiologic 6, 519.Google Scholar
Young, V. R., Hussein, M. A. & Scrimshaw, N. S. (1968). Nature, Land. 218, 568.10.1038/218568a0Google Scholar