Dr. Gabrielle Lyon

To say that this is what it should be?

But when you think about nitrogen balance, and I'm gonna ask you this question.

So let's say we know that the intake is overestimated from these 25-year-old men, and the excretion is underestimated.

Okay, so what does that mean?

It basically just gives us this number for nitrogen balance.

Also, all amino acids are,

quote considered the same in these studies so leucine would be the same as a non-essential amino acid we know that that's it's just nitrogen but it's not specific enough and now i'm going to ask you a question so this is the minimum for preventing quote deficiencies based on nitrogen balance are you ready for it ready tell me one health outcome that you know of that is related to nitrogen balance

Exactly.

We don't know any health outcome related to nitrogen balance.

And so we can say it's a flawed study, and I think that's important.

But one step deeper is, okay, what's the actual health outcome?

that is related to nitrogen balance.

How does using something that's used in agriculture from the 1900s currently relate to the minimum to prevent deficiencies?

I don't even think that we have that.

I mean, that number as the minimum is probably incorrect.

And again, this is how do we evolve the protein conversation?

Nitrogen balance, we understand that, but it's beyond setting a minimum and also even asking the question.

The question is, is that number even relevant?

I don't think that that number is actually a relevant number.

Well, we know that from the data that anything closer to 1.1 to 1.2 is going to be better from a muscle outcome and also lean body mass.