The Nutritive Value of the Proteins of Nuts in Comparison with the Nutritive Value of Beef Proteins

Mitchell, H. H.; Beadles, Jessie R.

doi:10.1093/jn/14.6.597

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A detailed experiment conducted on a mixed population having nuts and fruits as a major diet showed an average coefficient of protein digestibility to the value of 75%–90% (Jaffa, 1908). Previously, Mitchell and Beadles (1937) assessed the nutritive value of nut proteins and reported 71% digestibility of pecan nut protein in comparison to beef proteins. Similarly, House et al (2019) reported significantly ( P < 0.05) lower true fecal protein digestibility (85.7%–89.9%) of proteins of different almond varieties when compared with casein control (96%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is surprising to note that cholesterol supplemented groups exhibited inconsistency in the results for BV with a significant ( P = 0.023) increase in Cc 1 vs Cc, a considerable ( P = 0.0002) decrease in Pe 1 vs Pe and no noticeable difference between Pi and Pi 1 . In an earlier study, Mitchell and Beadles (1937) investigated the quality of several nuts with reference to beef protein and reported BV to the account of 59.8 ± 0.5%, 50.8 ± 0.4% and 55.9 ± 0.9% for pecan, almond and English walnut, respectively. Previously, Iyenagbe et al (2017) evaluated the nutritional quality of defatted conophor nut ( Tetracarpidium conophorum ) flour and detected lower BV (57.8%) than that of reference egg protein.…”

Section: Biological Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The possible reasons behind the lower TPD in nut-based groups and the apparent effect of cholesterol have already been discussed in the previous section/s. Previously, Mitchell and Beadles (1937) investigated the nutritive value of selected nuts with reference to a beef protein (100%) and reported comparatively lower true digestibility i.e. 70.7 6 0.5%, 94 6 0.2%, 84 6 0.2% and 96 6 0.2% for pecan, almond, English walnut and Brazil nut, respectively.…”

Section: True Protein Digestibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A wide range of literature is available on the health benefits of pecan and pine nut oils. However, with the exception of a few preliminary studies (Cajori, 1921; Mitchell and Beadles, 1937; Shekib et al , 2011), there is a scarcity of information on the biological quality of pecan and pine nuts. Considering their nutritional potential, the present study aimed to assess the protein (biological) quality of pecan and pine nuts supplemented diets in male Wistar albino rats.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Protein quality assessment of pecan [Carya illinoinensis (wangenh.) K. Koch] and pine (Pinus gerardiana wall.) nuts for dietary supplementation

Tanwar

Modgil

Goyal

2021

NFS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study is to assess the protein (biological) quality of pecan and pine nuts supplemented diets in male Wistar albino rats. Design/methodology/approach A randomized and controlled study (45 d) was conducted in male Wistar albino rats (n = 60) comprising six groups, namely, control (Cc), control with 1% cholesterol (CC1), Pecan group (Pe), Pecan group supplemented with 1% cholesterol (Pi1), Pine group supplemented with 1% cholesterol (Pi1). Protein quality of supplemented diet/s was assessed in terms of various biological indices. Findings Pe and Pi groups exhibited normal growth when compared with Cc. Despite showing higher feed and protein intake, Pe and Pi groups exhibited significantly (P = 0.023) lower weight gain than Cc. There was no significant difference between the protein efficiency ratio (3.8 ± 0.2 and 3.7 ± 0.2), apparent protein digestibility (81.5 ± 2.2 and 80.5 ± 2%), true protein digestibility (90.6 ± 1.1 and 88.5 ± 3.5%) and biological value (BV) (75.6 ± 0.9 and 72.6 ± 0.9%) of Pe and Pi groups, respectively. Pe group presented considerably higher net protein utilization (68.5 ± 1.4 vs 64.4 ± 0.8%) and protein retention efficiency (34.8 ± 1.1 vs 31.2 ± 1.3%) than Pi group. Overall, pecan-based diet displayed superior biological quality over pine nut. Antinutrients present in the nuts did not show any major negative effect on the growth, digestibility and bioavailability of the nutrients in rats. BV ranging from 72.6% to 75.6% suggested a satisfactory quality of experimental nut-based diets. Research limitations/implications Further investigation of pecan and pine nuts consumption to examine the potential benefits and associated mechanisms of action is warranted which would aid in a better understanding and to establish nutritional recommendations. Originality/value Overall, the exploitation of pecan and pine nut flours for the development of value-added food products is favorable from a nutritional point of view.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Biological Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: True Protein Digestibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Protein quality assessment of pecan [Carya illinoinensis (wangenh.) K. Koch] and pine (Pinus gerardiana wall.) nuts for dietary supplementation

Tanwar

Modgil

Goyal

2021

NFS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…together with the values for defatted egg. 89 reported byMorrison (1936) Mitchell & Beadles (1937). obtained a value as high as 97.4, and Forbes, Vaughan & Yohe (1958) reported a value of 95 for groundnut.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

Nutritive value of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)

Chopra

Sidhu

1967

Br J Nutr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I.The nutritive values of nine varieties of groundnut were determined by the nitrogen balance method in diets containing 10% protein. The results indicated that the varietal differences did not affect the biological values significantly.2. Three varieties showing small but significant differences of approximately 5 % in methionine content were further assayed for protein efficiency ratio at the 10 % level of protein for a period of 4 weeks. No significant differences in PER were obtained, but the least significant difference that could have been detected under these conditions was approximately 8 %.

show abstract

Inorganic Constituents of Nuts and Seeds

Rodushkin

Baxter

2011

Nuts and Seeds in Health and Disease Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Nutritive Value of the Proteins of Nuts in Comparison with the Nutritive Value of Beef Proteins

Cited by 9 publications

References 9 publications

Protein quality assessment of pecan [Carya illinoinensis (wangenh.) K. Koch] and pine (Pinus gerardiana wall.) nuts for dietary supplementation

Protein quality assessment of pecan [Carya illinoinensis (wangenh.) K. Koch] and pine (Pinus gerardiana wall.) nuts for dietary supplementation

Nutritive value of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)

Inorganic Constituents of Nuts and Seeds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About