[Doc.AElstein]

  Further to my post _....
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=83858.0
_  . I am constructing Diets that may involve taking many Pills which use typical Capsules. Although the total amount of Capsule material ( “stuff” ) is still relatively small I should nevertheless like to  keep an eye on the total amount of Capsule “Stuff” consumed
_ . I do not have a Chemistry background, and am getting a bit bogged down trying to understand what “stuff” is typically used in the manufacture of capsules. Mostly I see the words Glycerine and / or Cellulose.
_.  I believe Cellulose I could broadly group as a Carbohydrate in a Nutrition list.
_.  Glycerine I have a basic understanding of ( as a part of most Fat Acids ) and  in a Nutrition list would very loosely be grouped with Fat Acids as a “pseudo” Fat
_. I have been able to get at typical weights ( mass ) of Capsules I am using. Could anyone give me an approximate typical breakdown of the stuff, in terms  of the main materials:
_a)    in terms of the Cellulose and Glycerine content ,
Or   
_ b)  if as I suspect my breakdown may be very naive, could someone in as simple terms as possible tell me a number of “Stuffs” I could break the total “stuff” down to and give some typical relative values in a typical capsule in commercial use
_ c) Can anyone also give me along with that information what might be the typical Macro Nutritional values per 100g for Kcal, Fat, Protein, Carbohydrate, Sugar, Fibre, ( I assume no Sodium, that is to say no Salt is present? )

_ Notes:
_ . I am only looking for approximate values for personal reference in my Wife’s Diets
_ . I am less using medical products here, more the typical nutritional supplements available for Sport and Dieting Purpose

Many Thanks
Alan Elston

[Corribus]

Cellulose is a carbohydrate but carbohydrates are not created equally. Cellulose is not digestible by humans. Some people call it dietary fiber. Whatever you call it, it passes through to the other side, if you take my meaning.

Glycerine (glycerol) is not a fat, although it does tend to "carry" fats in form of a triglyceride - three fatty acids attach to it. It is a polyol, sometimes called a sugar alcohol. It is digested and has slightly more calories per mass than sugar (sucrose).

Humans love to categorize things, but there's always a trade off between efficiency and graininess of the endeavor. Things don't always fit into neat boxes, unfortunately, particularly as far as a complex process like metabolism goes.

It doesn't help that it's still not really clear to me what you're trying to do. A clear goal will often inform the way you categorize things.

[Arkcon]

Capsules are typically gelatin.  But a plant based polymer, like agar, may also be used.

[Doc.AElstein]

@ Arkcon,

Capsules are typically gelatin.  But a plant based polymer, like agar, may also be used.

Hi
_. Thanks for the reply. I thought I had mainly seen things like Cellulose and  Glycerine. But having rechecked I do occasionally see gelatine. ( Mostly  Beef, but occasionally  Vegetable   ) In such a case, would I be correct in saying that rather than as in  the Cellulose and  Glycerine case, i am not dealing with more basic “Stuffs”  , but rather a complete “Food product” such as described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelatin
_. If that is the case would the Nutritional values calculation to be found  here for example, be appropriate:
https://www.google.de/search?q=gelatin&rlz=1C1AFAB_enDE484DE592&oq=gelatin&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0j69i65l2j0l2.2271j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8#cns=1&es_sm=0
https://www.google.de/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=gelatine
_. Or could you advise / or direct me into such Information which is more specific to that version of Gelatin used typically in capsules. The above values I find a bit suspect as they have a high Carbohydrate content, and I am lead to believe that gelatine is mostly Protein?
_. Here for example i have a completely different set of Nutritional values, and a much higher Kcal and Protein content
http://www.naehrwertrechner.de/naehrwerte-details/R468000/Gelatine/
http://www.ernaehrung.de/lebensmittel/de/R468000/Gelatine.php
http://www.ernaehrung.de/lebensmittel/en/R468000/Gelatine.php

Thanks
Alan Elston
Bavaria

[Doc.AElstein]

@ Arkcon and Corribus.
  Firstly thanks both for your Replies. I reply specifically to each (Arkcon above, post #3, Corribus below post #5)  . Just here  regarding:

.. Humans love to categorize things, but there's always a trade off between efficiency and graininess of the endeavor. Things don't always fit into neat boxes, unfortunately, particularly as far as a complex process like metabolism goes.....It doesn't help that it's still not really clear to me what you're trying to do. A clear goal will often inform the way you categorize things.

. I fully agree, you make vary good points and Thankyou for your comments, Corribus. - I apologise for not being clearer. – I tried to strike a compromise between a Wall of text and giving enough background info in both my introductory thread
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=8548.msg303890#msg303890
and my last thread which was similar in nature:
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=83858.msg303927#msg303927

_. I will try again to give the minimum to explain. My wife always had weight problems. We sort the best advice, the result as often, just being a cumulative “Jo Jo” effect resulting in a reduced Kcal to maintain a steady weight. The best results to date were when I alone controlled very carefully exactly what my Wife consumed, observed the average weight, and adjusted experimentally. Unfortunately we tried again with one of the best experts money could buy. The result is that my Wife will/ has gained weight at a low Kcal that all experts regard as total impossible. Unfortunately it is a fact I must live with and try alone to bring back into order.
_. Even noting the above, I appreciate that some things may be going into a bit too much detail. I simply in desperation want to reduce as much of the uncertainties as possible. It will be necessary for the next diet of my wife to consume virtually nothing. So I wish to have as much detail as possible of the small amount that she confirms. I have heard all the advice there is from Nutrition experts ( Doctors included ), but unfortunately following completely all their advice over very long periods has got us the problem we now have.
_. So a I am trying to get some extra factual help, in particular on very detailed Kcal calculations. In addition the total daily consumption of the various Supplements i wish to keep an eye on so as to avoid too much ( at least for the cases when that maximum Daily amount  appears to be known!! )

_. So the “Goal” is the best control of daily intake. Current software is totally unsatisfactory for my requirement. I am developing a daily Protokol ( In an Excel File ). I am doing my best to keep it to the minimum, which is appearing more and more difficult. But my further “Goal” is to Improve / keep my wife’s health. I see no other way just now!.
Alan

[Doc.AElstein]

@ Corribus

Cellulose is a carbohydrate but ..
Glycerine (glycerol) is not a fat, although it does tend ...).

  It is always extremely useful when someone who knows confirms or rather clarifies some of the vague ideas I was / am having as a result of reading many Organic Chemistry books..
  All of what you have said is very helpful in confirming the “sort” of “stuff” I thought I was dealing with. I probably am unqualified to look at too much more detail there... I am wondering if i may have got confused with Glycerine being used somewhere else in the ingredients ( Possibly as a Release agent and as it is “smeared” on the capsule this could of been why i was getting the idea that it was “part” of the capsule material – in a way it is as it is “stuck” to it )
Some questions:

_1) How does that/ this sound?. - My capsule, if of the Cellulose type, will principally be Cellulose. Any Glycerine is added, or rather smeared on to it. ( I remember once a manufacturer of an Omega 3 Pill appeared to be including this smeared materiel in their total “Fat” or Oil content, but  it was very difficult to get confirmation of this **** )

_2 a) If the capsule material is cellulose then a bit of gooling tells me that it is actually working as a Fibre, ( just as you have very clearly explained – thanks ) and that it being strictly called Hydroxypropylmethylcellulose.  I know that often there is some discussion of how one calculates Kcal from such substances. I know that recently the German Government changed certain rules on how such Fibre calculations must be done, such that many Nutrition Supplements Companies and indeed many Normal food suppliers seem to have removed completely Fibre from their given Nutritional values!!### This of course for me as a layman makes it even more difficult for me to get some clarity!! This could all be again well explained by your comments, - the point about the digestibility!!...etc.
_ . So if for now  I assume that  my Capsule when of the cellulose type is this material, can anyone tell me what the current accepted calculation of Kcal from that would be?

_ . Maybe it would help here to give a current working example. This product was one where I have been untypically been able to get a good listing of constitute parts. I also have the macro Nutrition values. The manufacturer is reluctant to give me more help. But if someone here could make an educated guess on how the Kcal, for example, is calculated, this could help me further with products to which I am typically given less information.
_ So the product is a tasteless L-Carnitin Capsule. ( Inside the capsule is a dry powder ).  Taking the complete product, I believe the breakdown, per 100g of complete Product including capsule is

Given:
Kcal _____________21
Fat_______________2.3
Protein ___________0
Carbohydrate ______0
Fibre ____________?###

L-Carnitin-Tartrat __________________85.58  ( L-Carnitin__58.14 )
Capsule ( Cellulose ( Hypromellose ) )___1.62 11.62 (modified on author request AWK)
Releasing Agent ( Magnesiumstearat ) ___2.27
Kieselsäure (Silicic acid ) ______________0.52

So
_2a) ( i ) How does the Kcal calculation come ( Just 2.3 x 9.1 - based on Fat? - i thought Carnitine was a protein ( peptine? ) sort? )
_2a) ( ii ) Any stabs at the Fibre content... maybe that comes into _2a)(i)

  I have tried getting such info from manufacturers but they are always reluctant to give out such exact ( often propriety **** ) info. ). As I am working privately and only require some approximate answers , I was thinking possibly some experts in the organic Chemistry area could help give me some approximate values.

Thanks once again
Alan Elston
Bavaria

[Corribus]

The general rule of thumb I always learned is (digestible) carbohydrates, proteins, and fats have caloric values of 4 kcal, 4 kcal, and 9 kcal per gram ingested. This is probably sufficient to give you a rough caloric intake in your diet, as most of the mass bulk of a meal falls into one of these categories. When you get down to it, though, there are almost certainly both extrinsic and intrinsic variations in the true caloric value of different ingredients, even those that fall within one of these three very general categories. Plus, as I said, you need to be cognizant of things like: cellulose and other indigestible plant fibers are technically carbohydrates, but if we don't have the enzymes to digest them, they pass right through and don't contribute to the energy equation. Also, differences in physiology from person to person, or even for a single person at different times or disease states, can make the effective calorie content of a meal differ considerably... at least I would expect it to be so. There are certainly substances you ingest that are neither (digestible) carbohydrates, proteins, or fats. Many vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, and so forth would certainly qualify, but by weight they take up only a small portion of what you ingest on a daily basis that they probably contribute very little to your energy intake. And even if you consume lots of them, many chemicals simply have no effective food energy because they are not metablised by the body as such. I'd say aside from the three categories above, the only others you may need to worry about are alcohol (in the even you imbibe) and organic acids, like vinegar, which do have food energy.

Maybe you find this article useful as a starting point to understand these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_energy

[Intanjir]

10% of the carnitine capsule is unaccounted for.
The stearic acid in the magnesium stearate is a fatty acid and will be utilized for calories.
It seems that the manufacturer is just using the weight of magnesium stearate as the fat content.

Tartaric acid has caloric value. Perhaps around 3kcal/g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_energy

Hypromellose and other modified celluloses should have very little caloric value for us non-ruminants.
Carnitine is not normally thought of as something used for energy.

[Doc.AElstein]

@ Corribus
Hi,
Thanks for coming back again with the extra info, and the advice. I do appreciate it, and yes I  do perhaps need to concentrate on the main energy giving “Stuffs” to get the caloric intake in the diet. ( I tend to use manufacturers given nutrition values where possible for the main Kcal, rather than the 4 kcal, 4 kcal, and 9 kcal per gram which i have a very basic understanding of from reading up on Biology and Nutrition. ). I hesitate to say what kcal at which my Wife can easily gain weight, as that is where the actual facts defy all the known Science as yet, and you can only believe it when you daily experience it as i do. But suffice to say it borders on the point when a few Kcals of the Nutritional supplements can begin in total to play a role, (admittedly still fairly small ). So as i said i try to keep the unknowns to a minimum,
_.....

. as I said, you need to be cognizant of things like: cellulose and other indigestible plant fibers are technically carbohydrates, but if we don't have the enzymes to digest them, they pass right through and don't contribute to the energy equation. .

Cellulose is a carbohydrate but carbohydrates are not created equally. ... Some people call it dietary fiber. .

This makes it particularly difficult for me. Clearly you are explaining in a way how the controversy arises ( at least here in Germany ) as to how to calculate Kcal from things that might be considered either Carb or Fiber. I have seen products of similar type with similar Ingredients and similar ( high ) Fibre values given, but with different final Kcal. So here again we see this grey area. And as I mentioned there is a growing tendency now for manufacturers to leave out their Fibre content in their given Nutrition values. I have tried in vain to get straight answers from manufactures as to their Kcal from Fibre calculations.
_..

. the only others you may need to worry about are alcohol (in the event you imbibe) and organic acids, like vinegar, .

The health aspects aside, I ( or rather my Wife and I ) seem to find the occasional imbibe agreeable, and we do it... in moderation. And I have alcohol in my Protocol. A couple of small question here,
_a)  when a beverage is given as say 5% alcohol, is that telling me that my g/100g is equal to that value and then would be considered as Kcal = g x 7.
_b) Often instead of Sugar some “Low sugar” or “zero sugar” Products have “mehrwertige Alkohole” ( i think English Poly alcohols ). Is this similarly considered Kcal = g x 7
_c) I am still slightly unclear about Glycerine (glycerol). -  I understand i think all that You have said there and have an understanding of the place of it . Your  “carrying” of the fats is a nice way of understanding that, thanks. I also have it in several places in my protocol, both tacked on at the end of Fats, where it is often listed, and later deep down in the “Mehrwertiger Alkohole/Polyole” “Triole” section. Sounds like this could also be a grey area also ?, sometimes considered as a “pseudo” fat , other times as a alcohol
_..

..
Maybe you find this article useful as a starting point to understand ...

I think i am already approximately at the level of that article in my understanding. But thanks for the link, i will revise it again. ( As i mentioned the facts of my Wife’s metabolism are way outside any figures given there, even allowing for all known or accepted differences in physiology from person to person. At the time that she was most Healthy and active, slimmer and participating in much Sport, her Kcal intake was at such a small level that all Doctors were 100% sure she should have been a long time dead from starvation. !! Unfortunately taking their advice a last time has resulted in it being almost impossible for her now to eat without gaining weight!!
_.....
Thanks once again for your further input.
Alan Elston.

[Doc.AElstein]

@ Intanjir
Hi Intanjir
Thanks very much for the info.
_1)

10% of the carnitine capsule is unaccounted for..

Apologise. I have a typo. It should be
 85.6 + 11.6 + 2.27 + .52.  = 99.99
 I really should have seen that, Sorry.

11.6 g / 100g is typical for the capsule, (  I think ), so possible the “Cellulose” or “cellulose and smeared on glycerine” combination.

Based on that could you reconsider your answer. Very sorry for the confusion there.
_...
_2)

..
The stearic acid in the magnesium stearate is a fatty acid and will be utilized for calories.
It seems that the manufacturer is just using the weight of magnesium stearate as the fat content..

_2a) Is this approximately then in agreement with my 2.3 x 9.1 = 21Kcal, or 2,27 x ___ =21Kcal guess?
_2b) I have all the usually Fatty Acids Listed in my Protocol. Would it be “Tidy” for me to list magnesium stearate alongside those? If so any particular one that it might be best placed “beside”
_...
_3)

...
Tartaric acid has caloric value. Perhaps around 3kcal/g..

I am slightly unclear as to what you are refering to here with Tartaric acid is. Is this something to do with the Carnitine, or rather L-Carnitin-Tartrat   ( as its name suggests ) ?. Are you suggesting then that the manufacturer may be in error and should be applying am extra term in the energy equation of
3 x  85.6
Or
3 x 58.14
_...

.
Hypromellose and other modified celluloses should have very little caloric value for us non-ruminants..

That is all tying up nicely with Corribus’s comments, thanks.

Thanks once again for the reply
Alan

[Intanjir]

2a) Yes I think that is what they are doing 2.27 is close enough to 2.3 and then they are just multiplying by 9 or whatever number they standardly use for fat.
2b) Magnesium stearate is just stearic acid with a small amount of magnesium (small by weight). The absolute tidiest thing to do is to place it with stearic and subtract out the weight of the magnesium from it. To a first approximation for nutritional purposes it is just mixture and not a new thing in itself. Most soluble ionic compounds should be like this.

3) Carnitine Tartrate is just a mixture of carnitine and tartaric acid. So you would get the weight of tartarate by subtracting the weight of carnitine from the weight of the mixture. I don't really know how many kcalories are in a gram of tartarate but using the generic value of 3 for organic acids seems fine.

The manufacturer has made no official mistake. These labels are not thorough attempts at giving the full caloric content, they are bureaucratic flow charts that try not to be too complicated and still generally give reasonable rough estimates. Contributions from non-fatty organic acids are probably generally deemed as unnecessary complication.

There may be a few places where extra calories can sneak in. Corribus already mentioned organic acids and ethanol. Some people have intestinal flora that are remarkably good at turning fermentable fiber into organic acids for the host. This can be a good thing if it improves satiation. Wiki lists 2kcal/g for such fiber as the standard estimate, and while this might vary a bit depending on the bacteria it still must stay below 4kcal/g. Non-fermentable fiber like cellulose is thought to provide no calories for us as it takes a complicated digestive system adapted to the task.

Can I ask why carnitine?

[Doc.AElstein]

Hi Intanjir,

 Thanks very much for the detailed answer. It is very helpful to get confirmation in things I otherwise can only get a vague idea about: Up until now i have mostly contacted manufacturers who, understandably, are often reluctant to divulge too much about their products. ***

..
The manufacturer has made no official mistake. These labels are not thorough attempts at giving the full caloric content, they are bureaucratic flow charts that try not to be too complicated and still generally give reasonable rough estimates. .

*** Now that you mention that, I do remember once a manufacturer explaining the discrepancy in his given Sodium, Potassium  and Salt ( NaCl ) values as down to the official way he was obliged to calculate these values. So again it is helpful to get another voice on such things, thanks!

_....

 _.  Also your advice of where to “list” magnesium stearate was helpful -  I have Stearic acid (Stearinsäure) in my list.
I am not a chemist , but I guess I should be able to see from the structure of  magnesium stearate how to work out the magnesium portion, - but as you suggest the small amount is lost in the tiny discrepancy in the Kcal from Fat calculation anyway
 I appreciate that this all seems a bit pedantic especially from a laymen like me, but I am just trying to get some order in what is really a massive jungle of “Things” I am having to consider. Every little bit helps to minimise the chaos!!
 _.. I also have tartaric acid ( L-weinsäure for example) in my list,  but it is way down away from the main acids in an obscure   hydroxyl carbonic acid  (Hydroxcarbonsäuren) section:  ( Line 2310..-  i am not sure if you caught my attempt at a simplified transposed text listing of my “ all encompassing” list of “Things” that one might consume! -
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=83858.msg304041#msg304041
_ ... my actual Excel File is only mildly easier to follow,!!!! )
_...

. Carnitine Tartrate is just a mixture of carnitine and tartaric acid. So you would get the weight of tartarate by subtracting the weight of carnitine from the weight of the mixture. I don't really know how many kcalories are in a gram of tartarate but using the generic value of 3 for organic acids seems fine. .
There may be a few places where extra calories can sneak in. .

_. Based on your comments and given that I have so much L carnitine in the product I used as an example, maybe I need to try to  up the Kcal I use for it – I am seeing some values just now by “googling” of Kcal around 100 for some “pure” L Carnitin products. Here, one example:
http://www.hansa-xsport.de/shop/HansaXsport/L-Carnitin-und-Sonstige/L-Carnitin-Pur-100::42.html
and very interestingly here they have
 Organische Säuren  32 g (  L-Carnitin 68g ( L-Carnitin-Tartrat 100g ))   Kcal  96  ( No Fat! ). So maybe i can use that to estimate an extra “organic acid” x 3 contribution from my actual product. Your reply helped me to point me in the direction to find this. Thanks again. I shall try to do some detailed calculations there...
_..

.
Can I ask why carnitine?

The L-carnintin product is  just one of many I am trying to consider. It is one in the jungle of Nutritional Supplements that may ( or may not! ) help in encouraging weight loss. The reason why i included the particular product example here was that, as i mentioned in post #5, I had very untypically a full Ingredients listing on its label with relative % values of all “Things” in it. I expect this may have been an error by the manufacture.  The label has now change to show the ingredients just listed in order, “biggest” at the top, but with no specific relative quantity, which is much more usual!.

The more of such detailed info i have, the better i am able to “guess” missing info for other similar products.

Thanks once again for your helpful contribution
Alan Elston

[Intanjir]

Your list is very ambitious.
I'm not sure if that text file version is representative of the whole spreadsheet but if so you are missing some relatively important things.
You are missing the essential nutrient choline.
You are missing some prominent non-essential nutrients.
Lutein, zeaxanthin are carotenoids that are important for the macula of the eye.
Taurine and creatine both have transporters to aid in their absorption.
You have beta-alanine but not its two main dietary sources, carnosine and anserine.

[Doc.AElstein]

Hi Intanjir
Thanks once more for coming back here. I have been a bit bogged down trying to get the Magnesium and stearate from magnesium in magnesium stearate, and the Tartrat from Carnitin-Tartrat  etc..   I am still looking at that,.
And I am still a bit confused as to why i originally came to list the various Carnitin “Things” with Proteins. I seem to remember sometime somehow being sure they were protein “like” , but our discussions here are leading me to think they should be listed somewhere near fat Things ??
_ -The Chemi stuff is a bit much for me, I have worked out these things before for similar simpler stuff like NaCa to get the .39336067 etc... but cannot seem to find my notes so am having to start again....I guess i could start a new Thread , but I try to do it myself before pestering anyone...
_...
Anyway to reply a bit to your last Reply, Thanks again for that..

Your list is very ambitious.
I'm not sure if that text file version is representative of the whole spreadsheet .

i agree! - My list is both ambitious and unfortunately very messy. I like to understand as much as i can, seeing where things are coming from and at the same time still trying to keep it practical to actually use. That is proving more and more difficult.

Another complication is me living in Germany. So English and German names can sometimes be different. One thing that a bit of help is that I have very quickly tried to learn some programming, to help me put data from different sources into my list. Occasionally this save a great deal of time. To assist this I have 20 possible heading rows for each “Thing” Column. ( This allows the computer program to check different Spellings when searching automatically to find matching headings and then inserting a great deal of data from different sources )-  That is  correspondingly the 20 spaces between the   |   |  rows in my attempted simplified Transposed Text file which I produced for the Chemi Forum Post using a quickly written program )
 It is a shame I cannot easily show my main protocol File. It is a little clearer, along with a  very detailed Table where I have my many grouping ideas summarised. I did attempt an Image screen shot of that table as well as a very small part of my actual Protokol in use which extends in the practice to over 3482 Columns ( corresponding to the 3482 lines in the Transposed header List) which I put in the Sandbox Thread:
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=64128.msg303901#msg303901
I  made this Text File after Borek deleted all my posts including those with links to the actual Excel Files. He was quite right to do that, to protect the Forum from what at first site must have appeared a massive and  very suspicious lot of stuff. And I  am also keen not to “scare” people too much at the sight of it. I can currently use my protocol effectively, but it is not too obvious to understand for someone seeing it for the first time. Borek indicated he may allow me to upload the Files at some later date....

...
You are missing the essential nutrient choline.
You are missing some prominent non-essential nutrients.
Lutein, zeaxanthin are carotenoids that are important for the macula of the eye.
Taurine and creatine both have transporters to aid in their absorption....
...I'm not sure if that text file version is representative of the whole spreadsheet .

I am very grateful you took time to look at what is a very difficult to see list. The Text File is not at all clear to follow, and the Excel File just mildly better. I confess I sometime have to use the Excel Find / Search facility to find things I have myself listed sometimes. ( some versions of simple text documents have such a search thing as well I think ? ) Most of the things you mention are there:
_ - Cholin type “things” I have listed  around columns ( rows in transposed headings ) 490 – 494
_ - carotenoids start around Line ( Column in my actual protocol ) 1706...
_ ... Lutein + zeaxanthin I have together currently as the occasional manufacturer info I have on that is given for this total Lutein + zeaxanthin ( Line 1708 )
I do apologise that the text list is difficult to follow. Here a screenshot of an actual excel File just for interest of around this “cartenoids” area.. http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=64128.msg304367#msg304367


_  Taurin is way up ( or to the left ) with amino acids Listed ( Line 214 ), creatine also i have in a non essential amino acids section  ( line 258 )
_ ...

.
You have beta-alanine but not its two main dietary sources, carnosine and anserine.

_ carnosine and anserine are new to me. I did not leave much space around Alanin. Alanin was just one of the Amino acids to me, and I frequently take Alanin into my Protocol figures given for Alanin along with all the other amino acids. These are listed fairly high up ( or to the left). Interestingly when i look much much  further down ( or to the right ) I have a more detailed  section based on the Functional Group Containing Nitrogen ( starting at Line 3362 (beta-alanin at 3386 ) ). Here most amino Acids are written again, but interestingly Alanin is not there, but beta-alanin is. So maybe carnosine and anserine belong there. But I have listed ( for some reason that escapes me now! ) in that same Heading Column ( Transposed row |  |  ) Asparaginsäure (  Aspartic acid ).
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=64128.msg304368#msg304368
I wonder if i have got something mixed up there. Again I must research now a bit more into those two!!


Thanks again for your replies.

Alan Elston.

[Intanjir]

Ahh, I see, I was just using a text find on the text file and for some reason it wasn't finding those things.

'Alanine' is alpha-alanine and not particularly related to carnosine and anserine.

Carnitine is not particularly protein-like. It is made from amino acids but they are not simply combined in the standard way for making a peptide.
Functionally it somewhat resembles glycerine in that it is a place for fatty acids to be attached. Fatty acids are attached to glycerine for storage and to carnitine for transport across mitochindria.

So it makes sense to list carnitine near lipids, but it is not a lipid on its own.