fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chat,
> that's good that you're still thinking....
>
> are you thinking about how
> unbalanced meat is with regard to aminos?
>
> have you had a conversation with the veg animals?
> are they protein paranoid?

Thanks! Now, i'm not thinking about meat generally because I don't eat it. Regarding whether I had any conversations with the veg animals, erm.... I am not a gorilla, so that would be no.

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey powerlifer,
>
> Yes, the volume needed to get the same amount of
> Calories is noteworthy, but when we apply the FOUR
> TIMES Factor relative to Protein, now we only have
> to Eat 25 Calories of Greens to get the same
> amount of Protein that’s in 100 Calories of Dead
> Flesh. And I realize 1 Head of Lettuce sounds
> like a lot for those who don’t Eat very many
> Greens, but I have no problem Eating as much as 3
> Heads of Lettuce in one setting and I would rather
> Eat a HUGE Bowl of Lettuce any day than a Handful
> of Dead Flesh.
>
> Peace and Love..........John

Hey John,

I am the same i have no problem eating large amounts of plant foods and prefer too from a nutritional point of view. Although im sure the majority don't share our enthusiam when it comes to plant foods as even trying to get half my friends to eat a salad is near impossible, most of these people would prefer to consume a little animal foods, the way they see it is more convient and less effort.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 05:56PM by powerlifer.

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Chat,
>
> Yes, we do have consume all of our Essential Amino
> Acids, but not all at the same time, which is what
> many others have tried to explain to you.
> Whenever anyone mentions the phrase “Complete
> Proteins,” most people automatically think about
> the book, Diet for a Small Planet as Tam pointed
> out in a previous post.

Hey John Rose,

Sorry as you seem to be an interesting poster, but you didn't read this thread very carefully I'm afraid. At no point I have suggested that we need to consume "all of our Essential Amino Acids at the same time". Which is what "many" others failed to notice as well



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 05:51PM by chat.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >That most vegan sources of protein are either
> incomplete or imbalanced, by contrast to
> non-vegetarian sources of protein, is not a myth,
> it is a documented fact.
>
> meaningless.
>
> Show me a DIET that YOU are going to EAT that is
> insufficient in protein.

It is not meaningless, you are just not getting it. See, above I talk about individual *sources* of protein. Whereas you talk about *diets* involving protein. Completely different things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 05:54PM by chat.

a diet containing your "good to go" meat
is high in some things and low in others

is it meaningful to talk about food source=meat as being high in protein and low in vitamin C?

it's meaningless to talk in a non wholistic way

[www.jotform.us]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 06:07PM by fresh.

chat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John Rose Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey Chat,
> >
> > Yes, we do have consume all of our Essential
> Amino
> > Acids, but not all at the same time, which is
> what
> > many others have tried to explain to you.
> > Whenever anyone mentions the phrase “Complete
> > Proteins,” most people automatically think
> about
> > the book, Diet for a Small Planet as Tam
> pointed
> > out in a previous post.
>
> Hey John Rose,
>
> Sorry as you seem to be an interesting poster, but
> you didn't read this thread very carefully I'm
> afraid. At no point I have suggested that we need
> to consume "all of our Essential Amino Acids at
> the same time". Which is what "many" others failed
> to notice as well

because "Time" has not been defined by you, even though you have posited
the FACT of protein insufficiency in plant foods.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> because "Time" has not been defined by you, even
> though you have posited
> the FACT of protein insufficiency in plant foods.

Yep, but I equally did not claim to post anything and everything on the subject whenever I chose to comment. As far as I remember this wasn't in the user agreement

Now since you already asked my opinion regarding the "Time" (several posts ago), I take it you are satisfied?

<<<Sorry as you seem to be an interesting poster, but you didn't read this thread very carefully I'm afraid. At no point I have suggested that we need to consume "all of our Essential Amino Acids at the same time". Which is what "many" others failed to notice as well >>>

Hey Chat,

Based on the way so many people have responded over the last decade on this Message Board, I think I might be one of the few people who not only read threads very carefully, but I also think I’m one of the few who even go as far as analyzing what others have to say and what their true intentions are, so I can sure understand why you might accuse me of not reading this thread very carefully.

However, if you go back and not just read, but also analyze what I said, I was very clear as to point out that “Whenever anyone mentions the phrase “Complete Proteins,” most people automatically think about the book, Diet for a Small Planet…” - key words here are “most people” and obviously, you aren’t referring to this meaning of the phrase “Complete Proteins” and then, immediately followed that up by addressing the point that you have been trying to make and that is that a Plant Based Diet Lacks Complete Proteins by saying “most Plants, including many Fruits, are “Complete Proteins”!

Peace and Love..........John


PS Thanks for your kinds words.

If you don't mean complete protein as in one single food that is a complete protein on it's own, may I suggest using another term to avoid confusion? That IS what is commonly thought of upon hearing "complete protein" after all.
Miscommunication, easily avoided.

>
> Yep, but I equally did not claim to post anything
> and everything on the subject whenever I chose to
> comment. As far as I remember this wasn't in the
> user agreement
>
> Now since you already asked my opinion regarding
> the "Time" (several posts ago), I take it you are
> satisfied?


my point is you can not accurately assert a "fact"
about proteins and plant foods
without some other necessary information that impacts
its relevance.

ignoring the deficiencies of meat is not engaging in a balanced discussion either.

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Chat,
>
> Based on the way so many people have responded
> over the last decade on this Message Board, I
> think I might be one of the few people who not
> only read threads very carefully, but I also think
> I’m one of the few who even go as far as
> analyzing what others have to say and what their
> true intentions are, so I can sure understand why
> you might accuse me of not reading this thread
> very carefully.
>
> However, if you go back and not just read, but
> also analyze what I said, I was very clear as to
> point out that “Whenever anyone mentions the
> phrase “Complete Proteins,” most people
> automatically think about the book, Diet for a
> Small Planet…” - key words here are “most
> people” and obviously, you aren’t referring to
> this meaning of the phrase “Complete Proteins”
> and then, immediately followed that up by
> addressing the point that you have been trying to
> make and that is that a Plant Based Diet Lacks
> Complete Proteins by saying “most Plants,
> including many Fruits, are “Complete
> Proteins”!

Sorry John but I really don't know about "most people" and especially the fact that whenever someone says the phrase "complete protein", they are thinking about the book you quote.


My accusation that you didn't read this thread very carefully came from your comment that

> Yes, we do have consume all of our Essential Amino
> Acids, but not all at the same time, which is what
> many others have tried to explain to you.

I maybe completely misreading it, and if so my sincere apologies, but it sounded as if you think I support "take the complete/balanced protein at once" thesis, despite the fact that many others have "tried" to explain me otherwise.


Hence was my reply, I do not support this thesis and all my preceding posts in this thread show this.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> my point is you can not accurately assert a
> "fact"
> about proteins and plant foods
> without some other necessary information that
> impacts
> its relevance.
>
> ignoring the deficiencies of meat is not engaging
> in a balanced discussion either.


Yes I can. The fact that most plant sources of protein are either incomplete or imbalanced as compared to animal sources of protein, refers solely to nature and amount of essential amino acids in the said sources. As such, this fact is perfectly accurate on its own.

And this discussion is about protein and not about meat, that is why I do not want to engage in discussing the latter. Not everyone is so sensitive about the subject as you are, after all, we are all different.

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you don't mean complete protein as in one
> single food that is a complete protein on it's
> own, may I suggest using another term to avoid
> confusion? That IS what is commonly thought of
> upon hearing "complete protein" after all.
> Miscommunication, easily avoided.


I don't really know another term for complete/balanced protein, it means all essential amino acids in optimal proportions, and this is the term it seems currently employed in scientific journals and even general articles about protein such as those in wikipedia.

Hence I used it (and also as I was referring to the wiki article it kind of made sense to use it). What would be another term? Would it not bring any more confusion, making up terms as we go?

>The fact that most plant sources of protein are either incomplete or imbalanced as compared to animal sources of protein, refers solely to nature and amount of essential amino acids in the said sources. As such, this fact is perfectly accurate on its own.


your statement is false.

and "most" doesn't mean anything.

i checked bananas and they are sufficient.

what have you checked?

until you take a survey and show some real data, your statement is not true
and is simply based on a reference to a study that makes an assertion.
show the Data.

I assert that the following is true

"most meat sources of protein are either incomplete or excessive or imbalanced as compared to plant sources of protein


>And this discussion is about protein and not about meat, that is why I do not want to engage in discussing the latter. Not everyone is so sensitive about the subject as you are, after all, we are all different.

you brought up meat, not me.
i'm not sensitive.
i'm countering your invalid biases.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 06:38PM by fresh.

Hemp seeds, spinach and sweetcorn combined should provide all amino acids needed (forgot where I read that now sorry). I've never eaten sweetcorn raw though, is it ok to do that? :-)

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> your statement is false.
> and is simply based on a reference to a study that
> makes an assertion.
> show the Data.

My statement is not false, and had you taken the trouble to actually open and read the referenced studies, you would have found many of the Data you currently request. Just because it is only one journal article does not mean it makes its conclusions on the basis of a mere assertion.



fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I assert that the following is true
>
> "most meat sources of protein are either
> incomplete or excessive or imbalanced as compared
> to plant sources of protein

Very interesting, and you've asserted it before already, so where is your source again?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 06:42PM by chat.

<<<Sorry John but I really don't know about "most people" and especially the fact that whenever someone says the phrase "complete protein", they are thinking about the book you quote.>>>

Hey Chat,

Almost every decent book on Nutrition almost always has a Section or even a whole Chapter on the Protein Myth and the issue of “Complete Proteins” are almost always discussed.

<<<I maybe completely misreading it, and if so my sincere apologies, but it sounded as if you think I support "take the complete/balanced protein at once" thesis, despite the fact that many others have "tried" to explain me otherwise.>>>

I can sure understand why you came to this conclusion, but I was only pointing out why others were misunderstanding your meaning of what a “Complete Protein” is and why so many people addressed this issue.

Coco’s comment reminds me of something Kahlil Gibran once said, “We shall never understand one another until we reduce the language to seven words.”

Peace and Love..........John

PS Here’s a reminder for all of us to help us through the day…

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.” -Philo of Alexandria

>Very interesting, and you've asserted it before already, so where is your source again?

usda nutrient database?

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> <<>>
>
> Hey Chat,
>
> Almost every decent book on Nutrition almost
> always has a Section or even a whole Chapter on
> the Protein Myth and the issue of “Complete
> Proteins” are almost always discussed.


Oh yes, and I was perfectly aware of the Myth and how well-known this fact is, this is why I didn't feel the need to mention it in my original post! Especially that the wikipedia articles which I suggested as a good general info is very clear on this point too.




> I can sure understand why you came to this
> conclusion, but I was only pointing out why others
> were misunderstanding your meaning of what a
> “Complete Protein” is and why so many people
> addressed this issue.


Well, but the misunderstanding issue has been discussed in the thread before you posted, and it was cleared when I pointed to my reply to Powelifer where I explicitly agreed with him, that "complete/balanced protein in one go" is a myth. And then you came and posted it again, and this is why I felt you haven't read the thread carefully.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> usda nutrient database?


Strange, it doesn't show anything of the kind you asserted! In fact, it supports the conclusion of the studies I referenced.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 07:01PM by chat.

chat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > usda nutrient database?
>
>
> Strange, it doesn't show anything of the kind you
> asserted! In fact, it supports the conclusion of
> the studies I referenced.

I don't know how you would come to that conclusion - so quickly too!
show me what you are referring to.


I just read the study you referenced.
All it said, from what i can tell, is that amino acids are lower in plant foods as compared to meat

"As shown, the indispensable amino acid lysine is consistently at a
much lower concentration in all major plant-food protein groups
than in animal foods. In addition, the sulfur-containing amino
acids are distinctly lower in legumes and fruits and threonine is
lower in cereals compared with amounts found in proteins of
animal origin. A more extensive survey of the limiting amino
acid and the amino acid score for various plant protein food"

And what does LOWER have to do with whether a food is ADEQUATE or not?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 07:05PM by fresh.

too much protein damages the kidneys & bones.

[www.nealhendrickson.com]

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't know how you would come to that conclusion
> - so quickly too!
> show me what you are referring to.

Well, I sort of knew about usda database before you came and told about it, so i had the chance to check it in advance



> I just read the study you referenced.
> All it said, from what i can tell, is that amino
> acids are lower in plant foods as compared to
> meat
>
> "As shown, the indispensable amino acid lysine is
> consistently at a
> much lower concentration in all major plant-food
> protein groups
> than in animal foods. In addition, the
> sulfur-containing amino
> acids are distinctly lower in legumes and fruits
> and threonine is
> lower in cereals compared with amounts found in
> proteins of
> animal origin. A more extensive survey of the
> limiting amino
> acid and the amino acid score for various plant
> protein food"
>
> And what does LOWER have to do with whether a food
> is ADEQUATE or not?


It has to do with biological value of the protein source - here's an ok starting point to read, with references: [en.wikipedia.org]. It has nothing to do with whether plant sources of food as such are adequate or not, only regarding their protein content as compared to animal sources.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 07:31PM by chat.

>Well, I sort of knew about usda database before you came and told about it, so i had the chance to check it in advance

still haven't shown what you are referring in the usda database to that disputes my assertions that meat is too high in amino acids, and unbalanced.


>It has to do with biological value of the protein source - here's an ok starting point to read, with references: [en.wikipedia.org]

you are avoiding my question.

I am specifically asking YOU what Lower has to do with adequate, as that was all i could find in the study.

You submitted the study

I see nothing in the study supporting your statements implicating plants as inferior and requiring careful combinations.

unless you can show me something i missed which i would be glad to see.

I just read wikipedia reference.
I also see nothing in there that supports your position that you have put forth.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> still haven't shown what you are referring in the
> usda database to that disputes my assertions that
> meat is too high in amino acids, and unbalanced.


Erm, I am referring to the nutrient tables of various foods, in particular the amount and proportions of essential amino acids contained in those various foods? What else did you think I was referring to in usdadatabase?



fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you are avoiding my question.
>
> I am specifically asking YOU what Lower has to do
> with adequate, as that was all i could find in the
> study.
>
> You submitted the study
>
> I see nothing in the study supporting your
> statements implicating plants as inferior and
> requiring careful combinations.
>
> unless you can show me something i missed which i
> would be glad to see.


I am not avoiding anything. Just because you see nothing in the study does not mean that I have to chew it for you and put it in your mouth. Really and honestly I have better things to do The study in question contains 50 supporting references, perhaps this is something you have missed?


Whatever's the case, the cards (=references) are on the table. And this means that other people reading this thread will be able to consult them and make up their mind. And this is what forums are really for, helping other people, isn't it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 07:46PM by chat.

Chat,

Below was your original response to the OPs post. I'm bolding the specific assertion that I think is in question

"Re: Protein
Posted by: chat ()
Date: June 02, 2012 03:20AM


Most important thing about protein is that it must be complete and balanced, which means you need to be getting all essential amino acids in balanced proportion.

This is the problem for vegans because there are very few foods which are the source of complete protein, most of the time you have to combine different foods in order to get all amino acids in right proportions. By contrast non-vegans can just eat a piece of meat and they are good to go.

You haven't produced any data to support your contention. I can eat enough unbalanced protein to meet protein needs and be fine. You have stipulated as much claiming it isn't optimal but still possible. So, your argument has changed from your original position. You do not need to combine and moreover you don't even need to vary your diet to get enough protein provided you get enough calories. Raw vegans do just fine whether on 8-1-1 or a varied diet without the added risks of animal protein such as HCAs, PAHs, mercury, PCBs and just animal protein itself which creates more problems than it solves. Raw vegans escape the trap and the myth.

Paul

chat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> Erm, I am referring to the nutrient tables of
> various foods, in particular the amount and
> proportions of essential amino acids contained in
> those various foods? What else did you think I was
> referring to in usdadatabase?
>
>

something more specific might help.

i reviewed a sample meat based diet and found some aminos too high.

not sure what it is you're saying supports your position.



>
>
> I am not avoiding anything. Just because you see
> nothing in the study does not mean that I have to
> chew it for you and put it in your mouth. Really
> and honestly I have better things to do

FAIL.
you came here and submitted various FACTS.
I read the study and ask a simple question.
you cannot answer it.

i am not trying to hassle you.
i think it wrong when people make unsupported or irrelevant statements
and then when challenged, saying they have no time, or are unable
to provide some support for their slam dunk Reference, that is Relevant.


The
> study in question contains 50 supporting
> references, perhaps this is something you have
> missed?

The study, once again, unless you want to show me,
says nothing that supports your assertions here.

neither does your wiki reference.

do you want me to go through 50 subreferences and refute them too?

>
>
> Whatever's the case, the cards (=references) are
> on the table. And this means that other people
> reading this thread will be able to consult them
> and make up their mind. And this is what forums
> are really for, helping other people, isn't it?

as long as you refrain from making Absolutist statements
without proper evidence.

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You haven't produced any data to support your
> contention. I can eat enough unbalanced protein
> to meet protein needs and be fine. You have
> stipulated as much claiming it isn't optimal but
> still possible. So, your argument has changed
> from your original position. You do not need to
> combine and moreover you don't even need to vary
> your diet to get enough protein provided you get
> enough calories. Raw vegans do just fine whether
> on 8-1-1 or a varied diet without the added risks
> of animal protein such as HCAs, PAHs, mercury,
> PCBs and just animal protein itself which creates
> more problems than it solves. Raw vegans escape
> the trap and the myth.


My argument has not changed. I still believe that you do have to combine different sources of plant protein in order to get all essential amino acids in balanced proportions. You do not have to combine then in one meal, and I have never argued so. And I have never advocated consuming protein from animal sources, hence your scares of HCAs, PAHs, mercury are very much beside the point.

To the above extent, I provided references. If you don't agree with those studies, that is perfectly fine. If you would like to supply references to studies made by 8-1-1 people, this is even better. Otherwise, cards are on the table and other people can make their own minds!

>My argument has not changed. I still believe that you do have to combine different sources of plant protein in order to get all essential amino acids in balanced proportions.

you ignore the evidence that is offered to you.
bananas.
perfect proportions.
every essential amino.
i did the math.
you will not believe my math.
you need to do it yourself.

do you suppose they are the only fruit on the planet with perfect proportions of aminos?

[www.jotform.us]

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> something more specific might help.

Well, since you yourself have not been very specific so far, I do not really see where you have the ground requesting the specificity from me.



> FAIL.
> you came here and submitted various FACTS.
> I read the study and ask a simple question.
> you cannot answer it.
>
> i am not trying to hassle you.
> i think it wrong when people make unsupported or
> irrelevant statements
> and then when challenged, saying they have no
> time, or are unable
> to provide some support for their slam dunk
> Reference, that is Relevant.

Or yes you are. And I did answered your question. You are simply being stubborn and pretending not to understand. None of my statements was unsupported. I have provided sources of my suggestions in every post where I made them. Whether they were irrelevant, well, this is for other people to judge. I came here to address the OP question which I believe I did. And if you had a drop of self-respect, you would be the last person to complain that I didn't spend enough time on you.



> The study, once again, unless you want to show
> me,
> says nothing that supports your assertions here.
>
> neither does your wiki reference.
>
> do you want me to go through 50 subreferences and
> refute them too?


I believe it does. As I said, other people can read it and make up your own minds.




> as long as you refrain from making Absolutist
> statements
> without proper evidence.


Thanks for telling me what to do. I've been waiting for someone to do it since morning Take a chill pill mate. This is only the internet