fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?


No I don't. Your own experience of banana eating is little evidence I'm afraid, something more is needed to prove that this is optimal. Now I hope this will not discourage you from eating your bananas and having a great banana day



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 08:21PM by chat.

protein sources are a package, to get the protein, you need to eat the package it is contained in... meaning in the case of meat, all of the saturated fat, antibiotics, cholesterol, heterocyclic amines, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, growth hormone, PCBs, mercury, etc. In your original post you said "by contrast non-vegans just eat a piece of meat and they are good to go"? good to go for what? colon cancer? risk to benefit means nothing if you don't look at the whole food. most raw food vegan sources are whole foods with complete proteins and most raw vegans don't suffer from risking protein deficiency, but many omnivores suffer from colon cancer, heart disease, obesity, diabetes,etc. Wouldn't be prudent to look at the end game before suggesting that just eating animal protein is a better chess move?

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
In your original post you
> said "by contrast non-vegans just eat a piece of
> meat and they are good to go"? good to go for
> what? colon cancer? risk to benefit means
> nothing if you don't look at the whole food. most
> raw food vegan sources are whole foods with
> complete proteins and most raw vegans don't suffer
> from risking protein deficiency, but many
> omnivores suffer from colon cancer, heart disease,
> obesity, diabetes,etc. Wouldn't be prudent to
> look at the end game before suggesting that just
> eating animal protein is a better chess move?


Don't pretend to be a child. "Good to go" was meant to be understood in the context and you know this - or else you should have known this since I had explained it to Fresh couple of pages above. "Good to go" taken in the context means good to go as far as protein is concerned. Its an expression, get it?

And again and again, I have never suggested that eating animal protein is a better chess move overall.

chat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> In your original post you
> > said "by contrast non-vegans just eat a piece
> of
> > meat and they are good to go"? good to go for
> > what? colon cancer? risk to benefit means
> > nothing if you don't look at the whole food.
> most
> > raw food vegan sources are whole foods with
> > complete proteins and most raw vegans don't
> suffer
> > from risking protein deficiency, but many
> > omnivores suffer from colon cancer, heart
> disease,
> > obesity, diabetes,etc. Wouldn't be prudent to
> > look at the end game before suggesting that
> just
> > eating animal protein is a better chess move?


> Don't pretend to be a child. "Good to go" was
> meant to be understood in the context and you know
> this - or else you should have known this since I
> had explained it to Fresh couple of pages above.
> "Good to go" taken in the context means good to go
> as far as protein is concerned. Its an expression,
> get it?

You characterized the argument. Your ad hominem aside, suggesting that all one has to do is eat non-vegan protein and that one is "good to go" is you choice of words, I'm just repeating them back to you.

> And again and again, I have never suggested that
> eating animal protein is a better chess move
> overall.

I will let the reader make his or her own judgment on your post and mine. At a minimum, you did not characterize the risk of the non-vegan when you made your statement. More's the pity. Suggesting that all one has to is become a non-vegan and your protein problems are answered is a bit of a stretch even under the most favorable characterization.

To be specific, you did not characterize the issues with over protein consumption, particularly animal protein consumption. You just said, "oh if you are a non vegan, just eat your animal protein and life is good". That is what "good to go" means. Your words, not mine.

Paul

Eating a varied diet should be one of the most basic simple fundamentals of any healthy diet, which is why restrictive diets tend to come with increased risk of problems.

The average joe isn't interested in eating 6 heads of lettuce when they can consume smaller amounts of more calorie dense foods. As a bodybuilder i take protein seriously but don't over-sell it either, from my experience weight training for years, i find i need around 1g of protein per kg of bodyweight. Most of my main meals will 9 times out of 10 if not 10/10 have a formed complete protein, i don't see why not really if i can compliment a food from a nutritional point of view i in most cases will.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 08:39PM by powerlifer.

<<<Your own experience of banana eating is little evidence I'm afraid, a little more is needed to prove that this is optimal.>>>

Hey Chat,

Fresh’s statement was NOT about his “own experience of banana eating” but was about the actual NUMBERS. I too have done the math long ago and most Plant Foods do have “Complete Proteins.”

The 2 main points that seems to really matter here are:

#1) What are we Biologically Adapted to Eat?
#2) Are we Anatomically Damaged?

As long as we are NOT Anatomically Damaged, our bodies are designed to thrive on a Raw Plant Based Diet. If you decide to include many of the Foods typical Vegans eat, especially Cooked Grains, then you are entering a whole new dimension where we might need to put a little more thought into the Variety of our Food. For Raw Vegans, however, as long as we are eating enough Calories and a couple of pounds of Leafy Greens a day, “Complete Proteins” are a non-issue.

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

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

> I will let the reader make his or her own judgment
> on your post and mine. At a minimum, you did not
> characterize the risk of the non-vegan when you
> made your statement. More's the pity. Suggesting
> that all one has to is become a non-vegan and your
> protein problems are answered is a bit of a
> stretch even under the most favorable
> characterization.

Oh yes, I am sure the reader will make up their mind - if they bother reading this thread at all. And I did not suggest that one has to become a non-vegan, I'm sorry but you are starting to invent things now.


> To be specific, you did not characterize the
> issues with over protein consumption, particularly
> animal protein consumption. You just said, "oh
> if you are a non vegan, just eat your animal
> protein and life is good". That is what "good to
> go" means. Your words, not mine.


No, i did not characterize the issues with over protein consumption. Was there a specific duty on me to do so? I believe not. Hence you comment is pointless. And I did not say "oh if you are a non vegan, just eat your animal protein and life is good". These are not my words, they are yours. Otherwise you are being dishonest.

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Chat,
>
> Fresh’s statement was NOT about his “own
> experience of banana eating” but was about the
> actual NUMBERS. I too have done the math long ago
> and most Plant Foods do have “Complete
> Proteins.”
>
> The 2 main points that seems to really matter here
> are:
>
> #1) What are we Biologically Adapted to Eat?
> #2) Are we Anatomically Damaged?
>
> As long as we are NOT Anatomically Damaged, our
> bodies are designed to thrive on a Raw Plant Based
> Diet. If you decide to include many of the Foods
> typical Vegans eat, especially Cooked Grains, then
> you are entering a whole new dimension where we
> might need to put a little more thought into the
> Variety of our Food. For Raw Vegans, however, as
> long as we are eating enough Calories and a couple
> of pounds of Leafy Greens a day, “Complete
> Proteins” are a non-issue.
>
> Peace and Love..........John


I understand John, and someone else in this thread referred to "experience of 8-1-1ers documented on forum boards". I do not say that this is not true, or that their experience is not valid as such - I only say that for some people to make up their mind this is not enough. I don't think its being overly demanding, but since there are peer reviewed studies supporting one point of view, one expects equally peered reviewed studies supporting the other point of view, for reliability value.

I am actually not discarding 8-1-1 diet, as I still want to read more about it.

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Sometimes I'm not so sure about the raw vegan
> diet... My sifu once told me, that a raw food
> diet would require too much food with roughage to
> be complete, at least for the lifestyles we have
> nowadays.We aren't monkeys and our lives are not
> just food. Now we have sprouting technology. Could
> it be perhaps that to truly effectively enjoy the
> raw food diet in this day today we need to include
> SOME germinated SEED?


I was also thinking something along these lines. I myself keep referring to "nature", "natural" and so on, but then I think - is everything natural good? Or to put it in other words - is everything non-natural bad?

Isn't it the case that the fact that people now live longer than they used to during their "natural" days, owes itself at least in part to "non-natural" advances? Like sprouters for example

Chat wrote:

<<<I don't think its being overly demanding, but since there are peer reviewed studies supporting one point of view, one expects equally peered reviewed studies supporting the other point of view, for reliability value.>>>

Oh No!!! Not the Peer Reviewed Argument!!!!!!

“The idea that all scientific experiments are replicated to keep the process honest is also something of a myth. In reality, the number of findings from one scientist that get checked by others is quite small. Most scientists are too busy, research funds are too limited, and the pressure to produce new work is too great for this type of review to occur very often. What occurs instead is a system of “peer review,” in which panels of experts are convened to pass judgment on the work of other researchers. Peer review is used mainly in two situations: during the grant approval process to decide which research should get funding, and after the research has been completed to determine whether the results should be accepted for publication in a scientific journal.

Like the myth of the scientific method, peer review is also a fairly new phenomenon. ...As government support for science increased, it became necessary to develop a formal system for deciding which projects should receive funding.

In some ways, the system of peer review functions like the antithesis of the scientific method described above. Whereas the scientific method assumes that “experiment is supreme” and purports to eliminate bias, peer review deliberately imposes the bias of peer reviewers on the scientific process, both before and after experiments are conducted. ...peer review can also institutionalize conflicts of interest and a certain amount of dogmatism.” "Trust Us We're Experts!" p. 198

“’The problem with peer review is that we have good evidence on its deficiencies and poor evidence on its benefits,’ the British Medical Journal observed in 1997. ‘We know that it is expensive, slow, prone to bias, open to abuse, possibly anti-innovatory, and unable to detect fraud. We also know that the published papers that emerge from the process are often grossly deficient.’

In theory, the process of peer review offers protection against scientific errors and bias. In reality, it has proven incapable of filtering out the influence of government and corporate funders, whose biases often affect research outcomes.” "Trust Us We're Experts!" p. 199

A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. (Stelfox, 1998) Big shock, huh? Any disclosures? Yeah, right. This study should be pointed out whenever somebody starts getting too pompous about the objectivity of peer review, like they often do.
[www.thedoctorwithin.com]

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

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chat wrote:

> Oh No!!! Not the Peer Reviewed Argument!!!!!!


Ah sorry, yes here I'm biased I work at university where the very existence of my job revolves around peer review, so I cannot help myself



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 08:59PM by chat.

chat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I will let the reader make his or her own
> judgment
> > on your post and mine. At a minimum, you did
> not
> > characterize the risk of the non-vegan when you
> > made your statement. More's the pity.
> Suggesting
> > that all one has to is become a non-vegan and
> your
> > protein problems are answered is a bit of a
> > stretch even under the most favorable
> > characterization.
>
> Oh yes, I am sure the reader will make up their
> mind - if they bother reading this thread at all.
> And I did not suggest that one has to become a
> non-vegan, I'm sorry but you are starting to
> invent things now.

You stated quite clearly that to satisfy protein needs one could do so more easily by being non-vegan. And you did so without characterizing the health risks that that path would entail. I never said you suggested one has to become nonvegan, only that if one did so, satsifying protein needs would be easier.
>
>
> > To be specific, you did not characterize the
> > issues with over protein consumption,
> particularly
> > animal protein consumption. You just said,
> "oh
> > if you are a non vegan, just eat your animal
> > protein and life is good". That is what "good
> to
> > go" means. Your words, not mine.
>
>
> No, i did not characterize the issues with over
> protein consumption.

Thank you I appreciate your stipulation. You didn't talk about risks for omnivores eating animal protein. Now, we are getting somewhere.

>Was there a specific duty on me to do so? I believe not. Hence you comment is pointless. And I did not say "oh if you are a non vegan, just eat your animal protein and life is good". These are not my words, they are yours. Otherwise you are being dishonest.

You did not say "life is good", You did say, "you are good to go" in referencing a non-vegan vs. a vegan just to be clear. And you stipulated that you didn't characterize the risks of animal protein consumption. I'll take it.

Paul



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 08:59PM by pborst.

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.....

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

> You stated quite clearly that to satisfy protein
> needs one could do so more easily by being
> non-vegan. And you did so without characterizing
> the health risks that that path would entail. I
> never said you suggested one has to become
> nonvegan, only that if one did so, satsifying
> protein needs would be easier.

Yep, and because I did not suggest that one has to become non-vegan, I did not feel the need to characterize the health risks that that path would entail. After all, every vegan knows about the latter. Hence they are vegans

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re: Protein
> Posted by: chat ()
> Date: June 02, 2012 03:20AM

So you've quoted and bolded my comment like three times already. Is't it really enough?

I've been trying to agree to disagree for two pages now sport. You want to have last word. Have at it, just don't make it contentious. Agree to disagree is just that. If you take a cheap shot or another ad hominem, I won't just respond, I will report it. Best to you.

Paul

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've been trying to agree to disagree for two
> pages now sport. You want to have last word.
> Have at it, just don't make it contentious. Agree
> to disagree is just that. If you take a cheap
> shot or another ad hominem, I won't just respond,
> I will report it. Best to you.
>
> Paul


No idea what you mean by "agree to disagree", but it doesn't matter. As I have said it already, I believe we've already made our opinions clear and put forward support for our opinions, and other people can read them without you quoting and over-quoting the same opinion several times.

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only problem with sprouts is we need a secure
> source of good water. That's the only thing
> standing in my way.... Fluoride, chlorine, trace
> amounts of allopathic synthetic medicines... it's
> crazy. Our earth is becoming deficient in our
> water element (relatively speaking anyway).


Have you thought about reverse osmosis. This is what we use at the moment, adding a little bit of mineral water to the produce to re-mineralise it. Its difficult with water, getting it good and at the same time being easy on the environment. Unless you live next to a spring or, as the case is in UK, somewhere up in Scotland where water is very clear..

I'll take exception to your exaggeration chat. I quoted your original post, twice and bolded it twice since you seem to want to run from your original inaccurate and incorrect original position. But that's ok. If you want to play dumb about what agree to disagree means instead of standing on your wikipedia or google search, fine by me. Good night.

Paul



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 09:31PM by pborst.

For me, I was just making a joke, obviously, regarding good to go.

Quite a civil conversation, kudos to you, chat.

although it proves once again much of the time humans do not get the facts and then form conclusions, they form conclusions and then ignore contrary evidence.

In addition, some give unwarranted credibility
to certain authorities and do not examine data.

This does have tragic consequences, as in 9/11 truth
And other events

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll take exception to your exaggeration chat. I
> quoted your original post, twice and bolded it
> twice since you seem to want to run from your
> original inaccurate and incorrect original
> position. But that's ok. If you want to play
> dumb about what agree to disagree means instead of
> standing on your wikipedia or google search, fine
> by me. Good night.
>
> Paul

My position is not inaccurate, and certainly you quoting and bolding it twice does not make it so. I very much doubt who is playing "dumb" here

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For me, I was just making a joke, obviously,
> regarding good to go.
>
> Quite a civil conversation, kudos to you, chat.
>
> although it proves once again much of the time
> humans do not get the facts and then form
> conclusions, they form conclusions and then ignore
> contrary evidence.
>
> In addition, some give unwarranted credibility
> to certain authorities and do not examine data.
>
> This does have tragic consequences, as in 9/11
> truth
> And other events

Amen

During some research I was involved in re protein, I discovered that unless you're an infant, you only need 8 essential amino acids. Only infants need the amino acid 'histidine' which is received through human milk, and from then on this amino acid is synthesised by the liver, as do all but 8 amino acids.

This info is from the 'The Journal of Nutrition' vol 101, number 4, April 1971, pp. 539-566.

The main part of the argument is...

P 561, Par 4, The non-reliability ‘of nearly all data upon nutritional requirements of man’.

Par 1, Sample size small, and only selected groups studied.

P 562, par 1, ‘Estimated protein requirements of either high or low quality proteins appear to provide all of the essential amino acids in excess of the minimal needs’.

P 542, par 4, A consensus of eight essential amino acids plus ‘histidine’ for infants.

P 543, par 4, Adult liver may synthesise histidine.

Also, there's some evidence that around 20% of the amino acid 'lysine' is produced and absorbed by microbial activity in the small intestine. Therefore, it's possible that adults only need 7 essential amino acids.

[jn.nutrition.org].

Cheers, jalan

chat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'll take exception to your exaggeration chat.
> I
> > quoted your original post, twice and bolded it
> > twice since you seem to want to run from your
> > original inaccurate and incorrect original
> > position. But that's ok. If you want to play
> > dumb about what agree to disagree means instead
> of
> > standing on your wikipedia or google search,
> fine
> > by me. Good night.
> >
> > Paul
>
> My position is not inaccurate, and certainly you
> quoting and bolding it twice does not make it so.
> I very much doubt who is playing "dumb" here

well, at least we've agreed, it twice and not thrice as you claimed. You are entitled to your opinion but not facts. My point is and was I've tried gracefully to reach an agreement with you to "agree to disagree" which you disagree to. So be it. Your original assertion that plant proteins are incomplete is in error. We've established that. And also, notwithstanding limiting proteins, most vegans, raw vegans do well with protein. We've established that also. And in spite of the late revisionism, you concede you didn't accurately characterize non-vegan risks in your original post. fine. I'm ok with that. You don't like my putting your original post in bold. I can see that, If I'd written it, I wouldn't have liked it either. But you have to own or account for what you've written. right? Getting protein for vegans, raw or otherwise isn't that tough. Doesn't require a degree from a university. Just eat wisely among fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts and seeds and you are there.

Paul

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are entitled to your
> opinion but not facts. My point is and was I've
> tried gracefully to reach an agreement with you to
> "agree to disagree" which you disagree to. So be
> it. Your original assertion that plant proteins
> are incomplete is in error. We've established
> that. And also, notwithstanding limiting
> proteins, most vegans, raw vegans do well with
> protein. We've established that also. And in
> spite of the late revisionism, you concede you
> didn't accurately characterize non-vegan risks in
> your original post. fine. I'm ok with that. You
> don't like my putting your original post in bold.
> I can see that, If I'd written it, I wouldn't
> have liked it either. But you have to own or
> account for what you've written. right? Getting
> protein for vegans, raw or otherwise isn't that
> tough. Doesn't require a degree from a
> university. Just eat wisely among fruits,
> vegetables, legumes, nuts and seeds and you are
> there.


Yes I am entitled to my opinion and also to suggesting the facts for which I cite supporting reference. My assertion that most plant proteins are either incomplete or imbalanced compared to animal proteins is not an error, at least according to the sources I cited, and as it happens you did not cite anything that proves to the contrary. Hence in this regard you've established nothing I'm afraid.

I did not concede to any "late revisionism", nor did I concede to being under an obligation to "characterize non-vegan risks" in my original post. You keep imagining things, but it doesn't help your position.

What is your position again? You are so concerned with other people's posts, perhaps you've forgotten about your own. Is this your position: "Just eat wisely among fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts and seeds and you are there."? Well, if so I did not disagree with it. See, it transpires you don't have to take the trouble to agree to disagree



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2012 12:15AM by chat.

Check this vid

[www.youtube.com]

[www.jotform.us]

80/10/10 i think but don't quote me. Bodybuilding really isn't that hard all you need to do is lift relatively heavy compound movements, consume at the least 1g protein per kg of bodyweight, consume excess calories and REST. Ohh and be consistent.

Muscle is mostly made in the kitchen not the gym. Even after getting chronic fatigue syndrome and not lifting any weights or exercise for about 4-5 years i still retained pretty much 90% of my muscle mass through a solid diet and some amino acid supplementation such as l-glutamine which i was using to heal leaky gut anyway.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2012 11:29AM by powerlifer.

If you lift weights in the kitchen,
Then I agree with you. ;-)

retaining muscle based on your visual impression
Has little to do with building muscle.

I think u are my antiparticle,
Better keep ur distance

[www.jotform.us]

Antiparticle lol.

As a matter of fact i have been known to conduct some weight training sessions in the kitchen enviroment, the worktops make excellent make shift dipping stations and the door i use for chin ups. Ghetto bodybuilding.

On a different note i have been training and training with a number of amateur bodybuilders and myself for about 10 years now. I can assure you i know how to build muscle and functional strength quite easily.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2012 12:17PM by powerlifer.

chat Wrote
>
> Yes I am entitled to my opinion and also to
> suggesting the facts for which I cite supporting
> reference. My assertion that most plant proteins
> are either incomplete or imbalanced compared to
> animal proteins is not an error, at least
> according to the sources I cited, and as it
> happens you did not cite anything that proves to
> the contrary. Hence in this regard you've
> established nothing I'm afraid.

Not true, I cited Davis & Melina.

>
> I did not concede to any "late revisionism", nor
> did I concede to being under an obligation to
> "characterize non-vegan risks" in my original
> post. You keep imagining things, but it doesn't
> help your position.

My point is you did not provide complete risk to benefit of eating meat and oversimplified vegan-non-vegan protein choices.

> What is your position again? You are so concerned
> with other people's posts, perhaps you've
> forgotten about your own. Is this your position:
> "Just eat wisely among fruits, vegetables,
> legumes, nuts and seeds and you are there."? Well,
> if so I did not disagree with it. See, it
> transpires you don't have to take the trouble to
> agree to disagree

My position is that all plant proteins are complete proteins that have all amino acids just in limited amounts. And that it is not necessary to have the correct proportion to sustain protein needs. And I've used both authority and experience of those on the board to sustain my position. I had suggested that you and I agree to disagree on the completeness of plant protein and still do. In any case, agree to disagree.

Paul