I would replace "limited" with perfect or lesser than meat

And replace " correct proportion"
With flesh amino profile.

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

And my point is simple - no one owes you an obligation to provide complete risk to benefit of eating meat, surely not when the topic concerns the info on protein, and if you are still expecting otherwise you are being delusional



> 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.
>

And I said that completeness of protein is only one part of the story, the other part is the balanced proportions of amino acids which comprise the complete protein. Both are important, and this is why a varied vegan diet is commonly recommended. And there is ample scientific evidence in support of this.

Yawn



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2012 02:17PM by chat.

>Both are important, and this is why a varied vegan diet is commonly recommended.
>And there is ample scientific evidence in support of this.

you haven't given any

>And I said that completeness of protein is only one part of the story, the other part is the balanced proportions of amino acids which comprise the complete protein.

and you said i was stubborn.

if this is the best critical thinking a Uni-based person can do,
we are in a truly sorry state.

a varied vegan diet is commonly recommended - due to a misunderstanding by the person doing the recommending.

MEAT is unbalanced
plants are not unbalanced - For Humans (not alligators)

did it ever occur to you that "unbalanced" amino profiles cited are things that Raw persons do not eat, like rice/beans/potatoes ?

no, because it would appear that your current state of knowledge is perfect, and not subject to any actual thinking that might serve to update your view.

sounds harsh, i know. but true.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2012 03:06PM by fresh.

chat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > My point is you did not provide complete risk
> to
> > benefit of eating meat and oversimplified
> > vegan-non-vegan protein choices.
> >
>
> And my point is simple - no one owes you an
> obligation to provide complete risk to benefit of
> eating meat, surely not when the topic concerns
> the info on protein, and if you are still
> expecting otherwise you are being delusional

You suggested getting protein for a nonvegan is easier than a vegan, which is not true considering both the completeness of the plant protein and the risks entailed in animal products. Since the topic is protein, the package it comes in and risks of that package have to be considered. As far as the name calling, I've had enough, so I'm going to report your post.

>
> > 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.
> >
>
> And I said that completeness of protein is only
> one part of the story, the other part is the
> balanced proportions of amino acids which comprise
> the complete protein. Both are important, and this
> is why a varied vegan diet is commonly
> recommended. And there is ample scientific
> evidence in support of this.
>
> Yawn

balanced proportions of amino acids are not needed if one is getting a sufficient amount of complete protein from sources with limiting amino acids. A varied vegan diet is one way to go. A vegan diet with limited variety is another as long as your protein requirements are met.

chat,

This thread was started by luvyuu in the hopes of getting peer reviewed data about salt and protein requirements on a raw regimen, a request with which most of us have at least tried to comply.

I do hope she manages to get something relevant out of this thread that she can use to help her, our luvyuu . . .

Tamara,

Wise as always. It's always a shame when the OP's original request isn't respected. And to Luvyuu, my apologies. I did actually try to respond with specifics to your original post before all of this nonsense. I think that there are a lot of ways to get protein on a raw vegan diet. Staying close to legumes meaning raw legume sprouts and leafy greens are a great to have some insurance. I'm going to take the liberty of reposting my original post on the thread which contains specific foods worth thinking about, not that they are necessary, but rather, some might give you good concentrated raw vegan protein without the need to cook. As always, best.

Paul

Re: Protein
Posted by: pborst ()
Date: June 04, 2012 10:43AM


The incomplete proteins thing is a myth. All plant foods have some amino acids, you just may be getting less than the full amount. It's limited by the least amino acid which usually is either methionine or lysine for vegans. But, that said, if you eat enough of good raw protein rich food, it shouldn't be a problem. Some good sources of raw protein.

1 1 cup of kale juice, 7 grams protein, 70 calories
2 1 cup of lentil sprouts, 7 grams protein, 80 calories
3 1 cup of pea sprouts, 11 grams protein, 154 calories
4 2 Tbsp of flax seed (whole) 4 grams protein, 110 calories
5 1 cup of yellow corn, 5 gram protein, 132 calories

source: Becoming Raw. by Vesanto Melina and Brenda Davis. I believe every raw vegan should have a copy to stay out of harms way. Not that you have to eat my top 5, but if you did, you would have eaten 34 grams of raw vegan protein in 546 calories. Now, you get additional protein in every piece of fruit, and leafy green you eat. But selecting among the top 5 is a good way to make sure you aren't short. Some 8-1-1 er get there a different way with different math, eating 3000 calories per day plus. I agree that's another way to do it. Question is, are you going to eat that many calories? If not, the math doesn't work. I'm suggesting you hedge your bets, look at the numbers and how you live and make your best move! The rest is up to you.

Paul

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you haven't given any

Oh yes I have, you are just being forgetful. But it's no trouble, mere copy and paste from previous posts, here you are m'dear

Young VR, Pellett PL (1994). "Plant proteins in relation to human protein and amino acid nutrition" AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 59 (5 Suppl)

Woolf, P. J.; Fu, L. L.; Basu, A. (2011). Haslam, Niall James. ed. "VProtein: Identifying Optimal Amino Acid Complements from Plant-Based Foods". PLoS ONE 6 (4)

Plus references cited in wikipedia article on biological value.



> if this is the best critical thinking a Uni-based
> person can do,
> we are in a truly sorry state.


Critical thinking my god Do you understand the difference between critical argument and supplying a mere fact? Bless you!



> a varied vegan diet is commonly recommended - due
> to a misunderstanding by the person doing the
> recommending.

Oh yes, according to the opinion of banana eating people. Sorry gorillas. It's easy to get lost in this thread Yeh, you've said it before. And as i said it, I'm patiently waiting when of one of them braves the world beyond online forum boards.



> MEAT is unbalanced
> plants are not unbalanced - For Humans (not
> alligators)

Yeh sure. Cite the evidence please.



> did it ever occur to you that "unbalanced" amino
> profiles cited are things that Raw persons do not
> eat, like rice/beans/potatoes ?

Why should I care whether Raw persons eat beans? The question was about information on protein, I gave what I thought to be an important information on protein, presto!



> it would appear that your current
> state of knowledge is perfect, and not subject to
> any actual thinking that might serve to update
> your view.

Thanks for complimenting my knowledge! Btw always happy to update my views, as I said it few times in this thread - just don't really want put all my trust in monkeys. But we are all evolving, so I'm confident that there'll be a day when banana studies start appearing in sources more reliable than forum boards.

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You suggested getting protein for a nonvegan is
> easier than a vegan, which is not true considering
> both the completeness of the plant protein and the
> risks entailed in animal products.


Yes, I suggested that getting complete and balanced protein for a nonvegan is easier than a vegan, and as I have already explained to you, risks entailed in animal products were completely irrelevant to this suggestion. Because I did not suggest getting complete and balanced protein from animal products. Get it?



> As
> far as the name calling, I've had enough, so I'm
> going to report your post.

A name calling, really? So you are entitling yourself to calling me "dumb", and then take offence when I call you "delusional"? Reporting the post, you really are a child arent you Bless.

Besides, I actually did not call you delusional. I said that "if" you are expecting that people owe you things for no reason "then" you are delusional. It was perfectly open for you therefore to chose the non-delusional path!



> balanced proportions of amino acids are not needed
> if one is getting a sufficient amount of complete
> protein from sources with limiting amino acids. A
> varied vegan diet is one way to go. A vegan diet
> with limited variety is another as long as your
> protein requirements are met.

There are different views on this obviously, I cited view which regard consuming protein in balanced proportions, and therefore getting a more varied vegan diet, as more beneficial. But just because there exists another view, does not make the first one a myth.

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chat,
>
> This thread was started by luvyuu in the hopes of
> getting peer reviewed data about salt and protein
> requirements on a raw regimen, a request with
> which most of us have at least tried to comply.
>
> I do hope she manages to get something relevant
> out of this thread that she can use to help her,
> our luvyuu . . .


Thanks for this information, this exactly was my understanding too! Hence my original comment was directed at nothing else but providing some help on aspects of protein consumption in a raw/vegan diet.

Yeh, I too hope luvyuu manages to find useful things in this thread!

chat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > You suggested getting protein for a nonvegan is
> > easier than a vegan, which is not true
> considering
> > both the completeness of the plant protein and
> the
> > risks entailed in animal products.
>
>
> Yes, I suggested that getting complete and
> balanced protein for a nonvegan is easier than a
> vegan, and as I have already explained to you,
> risks entailed in animal products were completely
> irrelevant to this suggestion. Because I did not
> suggest getting complete and balanced protein from
> animal products. Get it?
>
>
>
> > As
> > far as the name calling, I've had enough, so
> I'm
> > going to report your post.
>
> A name calling, really? So you are entitling
> yourself to calling me "dumb", and then take
> offence when I call you "delusional"? Reporting
> the post, you really are a child arent you
> Bless.

I said "playing dumb", a bit different than saying you are. You said you didn't know what agree to disagree meant. I find that hard to believe. Context, remember.

> Besides, I actually did not call you delusional. I
> said that "if" you are expecting that people owe
> you things for no reason "then" you are
> delusional. It was perfectly open for you
> therefore to chose the non-delusional path!

splitting hairs as far I'm concerned.

>
>
> > balanced proportions of amino acids are not
> needed
> > if one is getting a sufficient amount of
> complete
> > protein from sources with limiting amino acids.
> A
> > varied vegan diet is one way to go. A vegan
> diet
> > with limited variety is another as long as your
> > protein requirements are met.
>
> There are different views on this obviously, I
> cited view which regard consuming protein in
> balanced proportions, and therefore getting a more
> varied vegan diet, as more beneficial. But just
> because there exists another view, does not make
> the first one a myth.

yes it does. When you can go to the USDA database and see every plant food has every amino acid, it makes it a myth.

That said, I'm sensitive to Tamara's request. I've agreed to disagree. You are still obviously festering. Best

Paul

3000 calories

milligrams> reqmts bananas meat
histidine 700 3000 21000
isoleucine 1400 1100 28000
leucine 2700 2700 47000
lysine 2100 2000 55000
meth and cyst 1050 600 20000
phenyl and tyro 1750 1900 43000
threonine 1000 1100 25000
tryptophan 280 360 7000
valine 1820 1800 29000

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I said "playing dumb", a bit different than saying
> you are. You said you didn't know what agree to
> disagree meant. I find that hard to believe.
> Context, remember.
>


Ah I see. So in your case it's "context". And in mine "splitting hair". Yeah, right



> yes it does. When you can go to the USDA database
> and see every plant food has every amino acid, it
> makes it a myth.


No it doesn't. Because when you go to the USDA database, you see that most plants contain complete protein in imbalanced proportions, and some do not contain complete protein at all. Which was the point I wanted to make in my original comment. Simple as that.

chat Wrote:
>
> Ah I see. So in your case it's "context". And in
> mine "splitting hair". Yeah, right

yeah pretty much. I said "playing dumb". Playing means de facto you aren't. Your comment since I'd already stipulated I wanted you to opt up with risk was a personal attack, so yeah splitting hairs. You made a personal comment and I reported it.

>
>
>
> > yes it does. When you can go to the USDA
> database
> > and see every plant food has every amino acid,
> it
> > makes it a myth.
>
>
> No it doesn't. Because when you go to the USDA
> database, you see that most plants contain
> complete protein in imbalanced proportions, and
> some do not contain complete protein at all. Which
> was the point I wanted to make in my original
> comment. Simple as that.

kind of redefining what complete means for personal gain, em. Complete means that all plant proteins are capable of providing some complete protein, which they are. it's a myth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2012 04:45PM by pborst.

Well done Fresh! As I said, Incomplete proteins in plant foods is a myth. It's limiting protein if that's an issue. And it's only an issue if you don't take in enough calories.

Beyond that, plant protein don't include the risks of animal proteins, growth hormone, antibiotics, mad cow disease, highly concentrated metals and organic pollutants, hcas, pahs. Plant protein is relatively clean and sufficient provided you have either enough calories or enough variety or both.


fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 3000 calories
>
> milligrams> reqmts bananas meat
> histidine 700 3000 21000
> isoleucine 1400 1100 28000
> leucine 2700 2700 47000
> lysine 2100 2000 55000
> meth and cyst 1050 600 20000
> phenyl and tyro 1750 1900 43000
> threonine 1000 1100 25000
> tryptophan 280 360 7000
> valine 1820 1800 29000

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> yeah pretty much. I said "playing dumb".
> Playing means de facto you aren't. Your comment
> since I'd already stipulated I wanted you to opt
> up with risk was a personal attack, so yeah
> splitting hairs. You made a personal comment and
> I reported it.

And as I said already bless you. You might be feeling really good about yourself as a result. Now you can go and tell other people that they are playing dumb with clean consciousness.



> kind of redefining what complete means for
> personal gain, em. Complete means that all plant
> proteins are capable of providing some complete
> protein, which they are.

No redefining as far as I can see. Complete protein source means a source which contains all essential amino acids. Complete and balanced means that it contains them in adequate proportions. At least thats the interpretation found in studies I cited as reference. Nothing mythical really.

chat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > yeah pretty much. I said "playing dumb".
> > Playing means de facto you aren't. Your
> comment
> > since I'd already stipulated I wanted you to
> opt
> > up with risk was a personal attack, so yeah
> > splitting hairs. You made a personal comment
> and
> > I reported it.
>
> And as I said already bless you. You might be
> feeling really good about yourself as a result.
> Now you can go and tell other people that they are
> playing dumb with clean consciousness.

Most people I tell that they are playing dumb are smart enough to know the difference between playing and saying.
>
>
>
> > kind of redefining what complete means for
> > personal gain, em. Complete means that all
> plant
> > proteins are capable of providing some complete
> > protein, which they are.
>
> No redefining as far as I can see. Complete
> protein source means a source which contains all
> essential amino acids. Complete and balanced means
> that it contains them in adequate proportions. At
> least thats the interpretation found in studies I
> cited as reference. Nothing mythical really.

Yeah, a bit of revisionism, you can't say a plant protein is incomplete when it has amino acids, all of them. the most you could say is that they are limiting. But when talking about a "complete protein" as long as all the required amino acids are there, it's complete. So to say it is incomplete is a myth.

Chat,

Nice chatting with you to be sure. Plant proteins are complete proteins. You can get all of your protein requirements met, esp with legumes assuming enough calories. The idea that plant proteins are incomplete is a myth, and pretty easily refuted. The status of most raw vegans is a testament to that. And 8-1-1 who endure miles of exercise is a further testament. Go tell Harley or Freelee that they are protein deficient. Or many of the low fat high fruit vegans on this board. They would just laugh. I think we have both overstayed our welcome. So you have the last word. Best.

Paul

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Most people I tell that they are playing dumb are
> smart enough to know the difference between
> playing and saying.

You must be a really lucky person



> Yeah, a bit of revisionism, you can't say a plant
> protein is incomplete when it has amino acids, all
> of them. the most you could say is that they are
> limiting. But when talking about a "complete
> protein" as long as all the required amino acids
> are there, it's complete. So to say it is
> incomplete is a myth.

No revisionism as far as I can see. A plant source is complete protein when it contains all ess. amino acids. It is incomplete when it lacks some of them. It is balanced when it contains all of then in adequate proportions. It is imbalanced when it does not. How easy is that

What plant foods lack specific amino acids? Do we eat them?

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chat,
>
> Nice chatting with you to be sure. Plant proteins
> are complete proteins. You can get all of your
> protein requirements met, esp with legumes
> assuming enough calories. The idea that plant
> proteins are incomplete is a myth, and pretty
> easily refuted. The status of most raw vegans is
> a testament to that. And 8-1-1 who endure miles
> of exercise is a further testament. Go tell
> Harley or Freelee that they are protein deficient.
> Or many of the low fat high fruit vegans on this
> board. They would just laugh. I think we have
> both overstayed our welcome. So you have the last
> word. Best.
>
> Paul

Thanks! Nice chatting with you too Some plant protein sources are incomplete, and most are imbalanced. This is not a myth. You can surely get all of your protein requirements met, esp when eating varied plant diet. 8-1-1 is pretty interesting, but limiting scientific support for it unfortunately. I'm sure more studies will be made though!

Ciao

3000 calories bananas
150 calories meat (2-3 oz)

milligrams> reqmts bananas meat
histidine 700 3000 1050
isoleucine 1400 1100 1400
leucine 2700 2700 2350
lysine 2100 2000 2750
meth and cyst 1050 600 1000
phenyl and tyro 1750 1900 2150
threonine 1000 1100 1250
tryptophan 280 360 350
valine 1820 1800 1450

both are in range for aminos at this level of intake


interesting, I just checked mangos
all aminos in adequate amounts

what's that, this just in.....
chat says "Some plant protein sources are incomplete, and most are imbalanced"

(of course the "incomplete" refers to aminos that we don't need because they
are synthesized from aminos that ARE the plants!)

i guess my data must be wrong, and anyway
i'm not a monkey, and mangos? who eats those?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2012 06:23PM by fresh.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> what's that, this just in.....
> chat says "Some plant protein sources are
> incomplete, and most are imbalanced"
>
> (of course the "incomplete" refers to aminos that
> we don't need because they
> are synthesized from aminos that ARE the plants!)
>

Lol, not of course "Incomplete" refers to plant sources which lack aminos that we can't synthesize - i.e. essential aminos. And you said that you've read the article I referenced

chat asks for the data regarding a comparison of bananas and meat,
then ignores the data or diverts to something else.

classic closed mindedness.


> Lol, not of course "Incomplete" refers to
> plant sources which lack aminos that we can't
> synthesize - i.e. essential aminos. And you said
> that you've read the article I referenced

you're not getting my point.
the "incomplete" that people often refer to is inaccurate.
some plants are missing some aminos, and as a result, some people
refer to them as incomplete, but they are not incomplete
they are only missing an amino (mangos for example) that
we CAN synthesize.

Thanks for the interesting discussion, paul and i are going to
go bang our heads on the wall - will be a relief (relatively speaking).


Hey luvyuu !! don't worry about salt! there's my peer reviewed study.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2012 06:49PM by fresh.

So a woman would need to consume about 1000 extra calories more a day than the average recommendations just to meet their daily protein and nutrient needs. What happens if a person is gaining weight at 3000 calories a day, do they have to increase exercise just to offset the excess calories they are consuming in order to meet their protein needs?

It doesn't need to be this complicated at all.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2012 07:07PM by powerlifer.

Chris,

I think the 3000 is coming from the fruitarian side of the board. 8-1-1ers. It's another way to make the math work Quantity/quality. I'm assuming. Fresh, let me know if I've gotten it wrong.

Paul

I would assume the 3000 would apply to raw aswell though Paul to some extent, you could take any food and say well you would need X amount of calories a day to meet your needs. Genuine concerns because constantly consuming excess calories isn't great for the body just to be able to meet certain nutrient requirements, this can lead to high triglycerides for a start.

It just doesn't make much sense to me when lower volumes of more calorie dense foods can be consumed. 3000 calories just from banana's would give me 30g of protein, i would need 50g more of protein to meet the recommended needs, which would mean about 9000 odd calories lol. I can consume alot of calories and volume but 9000 calories of raw foods would be near impossible unless i was heavily relying on calories from fatty sources such as nuts which no one really wants to do.

I see what your saying though Paul, just showing its impractibility from my point of view.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2012 07:14PM by powerlifer.

Chris,

I do not disagree (forgive the double negative). My point was that for many of the folks on the board, ok, let's say some, the math works differently. For the real raw vegan athletes at least those following 80-10-10, many may consume 3000 and wonder if they are meeting their protein needs.

I will agree that lower volumes of more calorie dense foods is a way to go, but then it wouldn't be 80-10-10 for those doing that program.

My point is that the math may work differently among raw vegan approaches to get you to the same endpoint.

Paul

>So a woman would need to consume about 1000 extra calories more a day than the average recommendations just to meet their daily protein and nutrient needs. What happens if a person is gaining weight at 3000 calories a day, do they have to increase exercise just to offset the excess calories they are consuming in order to meet their protein needs?
It doesn't need to be this complicated at all.

it's not. i based my analysis on 3000 because that was a recommendation for the weight of the man i was using.
everything is less on 2000 calories
and works just as well.


>I think the 3000 is coming from the fruitarian side of the board. 8-1-1ers. It's another way to make the math work Quantity/quality. I'm assuming. Fresh, let me know if I've gotten it wrong.


see above.

i could have picked a lower caloric level. doesn't matter.



>It just doesn't make much sense to me when lower volumes of more calorie dense foods can be consumed.

see above.

depends on what kind of calorie dense foods, imo.
many cause problems.
nuts for example, imo

For my needs at 1g of protein per kg of bodyweight and being 14 stone i.e 88kg, i would need 88g of protein that is a massive amount of food on paper if just from raw fruit and vegetables. I can put away alot of food but i doubt i could eat 9000 calories of that much volume. I would also doubt how healthy it would be to have to consume not only such a large volume of food but how much fiber there would be, that much fiber can and would definitley interfere with nutrient absorption.

But back to the original question, is it healthy to have to consume excess calories just to meet various macro and micro nutrient needs?

I doubt many people could easily put 9-10k worth of calories away from such generally low calorie foods.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2012 07:28PM by powerlifer.

powerlifer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For my needs at 1g of protein per kg of bodyweight
> and being 14 stone i.e 88kg, i would need 88g of
> protein that is a massive amount of food on paper
> if just from raw fruit and vegetables. I can put
> away alot of food but i doubt i could eat 9000
> calories of that much volume. I would also doubt
> how healthy it would be to have to consume not
> only such a large volume of food but how much
> fiber there would be, that much fiber can
> interfere with nutrient absorption.
>
> I doubt many people could easily put 9-10k worth
> of calories away from such generally low calorie
> foods.
>
> [www.vegankingdom.co.uk]


you're right. the only problem is your assumption of
1g per kg
which i know you think is valid for you
but you might consider the video i posted
on the 3 yr bodybuilding transformation
and question what you think you need.