kohlrabi_Croce,

I go to fitday, and enter in my favorite kind of lettuce (romaine/cos), and it tells me that it is 16% fat, 24% carbs, and 59% protein.

Bryan, I'm concerned that the figure from FitDay is just plain wrong. I've just been to Fitday and confirmed that's what it says but I also went to NutritionData.com [www.nutritiondata.com] and it says the same lettuce is 18% protein.

But it also says that it has 95% moisture content. So my guess is that the 18% protein must be 18% of the remaining 5% which comes to 0.9% of the content by weight of lettuce is protein. Which is a figure I can believe.

ROb

--
Rob Hull - Funky Raw
My blog: [www.rawrob.com]

ive been getting most of my protein from raw milk, and buckwheat sprouts. im gonna try adding sesame seed sprouts and see how that goes. raw dairy is so expensive but tastes so good.

i also eat raw nuts but sourcing raw organic nuts that are in season and reasonably priced is such a chore. if i could eat fresh raw pistachios all year round it would be a dream...

Romaine lettuce has 1 gram of protein per cup! How many cups of it do you eat Bryan?

[www.nutritiondata.com]

Bryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kohlrabi_Croce,
>
> I go to fitday, and enter in my favorite kind of
> lettuce (romaine/cos), and it tells me that it is
> 16% fat, 24% carbs, and 59% protein.

Bryan,

here's the link to the info aobut romaine lettuce on fitday:

[www.fitday.com]

One cup of shredded romaine lettuce has TWO PERCENT protein.
It's really loud and clear. I don't know why you mis-read it.

People on here seem to believe what they want to believe.

I want to be clear, again: My problem on this thread only has to
do with the idea that greens alone will give you enough protein.

Funky Rob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bryan, I'm concerned that the figure from FitDay
> is just plain wrong. I've just been to Fitday and
> confirmed that's what it says but I also went to
> NutritionData.com
> [www.nutritiondata.com].
> html and it says the same lettuce is 18% protein.
>
> But it also says that it has 95% moisture content.
> So my guess is that the 18% protein must be 18%
> of the remaining 5% which comes to 0.9% of the
> content by weight of lettuce is protein. Which is
> a figure I can believe.
>
> ROb

Rob,

Please read it more carefully. It means that 18% of the calories come from
protein. However, this site also states that the lettuce is TWO PERCENT
protein, not 18%.

I have to make a correction:

It's actually 1.2 percent according ot that second web site.

Another point though: Protein is usually referred to in terms
of how many grams per serving, not percent of calories. In this
case a serving is 100 grams of lettuce, with 1.2 grams of protein.
That's 1.2 percent.

Then you calculate your protein by figuring out how many grams
you get total per day, and compare that to whatever standard
there is for how much an adult needs per day.

Calories are a different issue.

Protein is an issue for me, and I see by this long thread that the protein issue in not a cut-and-dried one for everyone. I've suffered from hair loss for the past couple of months since going raw but I cannot afford the blood tests to figure out what I might be deficient in. I know I get very little protein some days- below 30 grams. The advice I've gotten from many raw foodists is to increase my protein and my B-vitamins, and make sure I'm getting enough iron. I take supplements, and I've tried to increase my protein through green smoothies, hemp seeds, yeast flakes, and other plant-based sources but my main problems are the sheer amount of food I have to eat, and the taste of some of these foods.

The protein is the only area I have problems with, so I've turned to raw milk cheeses and, rarely, tofu to make up for the deficiency. I'm at a point where I am willing to add fish now, too! The biggest lesson I've learned since going raw is that the experience is not the same for everyone; our nutritional needs are not exactly the same.

<><><><><><>
Eating raw is a challenge for me, but it's the healthiest lifestyle I know.
See you at Raw Odyssey!
[blog.rawodyssey.com]

Question:

-Why do you have to have a deficiency to lose your hair? If you've eaten poorly in the recent past....and switch to healthier lifestyles.....then your body might dump old matter into your system for elimination. These old oils and other matter may cause temporary hair loss.

-This is just my opinion.

-David Mason

davidzanemason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Question:
>
> -Why do you have to have a deficiency to lose your
> hair? If you've eaten poorly in the recent
> past....and switch to healthier
> lifestyles.....then your body might dump old
> matter into your system for elimination. These old
> oils and other matter may cause temporary hair
> loss.
>
> -This is just my opinion.
>
> -David Mason

Rawallison really needs to go to the doctor. David, stop rationalizing
that it's all just "detox."

See, there's a problem with thinking that eating more green smoothies
is going to give sufficient protein, because they won't, and the health
problems this causes points to something I consider evil. That something
evil is spreading around misinformation like this, in order to profit off
of people. I'm talking about the raw food gurus who spread this
misinformation around - the ones who don't even know what the essential
amino acids are.

Where do you think this guy gets his protein from?:



To figure this out, check out [www.charliesgym.info]

Gosia
(http://www.rawgosia.com)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2006 11:39PM by rawgosia.

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where do you think this guy gets his protein
> from?:
>
> [www.charliesgym.info].
> jpg
>
> To figure this out, check out
> [www.charliesgym.info]
>
> Gosia
> (http://www.rawgosia.com)

Oh, my goodness. Ok, he's claiming the same thing Bryan did,
that lettuce is high in protein. It is not.

Here's the web site that charlies gym refers to:

[www.nal.usda.gov]

It has the same numbers that the site I just posted does. Again,
protein is not calculated by percent of calories, it is calculated
by how grams of protein are in one "serving." In this case,
100 grams of lettuce constitute a "serving." There is only 1.2
grams of protein in that serving. Therefore, Ipso Facto don't
wanna be a didacto, there is only 1.2 percent protein in that lettuce.
It is not 18% protein, and it is not 29% protein, and charliesgym
needs to take a class in nutrition. Maybe he should stick to lifting
weithgts, cuz he sure ain't no wiz kid. If it was me, I wouldn't be
paying him $10 an e-mail for his advice.

Gosia, how much of my post did you actually read before answering?
I'd really like to know.

thanks,

kohlrabi

kohlrabi,

I will make my point clearer. I am not interested in all the argument (which I read all) but in facts. In this case, the fact is that people eating mostly fruit and greens such as the guy above, obviously do not suffer from protein deficiency. I don't either. No amount of argument is going to prove otherwise, naturally. If one wants to engage in rationalizing, it is well known (and acknowledged by mainstream science) that raw foods contain more than enough protein. Also, see [www.all-creatures.org]. What's here to argue? I really see no point. This topic was resolved years ago. To me it is a ghost from the past.

Gosia
(http://www.rawgosia.com)

Good point Gosia. The counter argument is based on government funded (or other) statistics claiming how much protein the average person should be consuming.

There is saying I always liked which me stats prof would say "There are lies, god damn lies and statistics". I'm not saying the data is incorrect, for it's defined realm it is correct. But we are not really in it's defined realm.

I just have to look in the mirrow to see I'm getting enough protein.

Ian.

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kohlrabi,
>
> I will make my point clearer. I am not interested
> in all the argument (which I read all) but in
> facts. In this case, the fact is that people
> eating mostly fruit and greens such as the guy
> above, obviously do not suffer from protein
> deficiency. I don't either. No amount of argument
> is going to prove otherwise, naturally. If one
> wants to engage in rationalizing, it is well known
> (and acknowledged by mainstream science) that raw
> foods contain more than enough protein. Also, see
> [www.all-creatures.org].
> What's here to argue? I really see no point. This
> topic was resolved years ago. To me it is a ghost
> from the past.

Rawgosia,

I would respectfully say that it is you who are rationalizing
and are not willing to look at the facts.

I provided facts. I am trying over and over to show the facts,
and point out where people are misunderstanding them. It's
rationalizing to say that lettuce has 59% protein, when it doesn't,
for example. Please show me where my facts are wrong, rather than
engaging in ad hominem attack.

No amount of argument is going to prove that greens by themselves
don't provide enough protein? Sounds like cult mentality to me.

Now as for that body building guy, I got the strong impression
that he built up those muscles before going raw. His body could probably
maintain that physique for a while, even if eating raw and getting
less protein than before.

Last, rawgosia, I am repeating again and again on this thread that my
argument here is only about whether or not one can get sufficient protein
from greens. That's it. It's a limited and specific point. Please go
back and read what I said. But that's the problem, you didn't really
read or understand it. I am not arguing agaisnt a raw diet here. Got it?

This is why I get cranky. If you cannot follow the argument, please don't
jump in.

sodoffsocks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good point Gosia. The counter argument is based
> on government funded (or other) statistics
> claiming how much protein the average person
> should be consuming.
>
> There is saying I always liked which me stats prof
> would say "There are lies, god damn lies and
> statistics".


So you prefer to take the word of raw food gurus who
are out to sell you their books, who don't even know what
the essential amino acids are?

> [www.all-creatures.org].

Also I just hate it when people mis-quote the WHO
about how much protein adults really need to subsist
on the lowest level of survival.

Hi again everyone,

I maintain what I said. That is, being a raw foodist does not cause protein deficiency. I don't care about how much % of protein a lettuce or anything else has, because I know that whatever it is, it is enough. How do I know this? Because I exist! And, because many others do, naturally. Have a look at this guy, for example (The Fruitarian One, fruitarian for 11 years):



or this (Storm, raw foodist for 30+ years):



Visual inspiration is the best, isn't it? There is many more out there, as there are many raw foodists out there.

Gosia
(http://www.rawgosia.com)


kohlrabi,
Please note that I have the right to express my opinion and I do not have to follow some rules of argument that you want to impose on me, such as re-reading what you wrote (??) or having to debate on the topic of a lettuce (note that the original question was "how to get enough protein", which I am answering) or having to adress any other points that you might have discussed. Why do you think that I would want to waste my time like that? (As far as your other question, if you visited my website, or knew me better, you would know that I have no raw gurus).

If you believe you're getting enough protein by eating just lettuce, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. But if you're quoting figures from nutritiondata.com to prove the point, you should make sure you're looking at the CORRECT chart.

To see if you're getting enough protein on any given day from any specific food, the CORRECT chart is the PROTEINS AND AMINO ACIDS chart on the right hand side of the page. The significant figure in the chart can be found under the % DV (Daily Value) column.

It's very simple, don't be shocked (let me explain it to you), it DOES NOT support the claim that you can get enough of your daily required amount of protein from lettuce. The chart shows that the % DV for romaine lettuce is 0%. That means that the SELECTED SERVING of 1 inner leaf of romaine (see top of page for selected serving) supplies 0% DV, or 0% of the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of protein.

ZERO PERCENT!

THE USEFULNESS OF THE % DV COLUMN: If you will notice, several of the charts include a % DV column. The entire purpose of that column is to show you how much of a specific nutrient is supplied by one serving of any particular food (serving size always at the top of the page) so that you can add up the percents from each thing you eat to get 100% of the DV for that nutrient. Or if you ate more than the selected serving size, say 5 leaves of romaine instead of 1 leaf, you just multiply the % DV by 5. In this case, if you ate 5 leaves of romaine, since you're multiplying by 0%, you'd still end up with 0%. That's not exactly fair, since they probably rounded off the exact figure to get 0%. But since the precise figure rounds off to 0%, it has to be extremely low to start with. Even if it were 1%, you would have to eat 100 leaves of romaine to get 100% of your recommended daily amount!

To continue with % DV: Suppose you wanted to know if you could get a lot of vitamin A from romaine lettuce. You go to the VITAMINS chart. You look at the % DV for vitamin A. It's 7% for the selected serving size (1 inner leaf - top of page). That means 1 leaf in a day will supply 7% of the recommended daily allowance of vitamin A. So if you wanted to get 100% or more of your vitamin A from romaine lettuce on a given day, you would have to eat 15 leaves of lettuce over the course of the day (for 105%). Naturally, you would be getting other sources, so that would not be necessary. So you would check the vitamin A % DV for the other foods you eat in that day to see how they all add up. (Check red leaf lettuce. 1 leaf is 25% DV. So only 4 leaves a day would supply 100% DV.)

In my early days of raw, I was told by my vegan nutritionist that one of the possible deficiencies in a vegan diet would be calcium. She showed me how to use the charts, add up the % DV for the calcium rich foods like apples, oranges, and collards, and try to make it up to 50% DV. The rest she said should come in lesser amounts from everything else I was eating.

Don't get me wrong. Maybe the US Dept. of Agriculture doesn't know what they're talking about. (and I'm not being sarcastic. My mind is open on this, and I've always found the calorie concept very questionable).

But my point is, if you think you can get enough protein from lettuce, don't use nutritiondata.com to prove it, because that site does not back you up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CALORIC RATIO PYRAMID chart at the top of the page does NOT even give any kind of a clue about whether or not a specific food supplies enough protein. It only indicates "how the calories in this food are distributed between the different macronutrients"(see info left of chart). THIS IS NOT A PROTEIN CHART. THIS IS A CALORIE CHART.

The CALORIC RATIO PYRAMID chart for romaine indicates that 18% of the calories -ANY amount of calories, NO SELECTED SERVING SIZE - come from protein. So, if you eat just 1 MOLECULE of lettuce in a day, the calories you get from that 1 MOLECULE will be made up of 18% protein. If you eat a HOUSE FULL of lettuce in one day, the calories from that HOUSEFULL of lettuce will still be made up of 18% protein. It means nothing in terms of the question of whether or not you can get enough protein on any given day from just lettuce.

You may have your reasons for thinking you can get enough protein from just lettuce, but that chart does not back you up.

So what is the purpose of the CALORIC RATIO PYRAMID chart? Well it doesn't have much of a purpose at all from the point of view of most raw foodists. But it DOES MEAN A LOT from the SAD perspective. That's because SADs are into all the high protein, low carb, low fat fad diets out there (CHECK THE INFO TO THE RIGHT OF THE CHART). They would be most likely to use this chart for info on hamburger or veal or chicken or milkshakes or something - not for lettuce.

The other calorie chart, called the FOOD ENERGY chart is just another way of saying the same thing as the CALORIC RATIO PYRAMIC chart, except it is a little more specific because it refers to how much parts of each calorie in a selected serving size (1 leaf) is protein, carb, and fat. And the chart includes % DV, for CALORIES. THIS IS A CALORIE CHART, NOT A PROTEIN CHART.

According to the chart, there is 1 calorie in 1 leaf of romaine. Of that 1 calorie, 7/10 of that calorie comes from carbohydrate, 2/10 of that calorie comes from fat, and 2/10 of that calorie comes from protein. You can compare that to the CALORIC RATIO PYRAMID chart at the top of the page and see that both charts are saying pretty much the same thing; the percentages in the CALORIC RATIO PYRAMID chart are multiplied by 1 (since we're talking about only ONE calorie in the serving size) and then rounded off to the nearest tenth. In other words, to convert from one chart to the other: if 18% of the calories come from protein, that's multiplied by 1 (1 calorie in the selected serving size) to get .18, rounded off to .2.

If you try it with the red leaf lettuce, The CALORIC RATIO PYRAMIC chart says 31% of the red leaf calories comes from protein. To convert to the FOOD ENERGY chart, multiply 31% (or .31) by 2.7 (the number of calories in the selected serving size) and you will get .837, which doesn't quite round out to to the listed .9 in the FOOD ENERGY chart, but they're working with a longer fraction. It will always be close. The calories from carbohydrates convert from 57% or .57 (multiplied by 2.7) to 1.539, close to the listed 1.6 in the FOOD ENERGY chart, and the calories from fat convert from 12% or .12 (multiplied by 2.7) to .324, close to the listed .3 in the FOOD ENERGY chart.

Note what the FOOD ENERGY chart says for % DV. It shows that the 1 calorie supplied by the selected serving size of 1 leaf of romaine provides 0% of the recommended daily allowance of calories. It's 0% because the recommended daily allowance of calories is 2000 (see the small print * info in the NUTRITION FACTS chart at the left hand top of the page). Obviously 1 calorie out of 2000 thousand rounds off to 0%. BUT NOTE, this chart is talking CALORIES, not PROTEIN.

ONLY the PROTEIN AND AMINO ACIDS chart will show you if you can get enough protein on any given day from lettuce.

Hope this helps someone out there.

Right on Kohlrabi.

With respect for all for seeking the truth, Love, Ally

PS: Oh, and by the way, check the % DV on the PROTEIN AND AMINO ACIDS chart for wheat germ (crude) and raw peanuts.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2006 08:50AM by Ally.

Thank for backing me up, Ally, but I doubt that they will understand
it, or even want to understand it. I'm figuring that out.

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi again everyone,
>
> I maintain what I said. That is, being a raw
> foodist does not cause protein deficiency.

You're not even paying attention.

>I don't
> care about how much % of protein a lettuce or
> anything else has, because I know that whatever it
> is, it is enough. How do I know this? Because I
> exist!

Ok, then try this: Radiation is not dangerous. I have
worked around radiation, and I survived it. I am still alive.
Therefore, it is not dangerous.



>
> kohlrabi,
> Please note that I have the right to express my
> opinion and I do not have to follow some rules of
> argument that you want to impose on me, such as
> re-reading what you wrote (??) or having to debate
> on the topic of a lettuce (note that the original
> question was "how to get enough protein", which I
> am answering) or having to adress any other points
> that you might have discussed.

If you had read what I wrote, you would have known that I am not
arguing against raw foodism as a whole, and you would have known that
you were trying to contradict my statements with the same data
that I was using, which doesn't exactly prove your point. If you
don't want to read or even think, then you cannot prove any point
at all. In short, I can show that the information I gave is correct,
and you can't effectively dispute it. All you can do is appeal to
emotion.


>Why do you think
> that I would want to waste my time like that?

So why do you?

>(As far as your other question, if you visited my
> website, or knew me better, you would know that I
> have no raw gurus).

Then why did you post the web site of a raw guru?

kohlrabi_Croce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you prefer to take the word of raw food gurus
> who
> are out to sell you their books, who don't even
> know what
> the essential amino acids are?

Hell no kohlrabi! What do you think I am!!? (maybe you missed
some of my other posts)

All I'm saying is that understand the purpose of the information you are taking as "facts". They are not "facts", they are statistics, and there is a big difference between factual and statistical. Don't blindly follow statistics.

For me personally, the priority of my information gathering goes like this:
#1 First person observations.
#2 Scientific papers
#3 Statistical data (with a pinch of salt)
#4 Other people (with a large pinch of salt)

Also, you are being to sound like a broken record, when people present alternative information and personal observations, you go "So, you prefer to take the word of raw food gurus..blah blah blah, just out to make money" or something like that. I really like this thread and your are being very informative in many posts, but come on, read what other people are saying, please.

Cheers,
Ian.

sodoffsocks Wrote:

> Hell no kohlrabi! What do you think I am!!?
> (maybe you missed
> some of my other posts)

Well, you're right I'm getting cranky. I' m applying the
same dismissiveness right back at you.

>
> All I'm saying is that understand the purpose of
> the information you are taking as "facts". They
> are not "facts", they are statistics, and there is
> a big difference between factual and statistical.
> Don't blindly follow statistics.

Numbers can be very useful. I would state that this is
such a situation. It's more intelligent to realize that
"oh, lettuce really doesn't have enough protein," because
science has provided that information. It takes discrimination
to realize that maybe not all university scientists are totally
dishonest. In science, that which is true tends to withstand
the test of time, just as in anything else.

>
> For me personally, the priority of my information
> gathering goes like this:
> #1 First person observations.
> #2 Scientific papers
> #3 Statistical data (with a pinch of salt)
> #4 Other people (with a large pinch of salt)
>
> Also, you are being to sound like a broken record,
> when people present alternative information and
> personal observations, you go "So, you prefer to
> take the word of raw food gurus..blah blah blah,
> just out to make money" or something like that. I
> really like this thread and your are being very
> informative in many posts, but come on, read what
> other people are saying, please.

I am reading what other people are saying, and I'm not
seeing any convincing arguements about anything. If I
did, I'd react a little differently. Instead I'm seeing
emotional reactions and shallow references that don't
convince. I'd actually like to see some convincing
rebuttals.

The other point I want to make is, you say you yourself
put other people's opinions dead last. Where would
you have _me_ put them?

I don't see the cause for argument anyway. Everyone seems pretty confident about their point of view, so everyone can now go lead happy productive lives, knowing how right they are.

Allright then, Since there are a lot of people who read this
without posting, I will post some info here for them:

how to calculate protein content of food:

[www.krispin.com]

Note that the chart measures protein content by serving, or
how much is in a specific amount of the food. Calories do
not come into it.

[www.fao.org]

I don't see any mention of calories here.


here's more:

[www.annecollins.com]

[www.weightlossforall.com]

[www.bbc.co.uk]

[www.tufts.edu]

Every one of these sites gives a chart listing a specific food, the
amount of that food in ounces or whatever, and how many grams of
protein you get for that amount of food. calories are left out of it.
That's because protein is calculated by how many grams are in a
specific amount of food, such as protein grams per ounce of food.

It is useful to look at calories, if you are concerend about eating
too much fat along with your protein. This is usually an issue
for roast beef eaters and etc. I guess it would also be useful to
do this if you eat too many nuts and avocados. But that is not how
you figure out how much protein there is in any one food.

ThomasLantern Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't see the cause for argument anyway.
> Everyone seems pretty confident about their point
> of view, so everyone can now go lead happy
> productive lives, knowing how right they are.

Well, you're right...and since most people don't really
stick with raw food, and there's a lot of "backsliding,"
it could be that their own bodies are telling them something
in those cases.

Aloha!

I have been a "gym rat" for as long as I remember.... although I have always been strict on my diet(competitions), it has been a extremely high animal protien diet but I cannot do it any longer....


I (finally)am on my 4th day of just eating (all organic) fruits, tons of vegies, sunflower seeds, avocado, and some organic, sea salt garbonzo beans I had on my shelf, and the last of my whey powder. I am so bloated and I really hope it goes away.........

I am wondering about Maca and where I can purchase a trustworthy source. I tried Hemp before and found that Hemp was to draining physically for me, but maybe I used too much all at once? What about non-gmo lecithin powder? What is the best powder to mix in my fruit smoothies. I am totally giving Whey a break from many many years.....I wasn't using the organic kind and I think I am toxic!

Anyone who is in to lifting weights and a raw foodist I would love to hear your strategies......

I would also like to hear stories on mental clarity, less anxiety, or other benefits......

Is it ok NOT to soak my sunflower seeds? I actually crave them with my blueberries and bananas......

All your posts are GREAT, and some make me laugh.....laughing is good! Sorry for all the questions!!!!

happyjewls!

Good point, ThomasLantern. And it's probably the most important point.

But there IS a right way and a wrong way to read the nutritiondata charts if that's what you're into. And that's pretty much what Kohlrabi seems to be saying.

So here's a simpler explanation of what I entered previously:

Suppose You (and everybody you know) believe it takes 100 million dollars to make you rich. Your friend, Mr. Lettuce calls you up on the phone and says, "hey You, 18% of everything I own is in cold, hard cash, and I'll give You all of that cash!"

You say, "Wow, OK, I'm coming right over!" You think, wow, that's probably not yet enough to make me rich, but I bet if Mr. Lettuce gives me 18% of everything he owns, his RELATIVES will all give me the same amount, and then I'm going to be RICH!

So You drive over to Mr. Lettuce's house and he hands you 18 cents. You say, "What's this? I thought you said you'd give me 18 percent of everything you own".

Mr. Lettuce says, "Well I DID give you 18% of everything I own, because the only other things I own are a notebook and a pencil worth 82 cents. I only had 1 dollar worth of stuff."

Mr. Lettuce can see you are pretty pissed off, so he gives you the notebook and the pencil too. Now you've got everything Mr. Lettuce had, but you still only have 18 cents and a notebook and a pencil. Obviously you are not yet rich. And even if ALL of Mr. Lettuce's relatives gave you everything they had, it would still not add up to much, because you know they don't have much more than what Mr. Lettuce had.

But you decide to keep the notebook and the pencil because you need them anyway.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next day, your friend Mrs. Peanut calls you up on the phone. She says, "Hey You, I'll give you 75% of all you will need to be a rich person".

Wow, that's more like it! As I said at the beginning of the story, everybody knows you need 100 million dollars to be rich, so 75% of that is 75 million dollars! So you drive over to Mrs. Peanut's house and she hands you 75 million dollars!

That's great, but you notice Mrs. Peanut still has a lot of stuff in her house. So you say, "wow, how can you give me 75 million dollars and still have all that stuff in your house?"

Mrs. Peanut says, "Well that 75 million dollars was only 16% of everything I own." She sees you'd like to have more than just money, so she gives you everything else she owns too.

Wow, you're almost rich now! All you need is 25 thousand dollars more to get 100 million dollars, and then you will be rich. Well you're a really lucky person because all of your friends have SOME money that they want to give you. With all of them giving you SOMETHING, you end up with 100 million dollars and you are rich!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So how does that relate?

When Mr. Lettuce tells you that his cash amounts to 18% of everything he owns, it's just like looking at the CALORIC RATIO chart at the top of the page for romaine lettuce and seeing that the protein is 18% of every calorie in lettuce. It sounds like pretty much, but just like Mr. Lettuce's 18 cents doesn't contribute anything toward your getting rich, the 18% of protein in lettuce doesn't contribute anything toward your getting enough protein in a day. You can verify that by looking at the PROTEIN AND AMINO ACIDS chart on the lettuce page. The PROTEIN AND AMINO ACIDS chart will tell you that the serving of lettuce gives you 0 percent of the protein you need in a day. You won't find that out from looking at the CALORIC RATIO chart.

On the other hand, when Mrs. Peanut tells you she has 75% of what you need to be rich, you're now on the right track, because it's just like you're already looking at the PROTEIN AND AMINO ACIDS chart on the peanut page. It tells you that the serving of peanuts gives you 75% of the protein you need in a day, even though, according to the CALORIC RATIO chart, peanuts is only made up of 16% protein.

You have to understand what the charts are saying if you want to get the right information.

That doesn't mean lettuce is bad, it has other good stuff in it, just like the notebook and pencil Mr. Lettuce gave you (you needed them to write down Mrs. Peanut's address).

But lettuce doesn't have a lot of protein to give you, just like Mr. Lettuce didn't have a lot of cash to give you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now here's the BIG question! Some strangers walk up to you and tell you that you don't REALLY NEED 100 million dollars to be rich! Do you believe them?

Now THERE'S a question really worth debating! (It looks like that's what's already happening, but it's still good to understand the charts if you're going to use them to make a point!)

-Love, Ally



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2006 08:45PM by Ally.

Ally, your post was both informative and an excellent reminder that I could stand to do more reading on nutrition... kudos also to everyone else who has posted resources on the subject at hand.

My post was a bit "tongue-in-cheek", shall we say, and my point was more about the state of conversation in this thread, rather than the specific subject at hand; I very highly doubt anyone will concede their position, because everyone is already assuming that they are correct, or at least, "more correct" than the opposition... And as such, this can very easily lead to decay in communication, as we have seen with people commenting on other people's behaviour, rather than the information presented. [And we can now laugh at the irony; I am commenting on people commenting on people's behaviour...]

I do believe that everyone here believes they are right, I do believe everyone here wishes to help everyone else. I also believe that most of this information is way above my head, currently.. not because I could never handle it, but simply because I have done little to no studying of chemistry and biology.

Yes I've heard the human body needs protein, protein is somehow constructed from amino acids, some of which can allegedly only be obtained outside the body... but I know next to nothing about how the human body works other than that.

(Of course, I imagine if I ask enough questions about chemistry or biology to anyone, eventually they will have to concede that they don't have an answer, which would not surprise me, as science is nothing but guesswork... perhaps more accurate guesses than I can currently make about things, but it is guesswork none the less. Alas, guessing is what we must do unless we actually know something.)

ThomasLantern Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ally, your post was both informative and an
> excellent reminder that I could stand to do more
> reading on nutrition... kudos also to everyone
> else who has posted resources on the subject at
> hand.

I accept. <sniff>

>
> My post was a bit "tongue-in-cheek", shall we say,
> and my point was more about the state of
> conversation in this thread, rather than the
> specific subject at hand; I very highly doubt
> anyone will concede their position, because
> everyone is already assuming that they are
> correct, or at least, "more correct" than the
> opposition... And as such, this can very easily
> lead to decay in communication, as we have seen
> with people commenting on other people's
> behaviour, rather than the information presented.

When sodoff dismissed my numbers as being "damed lies
and statistics," I felt offended, because _three_ different
web sites have been posted, and they are all credible sites.
The three sites all had pretty much the same numbers: 1.2
to 2 grams of protein per 100 grams of lettuce. That means
there's a very high chance that the numbers are correct.
I guess now I'm figuring out that maybe he doesn't understand
about that. Still, I think an open mind would be better than
dsimissiveness.

>
>
> I do believe that everyone here believes they are
> right,

Well, there's needing to be right, and then there's
"what is actually right"?

>I do believe everyone here wishes to help
> everyone else.


That's right.

>I also believe that most of this
> information is way above my head, currently.. not
> because I could never handle it, but simply
> because I have done little to no studying of
> chemistry and biology.

Thomas, you really need to, to be succesful at
a diet like this. At least enough to know how
not to deprive your body. If it takes more knowledge
about amino acids and etc. to be a succesful vegetarian,
I'd say that's even more true for raw veganism.

Otherwise you end up getting suckered by people who want to
tell you you can get enough protein from a green smoothie.


>
> Yes I've heard the human body needs protein,
> protein is somehow constructed from amino acids,
> some of which can allegedly only be obtained
> outside the body... but I know next to nothing
> about how the human body works other than that.
>
> (Of course, I imagine if I ask enough questions
> about chemistry or biology to anyone, eventually
> they will have to concede that they don't have an
> answer, which would not surprise me, as science is
> nothing but guesswork... perhaps more accurate
> guesses than I can currently make about things,
> but it is guesswork none the less. Alas, guessing
> is what we must do unless we actually know
> something.)

Science is nothing but guesswork, and you are posting this
on a computer, which operates reliably because of....science!
If it was all "just guesswork" your computer would not do what it
does so well.