Dan Abel > wrote:
>> There's quite a difference between the calories you get from starches
>> and the proteins you take in.
>
> There is no difference at all. Calories are a measure of the amount of
> energy. Food calories used to be measured by taking a sample of the food,
> burning it, and measuring the amount of heat produced.

Proteins are _not_ just calories. Proteins are a complex carbohydrate
molecule that provide more than just energy (calories). Simple
carbohydrates have to be combined (requiring more energy) to create
proteins, which is the basic building block for the body. Proteins
provide the full molecule that can then be adapted, as opposed to
constructed, by the body.

>>Your body can't easily convert the
>> calories themselves.
>
> If your body needs energy, it converts the foods you eat into glucose,
> which then travels in the blood to deliver energy where it is needed.

I'm not talking about metabolizing CH for energy, which is not the sole
reason for eating. I'm talking about protein intake.

<snip about energy>

>> If you ate a diet containing strictly vegetables
>> such as rice, protatoes and corn, you would be severely malnourished.
>> You need to take in at *least* a complimentary carbohydrate such as
>> beans, legumes, etc. to give you body the *complete* protein that it
>> needs. Yes, potatoes and the like give you some protein, but they're
>> *incomplete* proteins. Your body can't work solely with just those.
>
> I don't understand your usage of "vegetables" and "carbohydrates".
> Carbohydrates are a component of foods. Rice, potatoes and corn all
> contain a lot of carbohydrates. If you want to call rice a vegetable,
> then beans are vegetables also.

I called beans that as well. I'm referring to the person having to be
very careful in what they eat, being sure to match up one vegetable with
another (for example, a rice or potato with a bean or similar vegetable)
in order to get a complete protein in the meal. This is something a
person eating meat wouldn't have to do, since the meat is provide the
*completed* protein to the eater.

> As far as "complementary" goes, that
> refers to protein or food.

And *that* is what I've been talking about; protein. It was your message
here that followed the calorie/energy path, not mine. I even said that
the person eating just vegetables would have to be very careful or they
would be *malnourished*. Malnourishment is more than just calories for
energy; it's about providing the building blocks the body needs to
grown, maintain and repair its structural parts as well as providing
energy. Protein is this basic building block, and providing it piecemeal
(via partial proteins and, worse yet, only part of the partial protein
in a poorly organized vegetarian diet) is not as efficient as providing
the proteins whole (via animal protein).

> Foods are complementary if they contain
> complementary proteins. Corn and beans are complementary because the
> amino acids that one is short of, the other one has lots of. Thus, eating
> corn and beans together gives a mix of amino acids that is closer to that
> of human protein.

What do you think I was talking about? Please re-read my posts, as I
believe you've missed my point or perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you.

>> I know a few vegetarians who eat fish. But, when I think vegetarian, I
>> think of my friends who basically stick with the philosophy of "if it
>> has a birthday or a mother, it's not to be eaten".
>
> My sister always says that she doesn't eat anything with a face.
>
> :-)

My sister just said she didn't like me...

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/c/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"