Hello -

Can anyone offer advice in terms of getting a complete protein with
raw food? I snack on nuts, but is there anything else raw that can be
combined with these to get a complete protein? Beans and peas are not
so great raw. I'm looking for a raw supplement to nuts that can give
me a complete protein. Also, how much of it do you really need to eat
to get the 55 grams a day of protein your body needs? Thanks.

RB

RB wrote:
> Hello -
>
> Can anyone offer advice in terms of getting a complete protein with
> raw food?

Probably the broadest advice would be to eat lots of greens
(think in terms of tens of cups instead of cups), and not to
overdo it on sweet or fatty fruit.

> I snack on nuts, but is there anything else raw that can be
> combined with these to get a complete protein?

Each nut and seed has an unique amino acid profile.
Pistachios are nearly "optimal," whereas many other nuts
and seeds are low in lysine. Macadamias, for example,
are very very low in lysine.

> Beans and peas are not
> so great raw.

Mung bean sprouts are probably the easiest legumes to
eat raw. You might tolerate edible podded peas in small
quantities also.

> I'm looking for a raw supplement to nuts that can give
> me a complete protein.

Hemp and rice protein powders are processed at low temperatures.

>Also, how much of it do you really need to eat
> to get the 55 grams a day of protein your body needs? Thanks.
>
> RB

Here's a way to do it completely raw without supplements:

4.5 cups mung bean sprouts
4.5 cups mushrooms
1.5 oz brazil nuts and walnuts, each
2 Tbsp flax seed
4.5 cups spinach
and
12 cups turnip greens

provide 55 g protein w/ an amino acid score of 93, limited
by lysine. That's probably a better combination of aminos
than the typical omnivorous diet. This combination also provides

255% of the daily value for vitamin A,
841% for vitamin C,
60% for vitamin D,
83% for vitamin E,
113% for thiamin,
172% for riboflavin
108% for niacin
163% for b6,
499% for folate
98% for pantothenic acid
3081% for vitamin K,
162% for calcium
114% for iron
188% for magnesium,
144% for phosphorus
144% for potassium,
65% for zinc,
296% for copper,
405% for manganese,
and 1223% for selenium,

with an omega6mega3 fatty acid ratio of about 3:1 and
1125 kcal.

You could also get about the same amount of protein with
an amino score of 96 and a 1370 kcal with 2 cups of raw
pistachios. But, I am not sure if raw pistachios are
truly raw.

RB wrote:
> Hello -
>
> Can anyone offer advice in terms of getting a complete protein with
> raw food?

Probably the broadest advice would be to eat lots of greens
(think in terms of tens of cups instead of cups), and not to
overdo it on sweet or fatty fruit.

> I snack on nuts, but is there anything else raw that can be
> combined with these to get a complete protein?

Each nut and seed has an unique amino acid profile.
Pistachios are nearly "optimal," whereas many other nuts
and seeds are low in lysine. Macadamias, for example,
are very very low in lysine.

> Beans and peas are not
> so great raw.

Mung bean sprouts are probably the easiest legumes to
eat raw. You might tolerate edible podded peas in small
quantities also.

> I'm looking for a raw supplement to nuts that can give
> me a complete protein.

Hemp and rice protein powders are processed at low temperatures.

>Also, how much of it do you really need to eat
> to get the 55 grams a day of protein your body needs? Thanks.
>
> RB

Here's a way to do it completely raw without supplements:

4.5 cups mung bean sprouts
4.5 cups mushrooms
1.5 oz brazil nuts and walnuts, each
2 Tbsp flax seed
4.5 cups spinach
and
12 cups turnip greens

provide 55 g protein w/ an amino acid score of 93, limited
by lysine. That's probably a better combination of aminos
than the typical omnivorous diet. This combination also provides

255% of the daily value for vitamin A,
841% for vitamin C,
60% for vitamin D,
83% for vitamin E,
113% for thiamin,
172% for riboflavin
108% for niacin
163% for b6,
499% for folate
98% for pantothenic acid
3081% for vitamin K,
162% for calcium
114% for iron
188% for magnesium,
144% for phosphorus
144% for potassium,
65% for zinc,
296% for copper,
405% for manganese,
and 1223% for selenium,

with an omega6mega3 fatty acid ratio of about 3:1 and
1125 kcal.

You could also get about the same amount of protein with
an amino score of 96 and a 1370 kcal with 2 cups of raw
pistachios. But, I am not sure if raw pistachios are
truly raw.

> You could also get about the same amount of protein with
> an amino score of 96 and a 1370 kcal with 2 cups of raw
> pistachios. But, I am not sure if raw pistachios are
> truly raw.

I see "raw" pistachios in the stores, and they do tend to swell up well if
soaked. I'm not sure if they are still able to sprout though, they get eaten
before that. Lysine is less of an issue in raw diets because it is made less
available by cooking.

Here is my message on this topic.

John


One of the prevailing myths of meat eating is again enjoying the rounds
amongst the alternative diet community. This is the "quality protein" idea,
whereby it is claimed that only animal proteins are "complete". These myths
seem to pass around in cycles because various outlets for dietary
information do not enforce any scientific credibility for the claims they
make. Specifically, such articles or claims do not provide any references or
credible background. In this article I provide references and numbers so
that anyone can check the validity of my claims for themselves.

The basis of the complete or ideal amino acid balance was originally an
animal experiment based on rats in which various proteins were fed to
weaning rats in order to observe which one produced the most rapid growth,
and was therefore considered "ideal". At the time egg was considered the
reference protein, because it produced the fastest growth. Obviously such
experiments say nothing about optimal human diet, or even what the ideal
source of protein is for humans.

So what are the facts? In 1997 I researched an article called "Protein -
Bionomic Nutrition", and read up on the latest protein research. The
findings of the research are as valid now as they were then. They involved
experiments using labelled amino acids. Protein is made from a variety of
amino acids, and it is the ratios of these that determine if a protein can
support human growth, and maintenance of lean body mass. When certain kinds
of a few foods are eaten as "staples", amino acid malnutrition can occur,
because the protein is not "complete". Only a few typical foods do not
provide a quality source of protein and are problematic if eaten as
significant staples.

How were the standards set up? Labelled amino acids can be closely monitored
by researchers to determine how they are used by the body. Before this
technique evolved we also have population studies, and nitrogen balance
studies that examined how well children grow and develop on different diets,
and how the protein source affects growth and mantennance. In total, the
available evidence is conclusive beyond any reasonable doubt and is
published by such bodies as the World Health Organisation. Although the
methods vary, and the new techniques suggest that some amino acid
requirements may be higher than traditionally thought, in effect things have
not changed much over decades and the whole topic is fairly un-contraversial
amongst the scientists in the field.

Anyone who talks of a need to eat animal products to obtain a "complete
protein" or a "quality protein" is simply talking bunk, and you will not
hear such claims from anyone with even a basic modern academic background in
nutrition. The table below identifies both the old, but still valid
requirements published by the FAO/WHO and UNU in 1985, and some possible new
suggestions by later researchers.

As you can see beans, rice and even potatoes all provide acceptable protein,
in fact they are abundant sources of essential amino acids. I have also
averaged the essential amino acid contents of various other food groups, and
ALL provide a source of "quality" protein on average. Unless one eats a diet
made up predominantly of a few certain kinds of food, one will almost
certainly allways get proteins of "good quality". The numbers prove this.
Essential amino acid patterns of protein (mg/g)

Food TRY THR ISO LEU LYS MET+CYS PHE+TYR VAL
-Old 5 9 13 18 15 17 18 13
-New 5 21 22 36 40 18 36 23

soy 13 49 44 74 61 27 83 46
azuki 10 34 49 84 75 20 83 51
potato 16 36 40 59 60 29 81 56
h-milk 16 48 57 97 70 40 101 53
c-milk 14 45 60 97 79 34 96 66
eggs 16 49 62 87 67 56 97 72
rice 11 44 39 72 39 44 94 61
wheat 12 29 53 78 25 30 101 49
oats 13 35 42 83 45 57 84 61

all beef 11 44 45 79 83 37 73 49
all fish 11 44 46 80 89 40 73 51
all nut/seed 17 38 44 76 44 39 90 57
all vegetables 11 38 43 66 55 25 71 49
all fruit 9 28 28 44 44 23 50 38
-"Old" Standard based on highest estimate of requirement to achieve NB
(reviewed by FAO/WHO/UNU 1985
-"Upper" Estimates calculated by equations from minimum oxidation losses by
Young et al. (1989).

Geoffrey Cannon, author of Food and Health: The Experts Agree, from the
Consumers' Association, also says that fruits yield "quality" protein.
Fruits also provide a quality source of protein, although they may not
contain enough protein in total to meet daily requirements even when large
amounts are consumed. Addings some seeds to the diet easily corrects for
this. Fruits providing a balanced protein source include avocado, banana,
figs, orange, persimmon, pineapple, watermelon, and others.

Why does the protein myth refuse to go away? My conclusion - people want
some pseudo scientific reason to justify their meat eating.


References:

'Recent advances in methods of assessing dietary amino acid requirements for
adult humans.',
Zello GA; Wykes LJ; Ball RO; Pencharz PB, J Nutr, 125: 12, 1995 Dec, 2907-15

'Kinetics of human amino acid metabolism: nutritional implications and some
lessons',
Young, VR, Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 46:709-725,1987 Pacy PJ, Price GM, Halliday D,
Quevedo MR and Millward DJ, Clin. Sci. Lond. 86:103-118, 1994

Geoffrey Cannon, Food and Health: The Experts Agree, Consumers' Association,
2 Marylebone Road, London NW1 4DF

John Coleman wrote:

> In total, the
> available evidence is conclusive beyond any reasonable doubt and is
> published by such bodies as the World Health Organisation. Although the
> methods vary, and the new techniques suggest that some amino acid
> requirements may be higher than traditionally thought, in effect things have
> not changed much over decades and the whole topic is fairly un-contraversial
> amongst the scientists in the field.
>

From

http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/7/1874S

"Protein and amino acid digestibility is a complex concept;
recent findings on this aspect of protein nutrition clearly
demonstrate significant differences in the effect of the
protein ingested, and of the diet as a whole, on endogenous
nitrogen secretion in the gut, the relationships between
fecal and ileal nitrogen digestibility and the relationships
between total nitrogen and individual amino acid
digestibility. In addition, the availability of nitrogen and
amino acids varies with protein source and is affected by
the presence of antinutritional factors, processing
treatments and interaction among other components of the
diet. All of these should be taken into account in a
comprehensive evaluation and accurate prediction of dietary
protein quality."

It is a good and safe objective for the prudent vegan to aim
higher than the bare minimum, although there may be adverse
consequences in aiming too high.

> Anyone who talks of a need to eat animal products to obtain a "complete
> protein" or a "quality protein" is simply talking bunk

This is true.

> Why does the protein myth refuse to go away? My conclusion - people want
> some pseudo scientific reason to justify their meat eating.

I do not think this is the true motivation, although it may
have been a motivator for Vernon Young, who died of renal
cancer at 66 after two previous triple bypass surgeries.

The tracer studies with 13C-labeled amino acids have been
used to refine minimum physiological needs for selected
indispensable amino acids in healthy adults, and the US
DRIs quickly adapted something similar, although there
remains some controversy. The new suggested requirements for
adults from the MIT study are more difficult to meet on some
odd or careless sects of veganism, such as strict
fruitarianism or junk food veganism.

From
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/7/1841S

table 7.

suggested adult requirements
mg/kg/day
lysine 19
aromatic 20 (phenylalanine, tyrosine)
sulfur 16 (cystine, methionine)
valine 14
leucine 26
isoleucine 18
threonine 16
tryptophan 4

I crunched some numbers for a strict fruitarian diet
(1 cup each of apples, bananas, blackberries,
grapefruit, jackfruit, grapes, mango, canteloupe,
nectarines, oranges, peaches, pineapple, plums,
raspberries, strawberries, and watermelon) and
found there were deficiencies in lysine, aromatics,
cystine, methionine, valine, leucine, isoleucine,
threonine, and tryptophan.

But, these deficiencies were eliminated by modest
substitution of some of the sweet fruit wth leaves,
sprouted legumes, and seeds.

Thank you, both, for your informative replies.

Wanted to ask, are peanuts fair game for "legume" protein? Everyone
talks of combining "legumes" with "nuts/seeds" ... what about
combining pistachios/almonds with peanuts for a complete protein?

RB wrote:
> Thank you, both, for your informative replies.
>
> Wanted to ask, are peanuts fair game for "legume" protein?

No, raw peanuts contain trypsin inhibitors (all legumes have
these, and they can be partially deactivated by sprouting)
and traces of aflavotoxin and you should not eat them more
than sparingly, if at all.

> Everyone
> talks of combining "legumes" with "nuts/seeds" ...

The "talk" is that it isn't necessary for sensible diets.

>what about
> combining pistachios/almonds with peanuts for a complete protein?

You don't need to combine to get a "complete" protein. All foods
contain the required aminos, but the individual EAAs might be more
or less abundant than a so-called "optimal" level in any particular
food. This includes ground beef, which is woefully inadequate in
tryptophan.

There is a pool of aminos in your body, and it doesn't matter much
from meal to meal or over a few days or more if you are short
on one or another. The problem might happen if you came up short
consistently for a long period of time. This is highly unusual
in Westerners unless they are doing something really strange with
their diets, like strict fruitarians or even worse, mono-eating
strict fruitarians. People do strange things.

But since you asked:

http://members.atlantic.net/~dec/aminos.html

RB wrote:
> Thank you, both, for your informative replies.
>
> Wanted to ask, are peanuts fair game for "legume" protein?

No, raw peanuts contain trypsin inhibitors (all legumes have
these, and they can be partially deactivated by sprouting)
and traces of aflavotoxin and you should not eat them more
than sparingly, if at all.

> Everyone
> talks of combining "legumes" with "nuts/seeds" ...

The "talk" is that it isn't necessary for sensible diets.

>what about
> combining pistachios/almonds with peanuts for a complete protein?

You don't need to combine to get a "complete" protein. All foods
contain the required aminos, but the individual EAAs might be more
or less abundant than a so-called "optimal" level in any particular
food. This includes ground beef, which is woefully inadequate in
tryptophan.

There is a pool of aminos in your body, and it doesn't matter much
from meal to meal or over a few days or more if you are short
on one or another. The problem might happen if you came up short
consistently for a long period of time. This is highly unusual
in Westerners unless they are doing something really strange with
their diets, like strict fruitarians or even worse, mono-eating
strict fruitarians. People do strange things.

But since you asked:

http://members.atlantic.net/~dec/aminos.html

> "Protein and amino acid digestibility is a complex concept;
> recent findings on this aspect of protein nutrition clearly
> demonstrate significant differences in the effect of the
> protein ingested, and of the diet as a whole, on endogenous
> nitrogen secretion in the gut, the relationships between
> fecal and ileal nitrogen digestibility and the relationships
> between total nitrogen and individual amino acid
> digestibility. In addition, the availability of nitrogen and
> amino acids varies with protein source and is affected by
> the presence of antinutritional factors, processing
> treatments and interaction among other components of the
> diet. All of these should be taken into account in a
> comprehensive evaluation and accurate prediction of dietary
> protein quality."

Even that is not enough, the body adapts to different levels of amino acid
intakes so that only long term feeding studies are likely to reveal true
requirements. Short term feeding studies are more likely to reflect the
nature of the prior diet.

> It is a good and safe objective for the prudent vegan to aim
> higher than the bare minimum, although there may be adverse
> consequences in aiming too high.

Where is the data for supporting this? The only gold sandard for valid
health research deductions is long term studies in which the subjects were
actually healthy. Anything else is superstition. It amuses me that ordinary
citizens are often described as "healthy" in medical papers because they
have no diagnosed medical complaints. Yet even so, these kind of people may
have regular colds, headaches, constipation and such and are simply not
healthy.

> The tracer studies with 13C-labeled amino acids have been
> used to refine minimum physiological needs for selected
> indispensable amino acids in healthy adults, and the US
> DRIs quickly adapted something similar, although there
> remains some controversy. The new suggested requirements for
> adults from the MIT study are more difficult to meet on some
> odd or careless sects of veganism, such as strict
> fruitarianism or junk food veganism.

As far as I understand the original 1985 figures have been shown to work. I
did notice that later studies like Zallo et al. did increase some
"requirements".

> suggested adult requirements
> mg/kg/day
> lysine 19
> aromatic 20 (phenylalanine, tyrosine)
> sulfur 16 (cystine, methionine)
> valine 14
> leucine 26
> isoleucine 18
> threonine 16
> tryptophan 4

So in fact some very big changes from the old figures below.

CDN ADULTS
diet mg/g mg/kg mg/g
Lysine 61.6 12 15.4
Phenylalanine +
Tyrosine 81.8 14 17.9
Methionine +
Cystine 34.1 13 16.7
Valine 57.6 10 12.8
Leucine 79.1 14 17.9
Histidine - [8-12] [10-15]
Isoleucine 46.7 10 12.8
Threonine 38.4 7 9.0
Tryptophan 12.3 3.5 4.5

The problem is that to produce a single set of figures they will need to
factor in the worst possible cases that an average Western population could
reasonably be expected to be exposed to. So really the new figures are not
truely physiological requirements - they probably do represenet better
objectives for the diets studied though.

> I crunched some numbers for a strict fruitarian diet
> (1 cup each of apples, bananas, blackberries,
> grapefruit, jackfruit, grapes, mango, canteloupe,
> nectarines, oranges, peaches, pineapple, plums,
> raspberries, strawberries, and watermelon) and
> found there were deficiencies in lysine, aromatics,
> cystine, methionine, valine, leucine, isoleucine,
> threonine, and tryptophan.

I doubt you can extrapolate the figures like that, I doubt the researchers
measured long term effects of a fruitarian diet on AA status. Fruit offer
shighly bioavailable protein, although often too low in concentration

> But, these deficiencies were eliminated by modest
> substitution of some of the sweet fruit wth leaves,
> sprouted legumes, and seeds.

Yes, one detrimental effect of hybridisation is the systematic reduction of
seed matter in our fruits. I only started eating more seeds as part of my
raw diet a couple of years ago. Before that it was mostly fruit and some
salad. I can't say I've noticed any difference throughout, and I've never
had obvious evidence of a deficiency. What would an amino acid deficiency
look like anyway? Eventually I think you would lose muscle. I have heard of
this in fruitarians, and raw foodists who don't eat enough. Including some
seeds in the raw diet seems prudent. Sprouted puy lentils in one of my
favourites, as are pumpin and sunflower seeds. Mixing sprouted seed milks
(eg hemp) into a smoothie is also very enjoyable.

John

> "Protein and amino acid digestibility is a complex concept;
> recent findings on this aspect of protein nutrition clearly
> demonstrate significant differences in the effect of the
> protein ingested, and of the diet as a whole, on endogenous
> nitrogen secretion in the gut, the relationships between
> fecal and ileal nitrogen digestibility and the relationships
> between total nitrogen and individual amino acid
> digestibility. In addition, the availability of nitrogen and
> amino acids varies with protein source and is affected by
> the presence of antinutritional factors, processing
> treatments and interaction among other components of the
> diet. All of these should be taken into account in a
> comprehensive evaluation and accurate prediction of dietary
> protein quality."

Even that is not enough, the body adapts to different levels of amino acid
intakes so that only long term feeding studies are likely to reveal true
requirements. Short term feeding studies are more likely to reflect the
nature of the prior diet.

> It is a good and safe objective for the prudent vegan to aim
> higher than the bare minimum, although there may be adverse
> consequences in aiming too high.

Where is the data for supporting this? The only gold sandard for valid
health research deductions is long term studies in which the subjects were
actually healthy. Anything else is superstition. It amuses me that ordinary
citizens are often described as "healthy" in medical papers because they
have no diagnosed medical complaints. Yet even so, these kind of people may
have regular colds, headaches, constipation and such and are simply not
healthy.

> The tracer studies with 13C-labeled amino acids have been
> used to refine minimum physiological needs for selected
> indispensable amino acids in healthy adults, and the US
> DRIs quickly adapted something similar, although there
> remains some controversy. The new suggested requirements for
> adults from the MIT study are more difficult to meet on some
> odd or careless sects of veganism, such as strict
> fruitarianism or junk food veganism.

As far as I understand the original 1985 figures have been shown to work. I
did notice that later studies like Zallo et al. did increase some
"requirements".

> suggested adult requirements
> mg/kg/day
> lysine 19
> aromatic 20 (phenylalanine, tyrosine)
> sulfur 16 (cystine, methionine)
> valine 14
> leucine 26
> isoleucine 18
> threonine 16
> tryptophan 4

So in fact some very big changes from the old figures below.

CDN ADULTS
diet mg/g mg/kg mg/g
Lysine 61.6 12 15.4
Phenylalanine +
Tyrosine 81.8 14 17.9
Methionine +
Cystine 34.1 13 16.7
Valine 57.6 10 12.8
Leucine 79.1 14 17.9
Histidine - [8-12] [10-15]
Isoleucine 46.7 10 12.8
Threonine 38.4 7 9.0
Tryptophan 12.3 3.5 4.5

The problem is that to produce a single set of figures they will need to
factor in the worst possible cases that an average Western population could
reasonably be expected to be exposed to. So really the new figures are not
truely physiological requirements - they probably do represenet better
objectives for the diets studied though.

> I crunched some numbers for a strict fruitarian diet
> (1 cup each of apples, bananas, blackberries,
> grapefruit, jackfruit, grapes, mango, canteloupe,
> nectarines, oranges, peaches, pineapple, plums,
> raspberries, strawberries, and watermelon) and
> found there were deficiencies in lysine, aromatics,
> cystine, methionine, valine, leucine, isoleucine,
> threonine, and tryptophan.

I doubt you can extrapolate the figures like that, I doubt the researchers
measured long term effects of a fruitarian diet on AA status. Fruit offer
shighly bioavailable protein, although often too low in concentration

> But, these deficiencies were eliminated by modest
> substitution of some of the sweet fruit wth leaves,
> sprouted legumes, and seeds.

Yes, one detrimental effect of hybridisation is the systematic reduction of
seed matter in our fruits. I only started eating more seeds as part of my
raw diet a couple of years ago. Before that it was mostly fruit and some
salad. I can't say I've noticed any difference throughout, and I've never
had obvious evidence of a deficiency. What would an amino acid deficiency
look like anyway? Eventually I think you would lose muscle. I have heard of
this in fruitarians, and raw foodists who don't eat enough. Including some
seeds in the raw diet seems prudent. Sprouted puy lentils in one of my
favourites, as are pumpin and sunflower seeds. Mixing sprouted seed milks
(eg hemp) into a smoothie is also very enjoyable.

John

> No, raw peanuts contain trypsin inhibitors (all legumes have
> these, and they can be partially deactivated by sprouting)
> and traces of aflavotoxin and you should not eat them more
> than sparingly, if at all.

I do like peanuts, but if I eat a lot I get bad indigestion. I wonder if
this explains this? I think peanuts are also goitrogenic. Won't the toxin
wash off?

> There is a pool of aminos in your body, and it doesn't matter much
> from meal to meal or over a few days or more if you are short
> on one or another. The problem might happen if you came up short
> consistently for a long period of time. This is highly unusual
> in Westerners unless they are doing something really strange with
> their diets, like strict fruitarians or even worse, mono-eating
> strict fruitarians. People do strange things.

Laurie told me about some raw foodists who were strict fruitarians back in
the 70s. I think a couple of them died soon, one he mentioned was called
Johnie Tomatoes (ate only tomtoes) and Laurie said he was emaciated and had
wirey hair. Obvious malnutrition, but he couldn't tell him to change.

As most Westerners over consume protein, these new figures are not very
useful for us.

John

> No, raw peanuts contain trypsin inhibitors (all legumes have
> these, and they can be partially deactivated by sprouting)
> and traces of aflavotoxin and you should not eat them more
> than sparingly, if at all.

I do like peanuts, but if I eat a lot I get bad indigestion. I wonder if
this explains this? I think peanuts are also goitrogenic. Won't the toxin
wash off?

> There is a pool of aminos in your body, and it doesn't matter much
> from meal to meal or over a few days or more if you are short
> on one or another. The problem might happen if you came up short
> consistently for a long period of time. This is highly unusual
> in Westerners unless they are doing something really strange with
> their diets, like strict fruitarians or even worse, mono-eating
> strict fruitarians. People do strange things.

Laurie told me about some raw foodists who were strict fruitarians back in
the 70s. I think a couple of them died soon, one he mentioned was called
Johnie Tomatoes (ate only tomtoes) and Laurie said he was emaciated and had
wirey hair. Obvious malnutrition, but he couldn't tell him to change.

As most Westerners over consume protein, these new figures are not very
useful for us.

John

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
<Snip>
> Laurie told me about some raw foodists who were strict fruitarians back in
> the 70s. I think a couple of them died soon, one he mentioned was called
> Johnie Tomatoes (ate only tomtoes) and Laurie said he was emaciated and
had
> wirey hair. Obvious malnutrition, but he couldn't tell him to change.
<snip>

He was obviously mentally ill and needed professional help. She should have
called some kind of authorities instead of letting him starve himself to
death.

-Rubystars

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
<Snip>
> Laurie told me about some raw foodists who were strict fruitarians back in
> the 70s. I think a couple of them died soon, one he mentioned was called
> Johnie Tomatoes (ate only tomtoes) and Laurie said he was emaciated and
had
> wirey hair. Obvious malnutrition, but he couldn't tell him to change.
<snip>

He was obviously mentally ill and needed professional help. She should have
called some kind of authorities instead of letting him starve himself to
death.

-Rubystars

John Coleman wrote:

>>It is a good and safe objective for the prudent vegan to aim
>>higher than the bare minimum, although there may be adverse
>>consequences in aiming too high.

> Where is the data for supporting this?

The next four paragraphs are from K. Milton's "Nutritional
Characteristics of Wild Primate Diets," Nutrition 1999 15:6--

"For various reasons, it is generally the case that plant protein
has a lower biological value and digestibility than protein from
animal foods (1). Meat protein, which is essentially identical in
its protein composition to human protein, can be deposited with
virtually no modification and is generally about 98% digestible (1).
In contrast, vegetable foods show a protein digestibility in humans
averaging 90% (1).

"One reason for the lower digestibility of plant protein could be
secondary compounds (tannnins, phenolics, alkaloids, terpenoids,
etc.)(2-5). Some bind with protein in the gut rendering it unavailable
to the feeder (5,6)."

"Because of the many secondary compounds in their foods, wild primates
may need to consume more grams of protein per day than would be
predicted by body weight (7). Assimilation studies suggest that some
20% or more of total N in wild plant parts is unavailable to the feeder (7).
Thus, for example, a 7-9 kg wild howler monkey might have to take in
some 20 or more g of protein each d in its wild foods to net the 12 g
or so of protein it is estimated to require. (7).

"Though animal protein may generally be of higher quality and more
digestible, plant protein appears to suffice for many monkey and ape
species"

(1) Carpenter KJ. Protein and energy: a study of changing ideas in
nutrition. Cambridge U Press 1994:100

(2) Milton K. The foraging strategy of howler monkeys: a study in
primate economics. NY: Columbia U Press, 1980:29

(3) Harborne JB. Biochemistry of Phenolic Compounds. London Academic
Press 1964:53

(4) Harborne JB. Introduction to ecological biochemistry. London Academic
Press 1977:155

(5) Bernays EA. Plant tannins and insect herbivores: an appraisal. Ecol
Entom 1981:6:353

(6)Cooper SM, Owen-Smith M. Condensed tannins deter feeding by browsing
ruminants in a South African savanna. Oecologia 1985;67:142

(7) Milton K, Van Soest PJ, Robertson J. Digestive efficiencies of wild
howler monkeys. Physiol Zool 1980:53:402

Also note that WHO/FAO in 1965 derived a safe protein requirement value
for adults based on 0.89 g/kg/d of animal protein and 1.12g/kg/day for
plant protein. These figures were subsequently lowered and there
remains some controversy to this day. A brief discussion is in
"Vernon Young and the development of current knowledge in protein and
amino acid nutrition," British Journal of Nutrition (2004).

> He was obviously mentally ill and needed professional help. She should
have
> called some kind of authorities instead of letting him starve himself to
> death.

These were travelling "drop outs" typical of the 70s LSD culture, they avoid
authorities like the plague. I would imagine that some of these people
probably were mentally ill from the deficiencies, but I doubt they were
certifiable in any way. I think people who eat junk food are starving
themselves, all be it much slower, but it would be daft to report them to
the authorities. Same for smokers.

In an open society people have the "right" to kill themselves off with
stupidity, I don't see why I should pay taxes for authorities to intervene.
On the other hand I am happy to sponsor good nutritional advice in schools -
but where is that?

John

> He was obviously mentally ill and needed professional help. She should
have
> called some kind of authorities instead of letting him starve himself to
> death.

These were travelling "drop outs" typical of the 70s LSD culture, they avoid
authorities like the plague. I would imagine that some of these people
probably were mentally ill from the deficiencies, but I doubt they were
certifiable in any way. I think people who eat junk food are starving
themselves, all be it much slower, but it would be daft to report them to
the authorities. Same for smokers.

In an open society people have the "right" to kill themselves off with
stupidity, I don't see why I should pay taxes for authorities to intervene.
On the other hand I am happy to sponsor good nutritional advice in schools -
but where is that?

John

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> > He was obviously mentally ill and needed professional help. She should
> have
> > called some kind of authorities instead of letting him starve himself to
> > death.
>
> These were travelling "drop outs" typical of the 70s LSD culture, they
avoid
> authorities like the plague. I would imagine that some of these people
> probably were mentally ill from the deficiencies, but I doubt they were
> certifiable in any way. I think people who eat junk food are starving
> themselves, all be it much slower, but it would be daft to report them to
> the authorities. Same for smokers.
>
> In an open society people have the "right" to kill themselves off with
> stupidity, I don't see why I should pay taxes for authorities to
intervene.
> On the other hand I am happy to sponsor good nutritional advice in
schools -
> but where is that?

If I knew someone was literallydying from self-imposed starvation I would do
something to intervene. Apathy kills a lot of people.

-Rubystars

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> > He was obviously mentally ill and needed professional help. She should
> have
> > called some kind of authorities instead of letting him starve himself to
> > death.
>
> These were travelling "drop outs" typical of the 70s LSD culture, they
avoid
> authorities like the plague. I would imagine that some of these people
> probably were mentally ill from the deficiencies, but I doubt they were
> certifiable in any way. I think people who eat junk food are starving
> themselves, all be it much slower, but it would be daft to report them to
> the authorities. Same for smokers.
>
> In an open society people have the "right" to kill themselves off with
> stupidity, I don't see why I should pay taxes for authorities to
intervene.
> On the other hand I am happy to sponsor good nutritional advice in
schools -
> but where is that?

If I knew someone was literallydying from self-imposed starvation I would do
something to intervene. Apathy kills a lot of people.

-Rubystars

> "For various reasons, it is generally the case that plant protein
> has a lower biological value and digestibility than protein from
> animal foods (1). Meat protein, which is essentially identical in
> its protein composition to human protein, can be deposited with
> virtually no modification and is generally about 98% digestible (1).
> In contrast, vegetable foods show a protein digestibility in humans
> averaging 90% (1).

Those are rather sweeping statements. Firstly humans do not climb up and
down trees all day, wild primates are more like human body builders in what
they do, and no doubt their protein requirements are higher. Even so, some
tree dwelling primates do not eat meat or significant insect matter. Human
milk has half the protein content of other primate milks as well. It is the
lowest protein milk of all the primates.

Digestability of leaves is probably quite poor, but for fruits I would
suggest much better, and humans have a frugivorous physiology.

> "One reason for the lower digestibility of plant protein could be
> secondary compounds (tannnins, phenolics, alkaloids, terpenoids,
> etc.)(2-5). Some bind with protein in the gut rendering it unavailable
> to the feeder (5,6)."

Yes, in leaves, not in fruits - do humans look like natural leaf eaters? No
way. We are cut out for consuming fruits and their seeds.

> "Because of the many secondary compounds in their foods, wild primates
> may need to consume more grams of protein per day than would be
> predicted by body weight (7). Assimilation studies suggest that some
> 20% or more of total N in wild plant parts is unavailable to the feeder
(7).

This would not apply to fruits. Humans tend to cook their plant foods
anyway, so I again doubt the significance of anti nutrients.

> "Though animal protein may generally be of higher quality and more
> digestible, plant protein appears to suffice for many monkey and ape
> species"

I don't understand where this idea of "quality" comes from. For a herbivore
to consume animal protein does not make the animal better in some way does
it? So what is inherently better about animal protein? Does this misnomer
simply mean it is 10% more digestable? LOL

> Also note that WHO/FAO in 1965 derived a safe protein requirement value
> for adults based on 0.89 g/kg/d of animal protein and 1.12g/kg/day for
> plant protein. These figures were subsequently lowered and there
> remains some controversy to this day. A brief discussion is in
> "Vernon Young and the development of current knowledge in protein and
> amino acid nutrition," British Journal of Nutrition (2004).

Interesting, thanks. But are there any long term emprical data to support
these figures? I've seen papers mentioning long adaptation to lower protein
requirements. I suspect without a good longterm study the exact figures will
remain somewhat contraversial.

John

Yes, but how do you *really* do this? Coming from a meat/dairy
inclusive diet, it seems quite difficult to switch to a vegan mode and
"get everything you need" in a day. I dig the oatmeal + fruit
breakfast, and then around lunch, a bowl of mung beans and some lentil
or bean soup with some nuts, which is "passable". Then for dinner --
what, more soup and a potato? And this is just *one day.* Turkey
and/or cheese sandwich is heavily missed. I believe that this diet is
"reality" when it comes to the way we're supposed to eat, perhaps with
a little meat here and there, but by and large it seems like a very
difficult transition. I still don't feel like I'm getting enough
protein, and my head seems to be telling me that pretty chronically.
I don't do much bread, as most of it is refined paste and doesn't
really "travel too well" bodily. I feel like I'm missing "substance"
to a meal without a sandwich or a piece of meat.

John Coleman wrote:

> Firstly humans do not climb up and
> down trees all day, wild primates are more like human body builders in what
> they do, and no doubt their protein requirements are higher.

I doubt it. Paleoman exercised for 3 hours a day. It is very likely
that exercise at or around this level is a desireable component of
good health. The recommended 30 minutes per day is probably the
absolute minimum.

> Even so, some
> tree dwelling primates do not eat meat or significant insect matter. Human
> milk has half the protein content of other primate milks as well. It is the
> lowest protein milk of all the primates.

Breast milk is low in protein but the amino acid profile cannot be
matched by an equivalent amount of protein from cultivated fruit.

Here is a comparison of the aminos in 100 g protein from mixed fruit (apples,
bananas, grapefruit, grapes, cantaloupe, oranges, peaches, raspberries,
strawberries) and 100 g protein from breast milk:

breast milk mixed fruit (g)
histidine 2.6 2
isoleucine 5.7 1.85
lysine 8.1 3.25
leucine 10.5 3.05
methionine+ cystine 4.3 1.7
phenylalanine + tyrosine 10.7 4.1
threonine 5.1 1.9
tryptophan 1.6 0.7
valine 5.7 2.9


> Digestability of leaves is probably quite poor, but for fruits I would
> suggest much better, and humans have a frugivorous physiology.

I agree, the protein in fruit is likely to be more digestible,
but sweet cultivated fruit is generally much lower in protein
than vegetables.

> Yes, in leaves, not in fruits - do humans look like natural leaf eaters? No
> way. We are cut out for consuming fruits and their seeds.

Modern cultivated fruits do not resemble the wild fruits
that our primate ancestors ate, nor do they resemble the
wild fruits that our wild primate cousins eat. Wild fruits
are higher in protein, EFAs, soluble fibers including
pectins, and richer in vitamins and minerals as well.

If one wanted to approximate the nutrient intake profile of
the wild primate (or even paleoman) with modern cultivars,
it would require more than minimal use of leaves and
other vegetables, nuts, and seeds, at the expense of
cultivated fruit.

> This would not apply to fruits. Humans tend to cook their plant foods
> anyway, so I again doubt the significance of anti nutrients.

You can't eliminate all via cooking--oxalic acid, for one,
persists.

> I don't understand where this idea of "quality" comes from. For a herbivore
> to consume animal protein does not make the animal better in some way does
> it? So what is inherently better about animal protein? Does this misnomer
> simply mean it is 10% more digestable? LOL

Yes, it is not such a big deal. It's a term they use to broadly
represent assimibility. It doesn't make a good case for eating
animals because of the "high quality" of flesh protein, as Milton
states.

> Interesting, thanks. But are there any long term emprical data to support
> these figures? I've seen papers mentioning long adaptation to lower protein
> requirements. I suspect without a good longterm study the exact figures will
> remain somewhat contraversial.

There are adverse consequences associated with either too little
or too much, as is the case with almost all things. I am sure that
you are aware of the problems with too much, but here are some
problems associated with too little. As expected the most particularly
vulnerable are the infant, the pregnant female, the elderly,
and the ill--

-reduced chances of adequate metabolic response to stress
PMID: 15271648

-impaired vasodilator responses and poor cardiovasculr adaption
to pregnancy, lower fetal weights, in rats
PMID: 11980575

-reduced bone mass and density, adverse alterations in the shaft
biomechanical properties.
PMID: 11936277,PMID: 11743931

-osteoporosis in aged male rats
PMID: 10934654

-adverse effects on hippocampal CA1 pyramidal cells in rats
PMID: 9136049

-reduced tissue protein synthesis in pigs
PMID: 8618147

-decreases in body cell mass, immune response, and muscle function
in elderly women
PMID: 9053825 , PMID: 7598064

-accelerates the loss of lean body mass in chronic uremics.
PMID: 1745030

-atrophy of liver hepatocytes in the rat
PMID: 3708137

-reduced ability to maintain body temperatures in the rhesus monkey
PMID: 108992

Hi,

"cde" > wrote in message
...
> John Coleman wrote:
> I doubt it. Paleoman exercised for 3 hours a day. It is very likely
> that exercise at or around this level is a desireable component of
> good health. The recommended 30 minutes per day is probably the
> absolute minimum.

Exercise is good for health, but 3 hours of walking around is not going to
be anything like as hard, as a day in the trees.

> Breast milk is low in protein but the amino acid profile cannot be
> matched by an equivalent amount of protein from cultivated fruit.

Sure, cultivated fruits have had their seeds mostly bred out.

> Here is a comparison of the aminos in 100 g protein from mixed fruit
(apples,
> bananas, grapefruit, grapes, cantaloupe, oranges, peaches, raspberries,
> strawberries) and 100 g protein from breast milk:
>
> breast milk mixed fruit (g)
> histidine 2.6 2
> isoleucine 5.7 1.85
> lysine 8.1 3.25
> leucine 10.5 3.05
> methionine+ cystine 4.3 1.7
> phenylalanine + tyrosine 10.7 4.1
> threonine 5.1 1.9
> tryptophan 1.6 0.7
> valine 5.7 2.9

Thanks, have you tried using the average of all fruits in the database? Is
breast milk a "good quality" protein using those new figures you posted?

> I agree, the protein in fruit is likely to be more digestible,
> but sweet cultivated fruit is generally much lower in protein
> than vegetables.

I wonder how digestability compares? This is academic though, if you add
some seeds to the diet, you will make up for the losses from cultivation.

> Modern cultivated fruits do not resemble the wild fruits
> that our primate ancestors ate, nor do they resemble the
> wild fruits that our wild primate cousins eat. Wild fruits
> are higher in protein, EFAs, soluble fibers including
> pectins, and richer in vitamins and minerals as well.

Absolutely. Messing with nature so often has big drawbacks.

> If one wanted to approximate the nutrient intake profile of
> the wild primate (or even paleoman) with modern cultivars,
> it would require more than minimal use of leaves and
> other vegetables, nuts, and seeds, at the expense of
> cultivated fruit.

I agree. A good 100-200g of seed matter, or more, needs adding back.

> You can't eliminate all via cooking--oxalic acid, for one,
> persists.

A pointer to the unnatural nature of eating leaf matter? Still, on balance
it is beneficial, just need to avoid the oxalates. I did read somewhere that
if the calcium is sufficient in the high oxalate veggies, then it isn't a
problem. When the soil is low calcium, and so in the produce, then the
oxalate is more an issue.

> Yes, it is not such a big deal. It's a term they use to broadly
> represent assimibility. It doesn't make a good case for eating
> animals because of the "high quality" of flesh protein, as Milton
> states.

I think a lot of Miltons work stinks.

> There are adverse consequences associated with either too little
> or too much, as is the case with almost all things. I am sure that
> you are aware of the problems with too much, but here are some
> problems associated with too little. As expected the most particularly
> vulnerable are the infant, the pregnant female, the elderly,
> and the ill--

But where are the numbers?

John

Hi,

"cde" > wrote in message
...
> John Coleman wrote:
> I doubt it. Paleoman exercised for 3 hours a day. It is very likely
> that exercise at or around this level is a desireable component of
> good health. The recommended 30 minutes per day is probably the
> absolute minimum.

Exercise is good for health, but 3 hours of walking around is not going to
be anything like as hard, as a day in the trees.

> Breast milk is low in protein but the amino acid profile cannot be
> matched by an equivalent amount of protein from cultivated fruit.

Sure, cultivated fruits have had their seeds mostly bred out.

> Here is a comparison of the aminos in 100 g protein from mixed fruit
(apples,
> bananas, grapefruit, grapes, cantaloupe, oranges, peaches, raspberries,
> strawberries) and 100 g protein from breast milk:
>
> breast milk mixed fruit (g)
> histidine 2.6 2
> isoleucine 5.7 1.85
> lysine 8.1 3.25
> leucine 10.5 3.05
> methionine+ cystine 4.3 1.7
> phenylalanine + tyrosine 10.7 4.1
> threonine 5.1 1.9
> tryptophan 1.6 0.7
> valine 5.7 2.9

Thanks, have you tried using the average of all fruits in the database? Is
breast milk a "good quality" protein using those new figures you posted?

> I agree, the protein in fruit is likely to be more digestible,
> but sweet cultivated fruit is generally much lower in protein
> than vegetables.

I wonder how digestability compares? This is academic though, if you add
some seeds to the diet, you will make up for the losses from cultivation.

> Modern cultivated fruits do not resemble the wild fruits
> that our primate ancestors ate, nor do they resemble the
> wild fruits that our wild primate cousins eat. Wild fruits
> are higher in protein, EFAs, soluble fibers including
> pectins, and richer in vitamins and minerals as well.

Absolutely. Messing with nature so often has big drawbacks.

> If one wanted to approximate the nutrient intake profile of
> the wild primate (or even paleoman) with modern cultivars,
> it would require more than minimal use of leaves and
> other vegetables, nuts, and seeds, at the expense of
> cultivated fruit.

I agree. A good 100-200g of seed matter, or more, needs adding back.

> You can't eliminate all via cooking--oxalic acid, for one,
> persists.

A pointer to the unnatural nature of eating leaf matter? Still, on balance
it is beneficial, just need to avoid the oxalates. I did read somewhere that
if the calcium is sufficient in the high oxalate veggies, then it isn't a
problem. When the soil is low calcium, and so in the produce, then the
oxalate is more an issue.

> Yes, it is not such a big deal. It's a term they use to broadly
> represent assimibility. It doesn't make a good case for eating
> animals because of the "high quality" of flesh protein, as Milton
> states.

I think a lot of Miltons work stinks.

> There are adverse consequences associated with either too little
> or too much, as is the case with almost all things. I am sure that
> you are aware of the problems with too much, but here are some
> problems associated with too little. As expected the most particularly
> vulnerable are the infant, the pregnant female, the elderly,
> and the ill--

But where are the numbers?

John

"RB" > wrote in message
om...
> Yes, but how do you *really* do this? Coming from a meat/dairy
> inclusive diet, it seems quite difficult to switch to a vegan mode and
> "get everything you need" in a day.

I went vegetarian + fish first if you see what I mean and noticed no
problems, but then I always hated meat in smell and texture and taste, so it
was always going to be easy for me.

> breakfast, and then around lunch, a bowl of mung beans and some lentil
> or bean soup with some nuts, which is "passable". Then for dinner --
> what, more soup and a potato? And this is just *one day.*

I think you need a vegan cookery book. I used to get this sort of soy and
bread based mix that you could make into sausages and burgers. It wasn't
really ehalthy, especially if fried, but I preffered it to meat.

> and/or cheese sandwich is heavily missed.

Cheese eating is the only animal thing I still have pleasant memories of. I
suspect the opioids in it are quite addictive as I found it very hard to
quit.

I believe that this diet is
> "reality" when it comes to the way we're supposed to eat, perhaps with
> a little meat here and there, but by and large it seems like a very
> difficult transition.

Once I got onto a raw food diet, any desire for animal products I found
totally gone. They don't smell like food anymore.

> I still don't feel like I'm getting enough
> protein, and my head seems to be telling me that pretty chronically.

How is that, you quit the animal products and get headaches - a bit of
withdrawal symptoms perhaps?

> I don't do much bread, as most of it is refined paste and doesn't
> really "travel too well" bodily. I feel like I'm missing "substance"
> to a meal without a sandwich or a piece of meat.

Now bread I found harder to quit than cheese, much harder, but then it has
salt and opioids as well, so is also potentially very addictive. And it does
indeed promote constipation, especially white bread. Have you tried adding
some seeds to a salad? What about an avocado?

After a while I just got used to eating lighter foods, and feel much better.

John

"RB" > wrote in message
om...
> Yes, but how do you *really* do this? Coming from a meat/dairy
> inclusive diet, it seems quite difficult to switch to a vegan mode and
> "get everything you need" in a day.

I went vegetarian + fish first if you see what I mean and noticed no
problems, but then I always hated meat in smell and texture and taste, so it
was always going to be easy for me.

> breakfast, and then around lunch, a bowl of mung beans and some lentil
> or bean soup with some nuts, which is "passable". Then for dinner --
> what, more soup and a potato? And this is just *one day.*

I think you need a vegan cookery book. I used to get this sort of soy and
bread based mix that you could make into sausages and burgers. It wasn't
really ehalthy, especially if fried, but I preffered it to meat.

> and/or cheese sandwich is heavily missed.

Cheese eating is the only animal thing I still have pleasant memories of. I
suspect the opioids in it are quite addictive as I found it very hard to
quit.

I believe that this diet is
> "reality" when it comes to the way we're supposed to eat, perhaps with
> a little meat here and there, but by and large it seems like a very
> difficult transition.

Once I got onto a raw food diet, any desire for animal products I found
totally gone. They don't smell like food anymore.

> I still don't feel like I'm getting enough
> protein, and my head seems to be telling me that pretty chronically.

How is that, you quit the animal products and get headaches - a bit of
withdrawal symptoms perhaps?

> I don't do much bread, as most of it is refined paste and doesn't
> really "travel too well" bodily. I feel like I'm missing "substance"
> to a meal without a sandwich or a piece of meat.

Now bread I found harder to quit than cheese, much harder, but then it has
salt and opioids as well, so is also potentially very addictive. And it does
indeed promote constipation, especially white bread. Have you tried adding
some seeds to a salad? What about an avocado?

After a while I just got used to eating lighter foods, and feel much better.

John

> If I knew someone was literallydying from self-imposed starvation I would
do
> something to intervene. Apathy kills a lot of people.
>
> -Rubystars

even the state has special controls before forcing people to eat against
their will - if alternative dieters want to starve to death, they pretty
much can

John

John Coleman wrote:

>
> Exercise is good for health, but 3 hours of walking around is not going to
> be anything like as hard, as a day in the trees.

Not all primates spend all day in the trees. Neither did Paleoman.

> Sure, cultivated fruits have had their seeds mostly bred out.

It isn't only seeds that are different.

> Thanks, have you tried using the average of all fruits in the database? Is
> breast milk a "good quality" protein using those new figures you posted?

I looked at an average of 80 fruits and the results were
worse, but this included a number of nearly-all sugar and
fat fruits. If you prefer to specify the fruits you are most
interested in, I can do that for you. I think that the analysis
would be most valuable for common, easily obtained fruits.

> I wonder how digestability compares? This is academic though, if you add
> some seeds to the diet, you will make up for the losses from cultivation.

It isn't only seeds. You also do well with a number of
leaves. Seeds are not particularly nutrient-dense and
they are not the greatest sources of many vitamins
and minerals. Many of them are loaded with 18:n2
fats which can be harmful in excess of needs.

> I agree. A good 100-200g of seed matter, or more, needs adding back.

And leaves, and non-sweet fruit, and other vegetables, and
perhaps even fungi, some sprouted legumes, and sprouted
grains.

> A pointer to the unnatural nature of eating leaf matter?

Not at all. Leaf-eating is very natural. Our modern cultivated
leaf foods are probably a better match for wild fruits than
cultivated fruits, from the nutritional standpoint.

Composites (lettuces) have very little oxalate. The crucifers
vary--there is hardly any in turnip greens and moderate quantities
in collard greens. It's the goosefoot family and some members of
the parsley family that are high in oxalates, but goosefoots are so
great for vitamin E and protein, and other vitamins, that it would
be a shame to omit them. They are fine in moderation, especially in
a background rich in a wide variety of other plant foods.

>>Yes, it is not such a big deal. It's a term they use to broadly
>>represent assimibility. It doesn't make a good case for eating
>>animals because of the "high quality" of flesh protein, as Milton
>>states.
>
>
> I think a lot of Miltons work stinks.

She states that plant protein is adequate and that flesh eating is
not necessary for meeting protein needs. Do you disagree?

I like her earlier work. I am not so crazy about the latest paper,
though.

> But where are the numbers?

0.45 g/kg, type unspecified, is inadequate for the elderly human
female. PMID: 7598064

"cde" > wrote in message
...
> John Coleman wrote:
>
> >
> > Exercise is good for health, but 3 hours of walking around is not going
to
> > be anything like as hard, as a day in the trees.
>
> Not all primates spend all day in the trees. Neither did Paleoman.

Primates that spend any time in trees burn up loads of calories and turn
over a lot of protein. Many primates have far more muscle bulk in proportion
to what humans have - they turn over more protein just moving around. I
consider it a safe bet they need more protein than we do, and that may
explain why humans have the lowest protein milk of them all.

> > Sure, cultivated fruits have had their seeds mostly bred out.
>
> It isn't only seeds that are different.

You are right, a lot has been altered.

> It isn't only seeds. You also do well with a number of
> leaves. Seeds are not particularly nutrient-dense

I think seeds are very nutritious.

> and minerals. Many of them are loaded with 18:n2
> fats which can be harmful in excess of needs.

are you sure that applies to raw seeds?

> And leaves, and non-sweet fruit, and other vegetables, and
> perhaps even fungi, some sprouted legumes, and sprouted
> grains.

I was counting legumes and grains as seeds. I find the shop fungi rather
bland. We had a huge mushroom in the yard this year, which I dehydrated to
make into a "mushroom pizza" - I topped it with a spread of avocado and some
dried and fresh tomatoes. I never tasted a shroom as good as that, really a
very full flavour.

> Not at all. Leaf-eating is very natural. Our modern cultivated
> leaf foods are probably a better match for wild fruits than
> cultivated fruits, from the nutritional standpoint.

I think there may be some truth in that yes. However, we have had to
cultivate them, which isn't very natural, and we don't have very good teeth
or guts for dealing with real leaf matter. However, when I was in Malaysia I
was offered a common weed that is eaten there, and it was not bitter in its
raw state. There was also this weird melon like fruit that grows everywhere
like a weed. I never tasted that though. Some of these wild fruits are in
fact very green on the skin and juicy rather like leaves. It all reminds me
that we cannot accurately summarise the variety of plant matter out there.

> Composites (lettuces) have very little oxalate. The crucifers
> vary--there is hardly any in turnip greens and moderate quantities
> in collard greens. It's the goosefoot family and some members of
> the parsley family that are high in oxalates, but goosefoots are so
> great for vitamin E and protein, and other vitamins, that it would
> be a shame to omit them. They are fine in moderation, especially in
> a background rich in a wide variety of other plant foods.

Thanks, I don't think we get all of them here though.

> She states that plant protein is adequate and that flesh eating is
> not necessary for meeting protein needs. Do you disagree?

That at least is correct - in fact meat just isn't necessary for but a few
mammals. I think Goodhall says that chimps don't need meat to grow normally.
There are about 13 primates listed in one of my books that are not noted to
eat any animal matter.

> I like her earlier work. I am not so crazy about the latest paper,
> though.

Join the critics http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm. Everyone has to
pay the bills.

> 0.45 g/kg, type unspecified, is inadequate for the elderly human
> female. PMID: 7598064

Interesting. Harpers Biochemistry claims 30g/d is enough for the average
male - this is a physiolgical requirement, not dietary advice BTW. Elderly
people digest animal proteins poorly and are often in poor health, so this
may make results non-generalisable if this is the case. The study needed an
additional group of subjects reflecting a broader range of the normal
population to make results generalisable. Increased carbohydrate intake can
also spare protein, so that needs to be measured as well. Did you read the
paper, what "protein" did they feed them?

regards,
John

John Coleman wrote:

>>It isn't only seeds. You also do well with a number of
>>leaves. Seeds are not particularly nutrient-dense
>
>
> I think seeds are very nutritious.

In some ways, yes. But, there is a very high calorie cost
associated with what they offer. They are not high on the
nutrient density list. I include about 20% raw nuts/seeds/
fatty fruit in my diet, about equal parts walnuts, flax,
virgin olive oil, and avocado with only occasional use of
other seeds and nuts (except for one small brazil nut per
day for selenium).

>
>>and minerals. Many of them are loaded with 18:n2
>>fats which can be harmful in excess of needs.
>
>
> are you sure that applies to raw seeds?

Yes, most of them. The 18:n2 to 18:n3 ratio is higher
or much higher than the recommended 4:1 or lower, for
almost all seeds proper with only a few exceptions: flax,
hemp, pumpkin. That doesn't mean they should be elminated,
only that the emphasis should probably be on the higher 18:n3
ones. Even when they are all raw. Both 18:n2 and 18:n3 are
highly oxidizable, 18:n3 even more so than 18:n2.

> We cannot accurately summarise the variety of plant matter out there.

And that we are missing out on a lot of good wild plant
foods.

> Join the critics http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm. Everyone has to
> pay the bills.

I think perhaps she might have responded more positively to praise
and some minor questions, rather than a full-blown assault. She has
in the past seemed to be very symptathetic to veg*nism, especially
in her replies to that infamous Cordain paper. But I agree, she could
do a lot better with more soluble plant fibers in her diet and a lower
BMI + some exercise.

>>0.45 g/kg, type unspecified, is inadequate for the elderly human
>>female. PMID: 7598064
>
>
> Interesting. Harpers Biochemistry claims 30g/d is enough for the average
> male - this is a physiolgical requirement, not dietary advice BTW.

Is this recent? From what paper does this value derive? Sometimes textbook
authors do the same thing that most of us do--cite a value without having
read the full study.

> Did you read the
> paper, what "protein" did they feed them?

No, not that one. I would assume it's the usual SAD thing, maybe
1/3 animal 2/3 vegetable. It would seem to me that increasing the
vegetable protein amount would be safer than increasing the animal
protein amount.

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> > If I knew someone was literallydying from self-imposed starvation I
would
> do
> > something to intervene. Apathy kills a lot of people.
> >
> > -Rubystars
>
> even the state has special controls before forcing people to eat against
> their will - if alternative dieters want to starve to death, they pretty
> much can

At any rate the guy definitely would have had a diagnosable eating disorder,
if he could have gotten some help.

-Rubystars

"cde" > wrote in message
...
> John Coleman wrote:
> In some ways, yes. But, there is a very high calorie cost
> associated with what they offer. They are not high on the
> nutrient density list.

Perhaps not per calorie, but certainly per gram.

I include about 20% raw nuts/seeds/
> fatty fruit in my diet, about equal parts walnuts, flax,
> virgin olive oil, and avocado with only occasional use of
> other seeds and nuts (except for one small brazil nut per
> day for selenium).

My program is similar, at least when I'm not so busy I get time to eat
properly! Nuts I find tend to make me rather snotty, seeds especially
sprouted are no problem in this regard.

> Yes, most of them. The 18:n2 to 18:n3 ratio is higher
> or much higher than the recommended 4:1 or lower, for
> almost all seeds proper with only a few exceptions: flax,
> hemp, pumpkin.

Flax hemp and pumpkin are what I tend to use, plus sunflower, I much prefer
puy lentils though.

> And that we are missing out on a lot of good wild plant
> foods.

Absolutely.

> I think perhaps she might have responded more positively to praise
> and some minor questions, rather than a full-blown assault.

Laurie never does a critique by half. These people are educators with
considerable academic background, are widely read, and deserve no mercy.

> Is this recent? From what paper does this value derive? Sometimes textbook
> authors do the same thing that most of us do--cite a value without having
> read the full study.

24th Ed. (1996) and they even tell you how to calculate physiological
requirements.

The figures are as follows:

%protein average (non obese population) male 17.5
daily turnover = 1-2% (the less you exercise the lower the figure as muscle
contributes most turnover)
recycling efficiency = 75-80% (here I believe exercise may increase
efficiency, but not much)

thus:-
for 65kg male, total protein = 11375g
turnover = 113.75 - 227.5g
unrecycled = 22.85 - 56.9g

Their figure, as you can see, is closer to the low side, as will be
appropriate for most of a sedentary population. Dietary recommendations
typically double this level for a factor of "safety". Daily turnover rates
and recycling efficiency do not change to suit Atkins or anyone elses high
protein theories - they are fixed in the DNA. If you get 60g/day you are
surely covered, probably with a little exess not withstanding any limiting
amino acids considerations.

> No, not that one. I would assume it's the usual SAD thing, maybe
> 1/3 animal 2/3 vegetable. It would seem to me that increasing the
> vegetable protein amount would be safer than increasing the animal
> protein amount.

You are right of course! Less strokes and heart attacks that way. But hey,
someone has to die young to pay for my long pension, and it may as well be
meatarians - looks like all the fast food outlets have this covered nicely
for the future... mmm

John

"cde" > wrote in message
...
> John Coleman wrote:
> In some ways, yes. But, there is a very high calorie cost
> associated with what they offer. They are not high on the
> nutrient density list.

Perhaps not per calorie, but certainly per gram.

I include about 20% raw nuts/seeds/
> fatty fruit in my diet, about equal parts walnuts, flax,
> virgin olive oil, and avocado with only occasional use of
> other seeds and nuts (except for one small brazil nut per
> day for selenium).

My program is similar, at least when I'm not so busy I get time to eat
properly! Nuts I find tend to make me rather snotty, seeds especially
sprouted are no problem in this regard.

> Yes, most of them. The 18:n2 to 18:n3 ratio is higher
> or much higher than the recommended 4:1 or lower, for
> almost all seeds proper with only a few exceptions: flax,
> hemp, pumpkin.

Flax hemp and pumpkin are what I tend to use, plus sunflower, I much prefer
puy lentils though.

> And that we are missing out on a lot of good wild plant
> foods.

Absolutely.

> I think perhaps she might have responded more positively to praise
> and some minor questions, rather than a full-blown assault.

Laurie never does a critique by half. These people are educators with
considerable academic background, are widely read, and deserve no mercy.

> Is this recent? From what paper does this value derive? Sometimes textbook
> authors do the same thing that most of us do--cite a value without having
> read the full study.

24th Ed. (1996) and they even tell you how to calculate physiological
requirements.

The figures are as follows:

%protein average (non obese population) male 17.5
daily turnover = 1-2% (the less you exercise the lower the figure as muscle
contributes most turnover)
recycling efficiency = 75-80% (here I believe exercise may increase
efficiency, but not much)

thus:-
for 65kg male, total protein = 11375g
turnover = 113.75 - 227.5g
unrecycled = 22.85 - 56.9g

Their figure, as you can see, is closer to the low side, as will be
appropriate for most of a sedentary population. Dietary recommendations
typically double this level for a factor of "safety". Daily turnover rates
and recycling efficiency do not change to suit Atkins or anyone elses high
protein theories - they are fixed in the DNA. If you get 60g/day you are
surely covered, probably with a little exess not withstanding any limiting
amino acids considerations.

> No, not that one. I would assume it's the usual SAD thing, maybe
> 1/3 animal 2/3 vegetable. It would seem to me that increasing the
> vegetable protein amount would be safer than increasing the animal
> protein amount.

You are right of course! Less strokes and heart attacks that way. But hey,
someone has to die young to pay for my long pension, and it may as well be
meatarians - looks like all the fast food outlets have this covered nicely
for the future... mmm

John

Thank you all for sharing that. I'm finding it still difficult to
maintain the "quantity" level necessary. Thinking in terms of 10's of
cups is much different than thinking in terms of a small bit of meat
or dairy. Maybe this is not true, but it seems you really have to
consume a LOT more vegetables than you do dairy/meat, in terms of what
seems to be the density of protein in the foods.


"John Coleman" > wrote in message >...
> > "Protein and amino acid digestibility is a complex concept;
> > recent findings on this aspect of protein nutrition clearly
> > demonstrate significant differences in the effect of the
> > protein ingested, and of the diet as a whole, on endogenous
> > nitrogen secretion in the gut, the relationships between
> > fecal and ileal nitrogen digestibility and the relationships
> > between total nitrogen and individual amino acid
> > digestibility. In addition, the availability of nitrogen and
> > amino acids varies with protein source and is affected by
> > the presence of antinutritional factors, processing
> > treatments and interaction among other components of the
> > diet. All of these should be taken into account in a
> > comprehensive evaluation and accurate prediction of dietary
> > protein quality."
>
> Even that is not enough, the body adapts to different levels of amino acid
> intakes so that only long term feeding studies are likely to reveal true
> requirements. Short term feeding studies are more likely to reflect the
> nature of the prior diet.
>
> > It is a good and safe objective for the prudent vegan to aim
> > higher than the bare minimum, although there may be adverse
> > consequences in aiming too high.
>
> Where is the data for supporting this? The only gold sandard for valid
> health research deductions is long term studies in which the subjects were
> actually healthy. Anything else is superstition. It amuses me that ordinary
> citizens are often described as "healthy" in medical papers because they
> have no diagnosed medical complaints. Yet even so, these kind of people may
> have regular colds, headaches, constipation and such and are simply not
> healthy.
>
> > The tracer studies with 13C-labeled amino acids have been
> > used to refine minimum physiological needs for selected
> > indispensable amino acids in healthy adults, and the US
> > DRIs quickly adapted something similar, although there
> > remains some controversy. The new suggested requirements for
> > adults from the MIT study are more difficult to meet on some
> > odd or careless sects of veganism, such as strict
> > fruitarianism or junk food veganism.
>
> As far as I understand the original 1985 figures have been shown to work. I
> did notice that later studies like Zallo et al. did increase some
> "requirements".
>
> > suggested adult requirements
> > mg/kg/day
> > lysine 19
> > aromatic 20 (phenylalanine, tyrosine)
> > sulfur 16 (cystine, methionine)
> > valine 14
> > leucine 26
> > isoleucine 18
> > threonine 16
> > tryptophan 4
>
> So in fact some very big changes from the old figures below.
>
> CDN ADULTS
> diet mg/g mg/kg mg/g
> Lysine 61.6 12 15.4
> Phenylalanine +
> Tyrosine 81.8 14 17.9
> Methionine +
> Cystine 34.1 13 16.7
> Valine 57.6 10 12.8
> Leucine 79.1 14 17.9
> Histidine - [8-12] [10-15]
> Isoleucine 46.7 10 12.8
> Threonine 38.4 7 9.0
> Tryptophan 12.3 3.5 4.5
>
> The problem is that to produce a single set of figures they will need to
> factor in the worst possible cases that an average Western population could
> reasonably be expected to be exposed to. So really the new figures are not
> truely physiological requirements - they probably do represenet better
> objectives for the diets studied though.
>
> > I crunched some numbers for a strict fruitarian diet
> > (1 cup each of apples, bananas, blackberries,
> > grapefruit, jackfruit, grapes, mango, canteloupe,
> > nectarines, oranges, peaches, pineapple, plums,
> > raspberries, strawberries, and watermelon) and
> > found there were deficiencies in lysine, aromatics,
> > cystine, methionine, valine, leucine, isoleucine,
> > threonine, and tryptophan.
>
> I doubt you can extrapolate the figures like that, I doubt the researchers
> measured long term effects of a fruitarian diet on AA status. Fruit offer
> shighly bioavailable protein, although often too low in concentration
>
> > But, these deficiencies were eliminated by modest
> > substitution of some of the sweet fruit wth leaves,
> > sprouted legumes, and seeds.
>
> Yes, one detrimental effect of hybridisation is the systematic reduction of
> seed matter in our fruits. I only started eating more seeds as part of my
> raw diet a couple of years ago. Before that it was mostly fruit and some
> salad. I can't say I've noticed any difference throughout, and I've never
> had obvious evidence of a deficiency. What would an amino acid deficiency
> look like anyway? Eventually I think you would lose muscle. I have heard of
> this in fruitarians, and raw foodists who don't eat enough. Including some
> seeds in the raw diet seems prudent. Sprouted puy lentils in one of my
> favourites, as are pumpin and sunflower seeds. Mixing sprouted seed milks
> (eg hemp) into a smoothie is also very enjoyable.
>
> Joh

RB wrote:
> Thank you all for sharing that. I'm finding it still difficult to
> maintain the "quantity" level necessary. Thinking in terms of 10's of
> cups is much different than thinking in terms of a small bit of meat
> or dairy.

This is because greens are mostly water. If you do eat
lots of greens, you will reap multiple benefits with
an exceptional level of vitamins, minerals, soluble
fibers, and protective phytochemicals which may drastically
reduce your risks for CHD, most types of cancers, diverticulitis,
stroke, etc. The healthiest diets, whether omnivorous,
vegetarian, or vegan, incorporate lots of greens, and it
is a good thing to do regardless of protein content or
goals.

> Maybe this is not true, but it seems you really have to
> consume a LOT more vegetables than you do dairy/meat, in terms of what
> seems to be the density of protein in the foods.

This is true for leaves, but less so for non-leafy vegetables,
and untrue for many legumes, seeds, and plant protein isolates.
One tablespoon (15 g) of Nutribiotic rice protein powder
provides 12 g of protein with 58 kcal.

**Maybe a topic should be started with some critical, actual facts on
protein and calcium. Here's something I picked up at a seminar last week**


Humans only need about 12-15 grams of protein per day for their bodies to
properly operate.

The FDA "buffered" that amount, to about 22, and then doubled it (for some
unknown reason) to put the "recommended" protein intake somewhere around 45
grams/day. That amount is actually not a healthy amount of protein to be
consuming daily - excess protein (amino acids) raises the blood's acidic
levels. In order for the body to regulate pH, it puts calcium - a base
(stored in the bones) - into the blood stream. More protein => more calcium
needed to neutralize => (possibly) osteoperosis. (NOTE: osteoperosis is a
bone disease caused by Calcium LOSS, and not by insufficient calcium.
Insufficient calcium can bring about another condition called osteomalacia,
which is usually only seen in children. Children's bodies with forming
bones require more calcium than adults').

One cup of orange juice contains 3 grams of protein. That's more than
one-fifth of the amount that your body actually needs in a day.


(a news report on one such speaker can be read he
http://flathat.wm.edu/story.php?issu...6&type=1&aid=4 - it's not
bundled with "sited facts" or anything, but an interesting read, and may
give you some research ideas).

-jessigurr

"RB" > wrote in message
m...
> Thank you all for sharing that. I'm finding it still difficult to
> maintain the "quantity" level necessary. Thinking in terms of 10's of
> cups is much different than thinking in terms of a small bit of meat
> or dairy. Maybe this is not true, but it seems you really have to
> consume a LOT more vegetables than you do dairy/meat, in terms of what
> seems to be the density of protein in the foods.

It depends if you include nuts, they have about twice or more the protein of
meat - but humans really do not need concentrated protein sources at all.
The really important things are vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients. So
long as you get enough food energy, you are unlikely to be protein deficient
so long as you eat a good variety of food.

John

http://www.veganhealth.org


--
Be A Healthy Vegan Or Vegetarian
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdo...ealthyVeg.html

Steve's Home Page
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/

"The great American thought trap: It is not real
unless it can be seen on television or bought in a
shopping mall"