Vegetables = complete protein? Wha..?

[Holyspokes]

So I often vist a cycling forum as well as this one, and there was a thread about vegetarianism. One poster is claiming that vegetables are indeed complete proteins and link this website: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/protein.html

Is there any truth to it? Or is it just ignoring the proportion part of the definition?

[MichaelBluejay]

Is there any truth to it? Or is it just ignoring the proportion part of the definition?

Holyspokes, the article makes perfectly clear, and I've also explained repeatedly, that far from "ignoring" the proportion part of the definition, the analysis is *based* on it.

If you don't believe me, run the numbers yourself:

(1) Get the amount needed for each amino acid from the WHO report (linked in the article).
(2) Look of the amount of each each amino acid in any single vegetable, using the USDA food and nutrient database (Google it), with that single vegetable providing all caloric needs.

Few people have ever looked at the actual numbers that way, even people who write about nutrition -- and certainly not people who frequent exercise boards. Why you think random opinions are more meaningful than the actual data is puzzling.

[Emma-Leigh]

So I often vist a cycling forum as well as this one, and there was a thread about vegetarianism. One poster is claiming that vegetables are indeed complete proteins and link this website: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/protein.html

Is there any truth to it? Or is it just ignoring the proportion part of the definition?
He is correct.... to a degree. Incomplete/ complete is not really applicable with the exception of a few protein types. >> Lyle describes it best here: http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/mcdonald/protein-01.htm

Indispensable and dispensable amino acids
The 20 dietary AAs are typically subdivided into two categories. In the past, these categories were termed essential and inessential (or non-essential). Essential AAs could not be synthesized in the body, and had to come from the diet, while inessential AAs could be made within the body.

Since all amino acids are essential, in that they are required for life, the categories have been renamed. The more accurate/modern terminology is dispensable AA (which can be made within the body) and indispensable AA (which must come from the diet).

However even this nomenclature is incomplete and is not sufficient to cover all possibilities. Depending on the metabolic state of the body, certain dispensable amino acids may become indispensable (2). For example, glutamine, which is normally considered a dispensable amino acid, may be required in such high quantities under certain conditions, that enough can not be made in the body, and it becomes indispensable (3). One of these situations is following trauma or surgery, where glutamine requirements go up significantly. In this case, glutamine is termed a conditionally indispensable AA.

Another example is cysteine, which reduces the requirements for methionine, and tyrosine, which reduces the requirements for tryptophan. Under situations where insufficient methionine or tryptophan are being consumed, cysteine and tyrosine would become indispensable (1). There are several other sub-categories which can also be delineated but they can be ignored for the purpose of this article (2).

A list of dispensable and indispensable amino acids appears in table 1.
<<snip table here>>

In the past, dietary proteins were classified as complete, meaning that all indispensable AAs were present ; or incomplete, meaning that one or more of the indispensable AAs was absent. However, with few exceptions (e.g. gelatin) every dietary protein contains all of the AAs in varying amounts. This means that the concept of 'complete' and 'incomplete' proteins is incorrect.

Since all proteins are complete, it is more accurate to refer to the limiting AA of a given protein, which is the indispensable AA occurring in the lowest quantity relative to what is required. One can also determine the second limiting AA, which is the indispensable AA occurring in the second least quantity, etc. The limiting AA will affect how well a given protein can be used by the body.

As an example, grains are typically very low in lysine but high in methionine while legumes are low in methionine but high in lysine. This complementarity between vegetable proteins led to the premise of combining grains and legumes together, to obtain a 'complete' protein (1). In general, limiting AAs should be a non-issue unless an individual is consuming all of their protein from a single source, and only if that source is a poor quality protein to begin with. That is, since proteins differ in their limiting AA, someone eating a variety of protein sources should fulfill their AA requirements with little difficulty. However, consuming large amounts of a low quality protein, one could consume adequate AAs for health and functioning. This would simply be an inefficient way of doing things because an excess of non-limiting AAs would be consumed simply to provide enough of the limiting AA.

But in regards to the need for protein in the diet:

Obes Rev. 2005 May;6(2):133-42.
Obesity: the protein leverage hypothesis.
Simpson SJ, Raubenheimer D.

Department of Zoology and University Museum of Natural History, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK. stephen.simpson@zoo.ox.ac.uk
The obesity epidemic is among the greatest public health challenges facing the modern world. Regarding dietary causes, most emphasis has been on changing patterns of fat and carbohydrate consumption. In contrast, the role of protein has largely been ignored, because (i) it typically comprises only approximately 15% of dietary energy, and (ii) protein intake has remained near constant within and across populations throughout the development of the obesity epidemic. We show that, paradoxically, these are precisely the two conditions that potentially provide protein with the leverage both to drive the obesity epidemic through its effects on food intake, and perhaps to assuage it. We formalize this hypothesis in a mathematical model. Some supporting epidemiological, experimental and animal data are presented, and predictions are made for future testing.

PMID: 15836464 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Publication Types, MeSH Terms, Substances
LinkOut - more resources
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118715050/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

[MichaelBluejay]

Lyle is closer than most but I take issue with his statement "Grains are typically very low in lysine." When rice, corn, or oats alone contains as much or more lysine than we need, it's not accurate to say that their lysine content is "low".

[Emma-Leigh]

Yes it is. Their lysine content IS low.

[MichaelBluejay]

When grains have at least as much lysine as you need (usually more), how do you figure that that means grains are "low" in lysine? Or do you dispute that grains have at least as much lysine as you need (in spite of what the data says)?

[Emma-Leigh]

When grains have at least as much lysine as you need (usually more), how do you figure that that means grains are "low" in lysine? Or do you dispute that grains have at least as much lysine as you need (in spite of what the data says)?
Because it is -->> Even IF your comments above are true (and I am going to disagree that it is 'easy' to get all your requirements from grains alone - see below) it doesn't mean didly squat. In comparison to pulses or animal sources - grains are low in lysine. This is how the level is compared ->> Relative to other protein sources. ;)

The lysine content of most grains is horribly small. It is the limiting amino acid in grains. For example:
- Brown rice only has about 160mg per cup (cooked).
- Wheat? About 130mg per 100g RAW.
- Corn? Even less.

If you then look that the average lysine requirement of most people is around 25-45 mg/kg/d (average of about 30-35mg for an average adult (CLICK ME (http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/137/6/1642S) and CLICK ME (http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/264/4/E677)). It means an average 70kg/150# male needs about about 2000-2500mg.

The needs of athletes, growing individuals, pregnant females, those on low calorie diets, and those with specific medical conditions (eg: osteoporosis or wasting diseases) need more. This need can be up to 2-3 x normal depending on the individual, or if more than one of the above is considered (eg: athlete who wishes to grow ;) ). Thus - the 'average' 150# male who trains hard and wants to gain lean mass? He now needs much more than the base 30-35mg/kg/day - and something closer to 60-70mg/kg/day would be better.

So, coming back to the content of grains.... If we took brown rice with 160mg per cup (cooked)... > to reach that base of 35mg/kg/day - a 68kg male (150#) would need 14.8 cups.... Even Quinoa (which is higher in protein) would still require you to eat about 8 cups a day to reach requirements.... Adding in that the availability of the protein in grains is poor at best (due to digestibility and metabolizable factors) - you need even more.

Why is it people who eat only rice get MALNURISHED and get medical issues from such? > It is because man CAN'T live on grains alone. ;)

[MichaelBluejay]

I'm sorry, but your numbers appear to be way off.

Using the WHO standard of 30 mg/kg/day for lysine, a 150# male would need 2g/day. That would be supplied by only 11.7 cups of cooked brown rice, not the whopping 148 cups you claim. I'm getting my figures from the USDA food and nutrient database.

That 11.7 cups would be about 5 lbs. of food and would provide 2555 calories. And if the person consumed more calories, then they'd be getting more lysine.

And corn doesn't have less lysine than brown rice, as you stated, it has more. A similar caloric amount of corn provides nearly double the amount of lysine (3.8g).

I'm not suggesting that anyone should eat only one food. I'm just trying to show that, even IF a person ate only one food, even brown rice which is "low" in lysine, and is the "limiting amino acid", they'd get enough lysine (as well as all the other aminos), and their protein utilization wouldn't be "limited".

[Emma-Leigh]

I'm sorry, but your numbers appear to be way off....

Using the WHO standard of 30 mg/kg/day for lysine, a 150# male would need 2g/day. That would be supplied by only 11.7 cups of cooked brown rice, not the whopping 148 cups you claim. I'm getting my figures from the USDA food and nutrient database.
1. sorry it was meant to be 14.8 cups. Typo.
2. WHO standards are outdated (see evidence above)



That 11.7 cups would be about 5 lbs. of food and would provide 2555 calories. And if the person consumed more calories, then they'd be getting more lysine.
Are you suggesting that it is entirely reasonable for someone to eat 2555 cals worth or rice? :confused: Because I hope you don't need me to suggest how unrealistic that is.


And corn doesn't have less lysine than brown rice, as you stated, it has more. A similar caloric amount of corn provides nearly double the amount of lysine (3.8g).
For a given protein content - rice has more.
Brown rice has 3.8g lysine for every 16g N
Maize/ corn has 2.5g for every 16g N.

Also on weight - rice has more.
150g corn = 200mg lysine.
150g rice =237mg lysine.


I'm not suggesting that anyone should eat only one food. I'm just trying to show that, even IF a person ate only one food, even brown rice which is "low" in lysine, and is the "limiting amino acid", they'd get enough lysine (as well as all the other aminos), and their protein utilization wouldn't be "limited".
How do you figure that.
I couldn't (realistically) consume enough rice/ grains to fill my needs + ensure I get a full profile of nutrients / vitamins/ minerals.

The protein requirements for athletes (as mentioned above) needs to also be considered.... << You should do some pubmed searches on the work of Tipton and Phillips < they have put out a lot of good info recently.... Simpson also has some interesting work out on protein leverage.... <<<


You also might want to read this: FAO Info on Rice in Human Nutrition (http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0567e/T0567E00.htm#Contents)

And look at the information on protein utilisation from rice here -->> CLICK ME (http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0567e/T0567E0d.htm#Nutrient%20composition%20and%20protei n%20quality%20of%20rice%20relative%20to%20o).

And the information on Protein-Energy interrelationships HERE (http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid07e00.htm#Contents).

[BloodRaged]

Interesting reading.

I do have to say though, the CLICK ME links are tough for me to click because of my rebellious nature.

:)

[Emma-Leigh]

While I had a few minutes free this morning I thought I would give a link to that protein leverage info I discussed by Simpson et al. -->> it discusses the needs of protein to a level of about 15% and the way that both humans and non-human animals will eat to obtain this.


Obes Rev. 2005 May;6(2):133-42.
Obesity: the protein leverage hypothesis.
Simpson SJ, Raubenheimer D.

Department of Zoology and University Museum of Natural History, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK. stephen.simpson@zoo.ox.ac.uk
The obesity epidemic is among the greatest public health challenges facing the modern world. Regarding dietary causes, most emphasis has been on changing patterns of fat and carbohydrate consumption. In contrast, the role of protein has largely been ignored, because (i) it typically comprises only approximately 15% of dietary energy, and (ii) protein intake has remained near constant within and across populations throughout the development of the obesity epidemic. We show that, paradoxically, these are precisely the two conditions that potentially provide protein with the leverage both to drive the obesity epidemic through its effects on food intake, and perhaps to assuage it. We formalize this hypothesis in a mathematical model. Some supporting epidemiological, experimental and animal data are presented, and predictions are made for future testing.

PMID: 15836464 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Publication Types, MeSH Terms, Substances
LinkOut - more resources

Also attached is a discussion on the needs of protein quality in relation to health. From here: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/87/5/1576S << I encourage you to look at the references too as there is a wealth of information in them.

[Holyspokes]

<3 you Emma.

[MichaelBluejay]

Are you suggesting that it is entirely reasonable for someone to eat 2555 cals worth or rice? Because I hope you don't need me to suggest how unrealistic that is.

No. What I *actually* said was:



I'm not suggesting that anyone should eat only one food.

So we're going nowhere fast if you ignore what I actually say and substitute ridiculous straw-man arguments instead.

Let me repeat the entirety of my quote:



I'm not suggesting that anyone should eat only one food. I'm just trying to show that, even IF a person ate only one food, even brown rice which is "low" in lysine, and is the "limiting amino acid", they'd get enough lysine (as well as all the other aminos), and their protein utilization wouldn't be "limited".

THAT is the point. Nothing more, nothing less.


I couldn't (realistically) consume enough rice/ grains to fill my needs + ensure I get a full profile of nutrients / vitamins/ minerals.

This breathtakingly misses the point, and creates another straw man. I never suggested that any one food supplied a full profile of vitamins and minerals. My point, for the umpteenth time, was that a single plant food such as rice supplies all *indispensable amino acids*, since THAT was the topic under discussion. (Remember the Title of this thread, which makes it clear.)

And yes, you could consume 12 cups of cooked rice in a day, if that were all you were eating.


1. sorry it was meant to be 14.8 cups. Typo.

Even using your inflated figure of 35g/kg/d, 14.8 cups is still off, by about 20%. The correct figure is 12.36 cups, according to the USDA Food and Nutrient Database, which is of course the most-used standard reference.


WHO standards are outdated

This is kind of ironic, since what's actually outdated is the Lyle McDonald article you cited to back your statement. McDonald cites the *1985* WHO standards. But the WHO updated its recommendations (and the paper those are based on) in *2002*. That paper is hundreds of pages long and is the most comprehensive modern review of the protein and amino acid literature anywhere. And of course, the figures I'm using are from the 2002 WHO standards, not the ones from 25 years ago. I identify my 2002 WHO source quite clearly in my article.


For a given protein content - rice has more [lysine than corn].
Brown rice has 3.8g lysine for every 16g N
Maize/ corn has 2.5g for every 16g N.

Also on weight - rice has more.

Oh, please. The standard way to compare foods is by calorie, not by weight, and *certainly* not by grams per gram of nitrogen. No authority recommends that we eat a certain number of *pounds* of food per day, they recommend we eat a certain number of *calories* per day. Corn has more lysine than brown rice, on a per-calorie basis, which is the basis that really matters.

As for the new references you introduced, I see nothing in them that argues convincingly that we should be eating way more protein than the standard recommendations suggest. (And even if they did argue that, we'd have to figure how that squares with decades of existing research that supports the existing recommendations.)

More specifically, are you aware that the author of the paper you cited, Dr. Joe Millward, believes in the adequacy of plant proteins? This is exceptionally relevant given that the very question raised by this thread is whether plant proteins are sufficient. Here's what Millward said when asked about this:


Dr. Joe Millward: I thought I had made my position quite clear in my published papers. In an article I wrote for Encyclopedia of Nutrition (Millward DJ. 1998 Protein requirements. Encyclopedia of Nutrition. Academic Press pp 1661-1668) I said ?Contrary to general opinion, the distinction between dietary protein sources in terms of the nutritional superiority of animal over plant proteins is much more difficult to demonstrate and less relevant in human nutrition.? This is quite distinct from the AHA position which in my view is wrong."

So, you can cite all you like, but what it comes down to is, I don't see any convincing evidence that human protein requirements are really higher than what the health bodies say they are. And those recommendations, compared to what's actually in food, using official sources, show that plant proteins are decidedly complete.

And we haven't even touched on the problems of *excess* protein consumption. I'll end this post with a good quote on the subject by Dr. John A. McDougall:


Dr. John A. McDougall: From now on, think of the excess protein you consume as garbage that must be disposed of in order to avoid toxic waste accumulation.

[Emma-Leigh]

Firstly -> There is really no need to start to be rude. We are having a discussion - not an argument. If you are going to start to feel the need to inflate your words with snide under-tones then feel free to 'discuss' your views elsewhere.

This is a forum, and as long as people are polite, they are free to speak their views.... How else is it that information and knowledge is passed between minds?


No. What I *actually* said was:

I'm not suggesting that anyone should eat only one food.
So we're going nowhere fast if you ignore what I actually say and substitute ridiculous straw-man arguments instead.

Let me repeat the entirety of my quote:

I'm not suggesting that anyone should eat only one food. I'm just trying to show that, even IF a person ate only one food, even brown rice which is "low" in lysine, and is the "limiting amino acid", they'd get enough lysine (as well as all the other aminos), and their protein utilization wouldn't be "limited".
THAT is the point. Nothing more, nothing less.

See - this is where we disagree. As in addition to not meeting other requirements (eg: fats, vitamins, minerals etc) I am saying it WOULD be insufficient even to meet protein needs.

12 cups of brown rice would offer:

2621 cals
19g fat (4g sat)
550g carbs (42g fiber)
54g protein

Of that Protein you get:
Tryptophan 702mg
Threonine 1989mg
Isoleucine 2293mg
Leucine 4469mg
Lysine 2059mg
Methionine 1217mg
Cystine 655mg
Phenylalanine 2784mg
Tyrosine 2036mg
Valine 3182mg
Arginine 4095mg
Histidine 1380mg
Alanine 3159mg
Aspartic acid 5077mg
Glutamic acid 11046mg
Glycine 2668mg
Proline 2551mg
Serine 2808mg
Hydroxyproline ~

As discussed in my posts above (and this is not in the McDonald article, but in the 2007 Supplement from the 6th Amino Acid Assessment Workshop titled 'Lysine Requirement through the Human Life Cycle' (http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/137/6/1642S) and the AJP - Endocrinology and Metabolism article titled Dietary lysine requirement of young adult males determined by oxidation of L-[1-13C]phenylalanine (http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/264/4/E677)

It can be seen that an average of 30-60mg/ kg is required per day, with levels > 37 mg/ kg/ day seen to maintain adequate balance in sedentary individuals.

This means that 12 cups would not be enough for that 70kg males needs (2590mg would be required).

Additionally - the International Society of Science Nutrition (http://www.jissn.com/content/4/1/8) states that in athletes:

there is a genuine risk in consuming insufficient amounts of protein, especially in the context of exercise; a negative nitrogen balance will likely be created, leading to increased catabolism and impaired recovery from exercise [14].

Relative to endurance exercise, recommended protein intakes range from of 1.0 g/kg to 1.6 g/kg per day [2,4,7,15] depending on the intensity and duration of the endurance exercise, as well as the training status of the individual. For example, an elite endurance athlete requires a greater level of protein intake approaching the higher end the aforementioned range (1.0 to 1.6 g/kg/day). Additionally, as endurance exercise increases in intensity and duration, there is an increased oxidation of branched-chain amino acids, which creates a demand within the body for protein intakes at the upper end of this range. Strength/power exercise is thought to increase protein requirements even more than endurance exercise, particularly during the initial stages of training and/or sharp increases in volume. Recommendations for strength/power exercise typically range from 1.6 to 2.0 g/kg/day [3,11-13,16], although some research suggests that protein requirements may actually decrease during training due to biological adaptations that improve net protein retention [17].

Little research has been conducted on exercise activities that are intermittent in nature (e.g., soccer, basketball, mixed martial arts, etc.). In a review focusing on soccer players, a protein intake of 1.4?1.7 g/kg was recommended [18]. Protein intakes within this range (1.4 to 1.7 g/kg/day) are recommended for those engaging in other types of intermittent sports.

In summary, it is the position of the International Society of Sport Nutrition that exercising individuals ingest protein ranging from 1.4 to 2.0 g/kg/day. Individuals engaging in endurance exercise should ingest levels at the lower end of this range, individuals engaging in intermittent activities should ingest levels in the middle of this range, and those engaging in strength/power exercise should ingest levels at the upper end of this range.

And this is also reinforced by

J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2006; 3(1): 7?27.
Contemporary Issues in Protein Requirements and Consumption for Resistance Trained Athletes (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/pmc/articles/PMC2129150)

..... In summary protein requirements appear to be elevated for strength training athletes. This increased need is attributed to enhanced oxidation rates of endogenous amino acids during exercise [27], the need for increased substrate to repair damaged muscle tissue [12], and the capacity to maintain elevated protein synthesis for greater amounts of muscle tissue [18]. Techniques utilized to measure protein requirements include nitrogen balance methods [15-17], tracer techniques [13], and performance and body composition techniques [28,29]. Nitrogen Balance techniques suggest that the protein requirements to attain zero nitrogen balance range from 1.2?2.2 grams of protein per kg of bodyweight [1,7,14,23,24,31-33]......

Thus - at ~ 70kg, our original male subject/ example who was engaged in strength exercise would need toward 105-150g of protein... Similarly, due to increased oxidation of lysine, the need for lysine would increase up toward that required in growth - ~ 60mg/ kg/ day, or 4000-5000mg/ day. [24 cups of brown rice].


This breathtakingly misses the point, and creates another straw man. I never suggested that any one food supplied a full profile of vitamins and minerals. My point, for the umpteenth time, was that a single plant food such as rice supplies all *indispensable amino acids*, since THAT was the topic under discussion. (Remember the Title of this thread, which makes it clear.)See above re my counter-argument. In an active/ training individual, in order to meet the baseline requirements for protein and lysine -> 24 cups of rice.


And yes, you could consume 12 cups of cooked rice in a day, if that were all you were eating.
But..... 24 cups of rice?


Even using your inflated figure of 35g/kg/d, 14.8 cups is still off, by about 20%. The correct figure is 12.36 cups, according to the USDA Food and Nutrient Database, which is of course the most-used standard reference.
1 cup brown rice: ~ 170mg lysine.
14.8 cups = 2500mg lysine.

Using base figure of 70kg male requiring 37mg/ kg/ day as discussed in above linked research.


This is kind of ironic, since what's actually outdated is the Lyle McDonald article you cited to back your statement. McDonald cites the *1985* WHO standards. But the WHO updated its recommendations (and the paper those are based on) in *2002*. That paper is hundreds of pages long and is the most comprehensive modern review of the protein and amino acid literature anywhere. And of course, the figures I'm using are from the 2002 WHO standards, not the ones from 25 years ago. I identify my 2002 WHO source quite clearly in my article.

See above links as well as the FAO information linked in above post.

The Lyle McDonald info was only used in relation to the classification of amino acids and the issues re terminology for complete/ incomplete/ indispensable/ dispensable/ limiting etc.



Oh, please. The standard way to compare foods is by calorie, not by weight, and *certainly* not by grams per gram of nitrogen. No authority recommends that we eat a certain number of *pounds* of food per day, they recommend we eat a certain number of *calories* per day. Corn has more lysine than brown rice, on a per-calorie basis, which is the basis that really matters.
In regards to human total diet intake - yes, it is calories that we work off.

But in regards to standard food comparisons for amino acid content/ digestibility/ nitrogen retention etc it IS via nitrogen content and weight...

eg: This FAO article on Rice in Human Nutrition (http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0567e/T0567E0g.htm) discusses the lysine content related to total N content and weight of the grain.

This is how foods are graded, not based on calorie content...


As for the new references you introduced, I see nothing in them that argues convincingly that we should be eating way more protein than the standard recommendations suggest. (And even if they did argue that, we'd have to figure how that squares with decades of existing research that supports the existing recommendations.)
As science/ technology and knowledge changes, so do recommendations.

Similar arguments can be made re many other issues with nutrition
eg: 'low fat' diet for 'weight loss';
simple and complex carbohydrates (typically thought to be 'fast' and 'slow' to digest respectively);
dietary cholesterol/ eggs ('traditionally' thought to be a 'no no' and a major risk factor for heart disease, it is now realised that it is obesity/ saturated fats/ high fructose corn syrups etc that have the impact);
Alcohol and heart disease (now it is realised that a little is a good thing)
'smoking' (used to be considered beneficial)....

.... and many other things.


More specifically, are you aware that the author of the paper you cited, Dr. Joe Millward, believes in the adequacy of plant proteins? This is exceptionally relevant given that the very question raised by this thread is whether plant proteins are sufficient. Here's what Millward said when asked about this:

..... So, you can cite all you like, but what it comes down to is, I don't see any convincing evidence that human protein requirements are really higher than what the health bodies say they are. And those recommendations, compared to what's actually in food, using official sources, show that plant proteins are decidedly complete.
Plant proteins - if mixed correctly and eaten in a well balanced diet - sure, you are more likely to reach your requirements in order to maintain health (especially if adequate consumption of things such as nuts, legumes/ soy, in addition to grains).

But by eating grains alone (as discussed above) - no.

And in conditions where you are in poor health/ require more (eg: severe illness/ heavy training) = > I would question their adequacy in relation to the adequate provision of things such as branch chained amino acids, arginine, and glutamine.


And we haven't even touched on the problems of *excess* protein consumption....
Lots of good research out recently about this, especially in relation to health status/ bone health and metabolic issues.

But this is a discussion for another thread such as Is a High Protein Diet really needed? (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=113913051) after a good search and a read of www.pubmed.com << ;)

[yeahfairly]

I have a vast amount of personal experience living among the third world population who's diet consists mainly, if not almost entirely, of a few veggies, rice and wheat. These people suffer numerous health risks, partially due to lack of medical intervention, but they also suffer from a severe lack of lean body mass. They are basically what most of you on here would refer to as skinny / fat folks! The few people who are fortunate enough to be "Rich" (in third world terms) consume a much larger percentage of meat in their diet and appear to be healthier and have a much higher percentage of LBM. Their overall health and life expectancy may not differ much, but their strength, endurance, and resistance to disease / sickness is superior. Not important but I figured I would throw my five cents worth in!

[Emma-Leigh]

ps ->> in case you think I am some over-zealot, anti-vegan-meat-head who is discussing this issue because I have an ulterior motive...? I'm not... (just ask spokes ;) ).

This discussion is purely based on the aforementioned topic of the adequacy of grain as a sole protein source....

[On Fire]

I believe Mr. Bluejay is arguing for the sake of seeing his own words on the internet at this point. Emma's cited more than enough information for any rational person to understand that a diet that gets all of its nutritional needs from grain is just unreasonable.

[On Fire]

Hmm... now that I've just read the article cited, I wonder about Michael Bluejay's methods and motives. It's one thing to promote health and wellness from vegetable sources, but he's written it in poor context for this forum.

His citations talk about what "we" need, but who are "we"? Am I Lance Armstrong, Alexander Ovechkin, Joe Blow Bodybuilder or Susie Homemaker? Reading the article, I believe "we" are Susie Homemaker, and for Susie Homemaker, his claims hold a lot more truth.

[MichaelBluejay]

in case you think I am some over-zealot, anti-vegan-meat-head who is discussing this issue because I have an ulterior motive...? I'm not.

I don't question your sincerity at all. I just disagree that you're citing is what the research actually says. Case in point:


in the 2007 Supplement from the 6th Amino Acid Assessment Workshop titled 'Lysine Requirement through the Human Life Cycle' and the AJP - Endocrinology and Metabolism article titled Dietary lysine requirement of young adult males determined by oxidation of L-[1-13C]phenylalanine...It can be seen that an average of 30-60mg/ kg is required per day....

The paper says nothing of the sort about adult requirements. The higher levels listed are only for infants, who should be breastfeeding anyway. The abstract says:


Recent intake recommendations to meet the lysine requirement range from 64 to 30 mg/(kg ? d) for 0.5-y infants and adults (>18 y), respectively.

The 30 mg/kg/d figure is the one for adults. That's the one I used.


...it is the position of the International Society of Sport Nutrition that exercising individuals ingest protein ranging from 1.4 to 2.0 g/kg/day.

Thanks, I didn't know that ISSN said that. But more recently, three other bodies endorsed a lower figure of 1.2 to 1.7 g/kg. (American Dietetic Association, Dietitians of Canada and the American College of Sports Medicine) That's what I cited in my article.

I also quoted Jack Norris, R.D., who said:


Considering the information reviewed above...it seems reasonable to conclude that the protein needs of most vegan bodybuilders are somewhere between 0.8 and 1.5 g/kg (0.36 and 0.68 g/lb) of body weight....

The Food and Nutrition Board, which sets the RDA, reviewed Lemon et al.'s study and others and concluded there is no sufficient evidence to support that resistance training increases the protein RDA of 0.80 g/kg [0.36 g/lb] for healthy adults.

(Incidentally, I'm not linking to any of my sources because this forum doesn't let me include links because I'm too new here. However, all the links and sources are clearly available in my article.)

Tarnopolsky et al. found that bodybuilders required only 1.12 times as much protein as sedentary individuals. (Influence of protein intake and training status on nitrogen balance and lean body mass. Tarnopolsky MA, MacDougall JD, Atkinson SA. J Appl Physiol. 1988 Jan;64(1):187-93.)

And interestingly, that study said that bodybuilders needed less extra protein than endurance athletes, because of the extra catabolism that endurance athletes suffer. (It said that endurance athletes need 1.67 times as much as sedentary.) So of the 1.4 to 2.0 g/kg/d range you cited, bodybuilders would be towards the lower end of the scale, and endurance athletes towards the higher.

One thing we haven't discussed is that athletes consume more calories than those who are sedentary. So when they eat more, they're eating more protein.

Anyway, maybe this analysis will put the issue to rest: Let's see how grains stack up for a 150-lb. male athlete at various recommended levels for protein, assuming that lysine requirements (of 30 g/kg/d) increase in direct proportion to protein requirements.

Required daily lysine

(1) 2045 mg >> 0.8 g/kg of protein (e.g., established weight trainer) (U.S. Food and Nutrition Board; Jack Norris, R.D., low end; Campbell 2002)

(2) 4346 mg >> 1.7 g/kg of protein (e.g., beginning weight training) (American Dietetic Association, Dietitians of Canada, American College of Sports Medicine high end; ISNN mid-range)

(3) 5113 mg >> 2.0 g/kg of protein (e.g., marathon runner) (ISNN high end)

Amount of lysine in grains
- Rice / Corn / Oats @ 2500 calories: -> 2229 / 3672 / 4507
- Rice / Corn / Oats @ 3000 calories: -> 2675 / 4406 / 5408
- Rice / Corn / Oats @ 3500 calories: -> 3121 / 5141 / 6310
- Rice / Corn / Oats @ 4000 calories: -> 3566 / 5875 / 7211

Conclusion

(1) Using the lowest recommendations, our athlete gets more than enough lysine from any single grain by itself, even brown rice, at any calorie level.

(2) Using the high recommendations, our athlete satisfies his lysine requirements with oats alone at any calorie level, and with corn alone if daily calories are at least 3000. Corn at a lower calorie level, or rice at any calorie level, doesn't supply enough lysine.

(3) Using the extreme recommendations, our athlete gets enough lysine with oats alone when eating at least 2836 calories/day, or corn alone when eating at least ~3500 calories/day. Lysine is insufficient at lower calorie levels for oats or corn, or any level for brown rice.

So, Emma-Leigh, I think you and I are both right. Individual grains are indeed complete in most cases, using numbers from official sources. But if we take one of the weaker grains *and* a low calorie consumption *and* pick one of the higher recommendations for protein intake, then yes, a sole grain won't supply enough lysine. Congratulations to both of us. :)

In any event, I hope this analysis demonstrates that concerns over the adequacy of plant proteins are often exaggerated.

[Emma-Leigh]

Conclusion

(1) Using the lowest recommendations, our athlete gets more than enough lysine from any single grain by itself, even brown rice, at any calorie level.

(2) Using the high recommendations, our athlete satisfies his lysine requirements with oats alone at any calorie level, and with corn alone if daily calories are at least 3000. Corn at a lower calorie level, or rice at any calorie level, doesn't supply enough lysine.

(3) Using the extreme recommendations, our athlete gets enough lysine with oats alone when eating at least 2836 calories/day, or corn alone when eating at least ~3500 calories/day. Lysine is insufficient at lower calorie levels for oats or corn, or any level for brown rice.

So, Emma-Leigh, I think you and I are both right. Individual grains are indeed complete in most cases, using numbers from official sources. But if we take one of the weaker grains *and* a low calorie consumption *and* pick one of the higher recommendations for protein intake, then yes, a sole grain won't supply enough lysine. Congratulations to both of us. :)

In any event, I hope this analysis demonstrates that concerns over the adequacy of plant proteins are often exaggerated.
And yet - as you still don't seem to understand the flawed argument of suggesting one can get adequate intake of lysine/protein from grain alone if one eats '3500 cals/ day of oats', I think we will agree to disagree.... ;)

[MichaelBluejay]

...as you still don't seem to understand the flawed argument of suggesting one can get adequate intake of lysine/protein from grain alone if one eats '3500 cals/ day of oats'...

No, I rather think it's you who doesn't understand. You *don't* have to eat 3500 cals/day of oats. The point of showing the protein and amino acids supplied by a food *if* it were the sole source of calories is simply to show that the food is a complete protein. That is, if someone's diet were only, say, 10% oats, then the oats would satisfy *more* than 10% of that person's protein and amino acid needs.

Thus, oats are a complete protein, even for bodybuilders.

And by the way, as my table clearly showed, even *if* a person were eating exclusively oats, then they would *not* need 3500 calories of oats to satisfy their protein/amino acid requirements (as you misquoted me), they would need *less*. (Specifically, 1135, 2414, or 2837 calories for the various suggested intakes of lysine.)

[Lucky_ROA]

Wow, some nice information there Emma. Subb'd

[DriftMonster]

If I could follow Emma and Alan around for a week just to pick their brains, I feel I would be a better person... (sorry to go OT) Great readings.

[dago85]

but in conclusion, WE MUST counting in our daily macros intake, protein from vegetables and cereals?

if we eat in our lunch

100gr rice (8gr protein)
100gr chicken (22gr protein)
200gr brussel sprouts (8gr protein)

the total will be: 38grams of protein?

[Emma-Leigh]

but in conclusion, WE MUST counting in our daily macros intake, protein from vegetables and cereals?

if we eat in our lunch

100gr rice (8gr protein)
100gr chicken (22gr protein)
200gr brussel sprouts (8gr protein)

the total will be: 38grams of protein?
Do you HAVE to count it? No. As long as you are consistent in your approach the actual NUMBERS mean nothing ->> it is essentially a matter of having something to MONITOR such that you can change things if/ when they are not working.

But - does it make no sense/ is it ridiculous not to count them? Yes.

[dago85]

Do you HAVE to count it? No. As long as you are consistent in your approach the actual NUMBERS mean nothing ->> it is essentially a matter of having something to MONITOR such that you can change things if/ when they are not working.

But - does it make no sense/ is it ridiculous not to count them? Yes.

but a modest quantity of nitrogen in our urine, it's a signal that we need to lower our protein daily intake?

[Jamescody]

So which veggies are best for bodybuilding?