Bring4th

Protein is important. All of the body's enzyme systems are made from protein- and without them we could not sustain physical life.

Proteins are composed of building blocks called amino acids. Some of these amino acids cannot be synthesized in the body according to known biochemical pathways. And even if they did, it would require other enzymes (also made of protein) to synthesize them.

Thus, we must get protein from our diet. But from where and how much?

As with many health topics, there is a bunch of nonsense and propaganda floating around on the Internet by people who, in my opinion, should be more concerned about spreading truth than amassing followers. But they do have a right to free speech. Keep in mind that the nonsense and propaganda is espoused by both sides of the debate. Often times I wonder- why do so many people insist on reducing every subject down to "two sides" and then "duking it out" over who is right? Could it be some sort of mind control? But we'll save that discussion for another thread.

Of course, the truth is found somewhere in the middle.

Here is a great resource that I found that I found on a website called "No Meat Athlete". For what it is worth to those who value my professional opinion, I have checked the article for factual accuracy, and did not locate a shred of nonsense, propaganda, or misinformation.

Protein for Vegetarians — A Simple Guide to Getting What You Need

As you will see in the comments, it is highly acclaimed. I concur.

Of course, there are those few comments from people who claim that punching a couple of numbers into a calculator to figure out how much protein one needs is "too complex" or that keeping track of one's vegetable protein intake until it becomes second nature takes "too much time".

Just in case you, the reader, happen to fall into this category, here is a summary in as brief of terms as I can put it.

1. It is completely unnecessary to consume animal products in order to meet your protein needs. However, it may take a little more "work" especially in the beginning.

2. The average person needs about 60 grams of protein a day. By "average" I mean somebody who weighs around 165 pounds and is lightly active.

3. Protein needs vary according to one's metabolic rate. This means the more you weigh, and the more active you are, the more protein you need. There are many free tools on the Internet that will calculate this for you.

4. Fruits have little to no protein. Period. What little protein there is is mostly found in the seeds. This is because fruit is a storage facility for sugar, and is not very metabolically active.

4a. Some folks claim that fruits contain all the enzymes needed for the human body to digest them within. I find this to be a dubious claim as all enzymes are protein and fruits do not have much protein. According to the generally accepted knowledge of human biochemistry, the majority of digestive enzymes needed by the body are produced in the body by digestive organs such as the stomach, liver, and pancreas.

5. Most vegetables are poor sources of protein. However, since I am sure you are eating lots of them it does all add up to something significant. For example, if you are eating ten cups of vegetables a day that can contribute anywhere from 1/2 to 1/3 of your total protein needs. If you are regularly consuming around 20 - 30 cups of vegetables a day, you may in fact get all of your protein from these.

6. Nuts, seeds, and legumes (beans) are excellent sources of protein. They are all about 1/4 protein by dry weight, which is the same as meat. Therefore it is actually fairly straightfoward to figure out how much of these to eat. The answer is between 6 and 8 ounces of these a day. Keep in mind that if you soak or sprout nuts, seeds, and legumes the water adds weight, but not protein. Make sure you are calculating based on the dry weight.

6a. Some folks claim that soaking increases the protein content, however according to my understanding of biochemistry, this is a dubious claim as most protein synthesis occurs in the roots, which are associated with symbiotic microbes in the soil.

I hope you've enjoyed this post on vegetable protein. Have a wonderful day!

I add protein powder to my fruit/veg smoothie in the morning. I use the Sun Warrior brand of veg protein. Also add a handful of nuts to the smoothie (but only sometimes).

Thank you for the post. It is excellent information!

I feel the good intention behind this thread, Tenet!
I played this game before, btw. Every time I started seriously working out, I lost muscle weight just as much as fat (or even more), and I usually lost interest in pursuing that.

But nowadays, in the past 1-2 months, I was able to look like someone who actually has been working out ( and I do :P). Not a huge person, ofc, with my puny 76-80kg, but still! The key? I made these three items into my main source of food:
1) Sunflower seeds (5-8dkg/day)
2) Hard-boiled eggs (where the **** are my hard-boiled eggs? Bonus point if you guess who said that! :) - 3 piece every second morning
3) Beans!!!!4.

It is not the meat what makes one full of power. It is the protein. Which is something that I wish more people would learn in elementary school.

Unless you're a straight vegan, there is no reason you can't use any of the current crop of powdered whey proteins. Its a huge product in the body building circles. And whey proteins are just a by product of the cheese making process.

Here is a brief description of how whey protein isolate is manufactured.

1) Fresh milk is pasteurized

2) The casein (curd) and a some of the milk fats are separated out to make cheese

3) The remaining whey in liquid form, goes through a series of filtering processes to separate the lactose (a type of sugar found in milk) from the whey protein

4)The liquid whey is then placed in an ion exchange tower to concentrate and purify the whey protein, without denaturing the whey protein

5) The water is then removed from the whey protein in a drying tower to create a powder.

6) The whey protein isolate powder is then put into tubs with labels for sale.

You could make your own home made liquid whey protein from milk, by simply leaving some milk for 3-4 days in a glass bottle at room temperature. The liquid whey then rises to the top above the curds and can be separated by pouring over a strainer lined with a cheesecloth and collecting in a bowl beneath. Leave it overnight, until the dripping stops, then put in a clean glass jar and place in the fridge and it will be good for 6 months (supposedly). The liquid whey will still contain some lactose, but would that be a bad thing if used as a post workout shake?

But it is probably cheaper to buy a standard whey protein concentrate powder, than to try and make your own liquid whey, if comparing the cost per gram of protein.

Richard

Richard, I've been looking at making mozzarella cheese and would make whey as a by-product of that, so your post was timely for me. Thanks!

Thanks TN for posting. Good info.

I would definitely find it really difficult to eat 20 cups of veggies everyday. I don't have the time, or the endurance in my masseter and pterygoid muscles!
My body type requires a lot of protein, that I know. I start to lose mass quickly if I don't exercise and eat really well.

The article had great advice about incorporating protein into all snacks like nuts , almond butter etc. throughout the day. One thing I have noticed lately is the prices going up lately for nuts, hemp seeds and other health foods, which kind of stinks if you are feeding a family.

So great to have a pro watching out for us!

Great post, Tenet!

I'm curious: How did they come up with this formula for required protein needs? Has anyone ever studied whether this might vary from person to person, other than based on activity level? Also, has anyone ever studied how much assimilation factors into the equation? (ie. cooked rice and beans vs sprouted mung and sprouted oats, presumably having the same grams of protein and amino acid profile, but is ther a difference in assimilation because of cooked vs raw.)

Also, you mention veggies. My understanding is that leafy greens have much higher protein content than other veggies, and a very favorable amino acid ratio. Humans just don't generally eat much of them, unlike gorillas who get a very high percentage of their protein from leafy greens.

There is a movement towards more leafy greens via 'green smoothies' which can dramatically increase leafy green intake. I make a 'savory veggie stew' for lunch most days. It has as much greens as about 3 huge salads! With some added other veggies...all condensed into a single bowl of a very satisfying stew. I add hemp hearts too and I have no idea how many grams of protein it is, but wow, it's really filling and satisfying. I could never eat that much leafy greens otherwise.

And, do you know why we need so much protein to build muscle? In the ongoing protein debate, it's often pointed out that at the time in which we grow the most - as babies - and our organs and muscles are forming, our protein needs are actually very very low. Human milk has very low protein, comparatively. Any comments on that?

---

Related thread:

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...1#pid90911

Great write up! As a vegan I always struggled with getting enough protein as I'm an avid weightlifter and runner. I'd also like to know how you came up with this formula?

One thing I found was that adding a scoop of protein to my diet a day greatly improved my performance. Unfortunately some of it tastes pretty bad. For any other vegans looking for protein powder, I would check out http://veganproteinpowders.net, they rank all the good tasting ones.

To the other people saying we don't need protein to build muscle... there IS a lot of research out there on this subject, and it's just pretty much a fact that you need protein if you want to build muscle.

(08-14-2012, 03:39 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Great post, Tenet!

Thanks!

Quote:I'm curious: How did they come up with this formula for required protein needs?

There are a couple of places this information originally came from. The first, believe it or not, is veterinary medicine. Mostly for financial reasons, farmers needed to know what was the minimum amount of food to give their livestock to keep them from experiencing failure to thrive without overfeeding. This eventually led to more research into what specific components of the food were needed. Actually, most of what we know about nutrition needs (like vitamins and minerals too) came out of veterinary medicine.

The next layer of information came from simple studies looking at the nitrogen content of human urine. Carbohydrates and fats do not contain nitrogen. Only protein. So in looking at how much nitrogen is coming out of the body, we can calculate how much needs to go in to maintain nitrogen balance via protein.

Quote:Has anyone ever studied whether this might vary from person to person, other than based on activity level?

Oh, yes. There are tons of studies! Of course, they don't all agree, but I think it is safe to say that needs to vary from person to person, and from time to time. But for the most part, the research indicates situations where a person might require more than 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram body weight. For example, people who are trying to build muscle mass or lactating moms producing milk. If the body is in need of repair due to illness or injury, protein needs may also temporarily increase.

Sometimes if somebody has severe renal disease and is on dialysis, they will go below that amount, as the kidneys are responsible for filtering out the urea (nitrogen waste) from the blood.

As far as I am aware, hardly anybody argues against that protein needs are less than 0.8 g / kg. Those few sources which I have come across that do tend to be making emotional arguments, rather than intellectual ones and don't seem to have much of an understanding of biochemistry.

Even if a vegan ignored protein needs completely, and ate based on vitamin and mineral content alone, they would end up getting enough protein anyway because they would be eating plenty of nuts, seeds, and legumes.

Where people tend to get into trouble is when they conflate different approaches to diet and/or have a personality-type that is inherently mistrustful of people who are rationally-minded and instead trust whomever seems the most excited.

For example, the principle of a low-fat diet really has little bearing for somebody who is already eating little to no animal product. It is the animal fat which causes health problems. Plant fat (nuts, seeds, avocado, coconut) is a good thing, and omega-3s are absolutely necessary.

There is also some anti-bean misinformation floating around that talks about molecules called phytates present in them which interfere with mineral absorption. While phytates do interfere with mineral absorption, beans contain WAY more minerals than could possibly be interfered with by the phytates. Eating beans will definitely result in a net gain of minerals by the body. The misinformation occurs when some folks make the claim that eating phytates will somehow pull minerals out of the body, resulting in a loss. This is just not true. Now- soaking beans does cause some of the phytates to be broken down which could increase the bioavailability of the nutrients. But even unsoaked beans are a great food choice.

As one can see- if somebody is trying to go vegan, but also low-fat, and also avoids beans, they are probably going to get into some trouble nutritionally-speaking.

Quote:Also, has anyone ever studied how much assimilation factors into the equation? (ie. cooked rice and beans vs sprouted mung and sprouted oats, presumably having the same grams of protein and amino acid profile, but is ther a difference in assimilation because of cooked vs raw.)

For sure! But again, with mixed results. For example, consider this study:

Effect of soaking prior to cooking on the levels of phytate and tannin of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, L.) and the protein value.

The researchers found that soaking the beans decreased the phytate content, but also decreased the protein digestibility. That's not what I would have guessed, personally. Also keep in mind that besides the factors intrinsic to the food that affect digestibility, there are factors that can vary widely from person to person in their body's digestive function. For example, pancreatic insufficiency (not enough digestive enzyme production), chronic inflammation, dysbiosis (gut microbe imbalance), or antacid use can all impair protein absorption from the gut.

So, unfortunately, these things tend to be difficult to control from a research standpoint because it is hard to isolate a single variable of protein content. However generally speaking, my intuitive sense is that sprouted and fermented veggies are the way to go.

There are good arguments on both sides of the raw vs. cooked debate so with respect to that I tend to stay in the middle with lightly steamed. It's definitely a poor choice to boil the heck out of one's vegetables, but there are some valid concerns about raw- especially in people whose digestive systems might already be compromised.

Then again, for the vast majority of people, simply eating more veggies, in whatever form, is going to be a vast improvement!

Quote:Also, you mention veggies. My understanding is that leafy greens have much higher protein content than other veggies, and a very favorable amino acid ratio. Humans just don't generally eat much of them, unlike gorillas who get a very high percentage of their protein from leafy greens.

Dark leafy greens are indeed the most nutrient-dense food one could eat. I dunno why but many people seem to have some sort of mental block about these. (Mind control?)

Self: Eat more dark leafy greens!
Other: Oh I eat tons of romaine lettuce. I love Caesar salads!
Self: No- I am talking about dark leafy greens!
Other: Oh you mean like broccoli? I eat tons of that!
Self: I'm sorry, you are not understanding me. Broccoli is great, but I am talking about dark leafy greens.
Other: You mean baby spinach?
Self: Kind of. What I am talking about are DARK. LEAFY. GREENS. You know, like kale, collards, turnip greens, mustard greens, beet greens, or ANYTHING greens!

First and foremost, dark leafy greens are a great source of calcium. Something which even many dietitians seem to overlook due to being indoctrinated by the dairy association. Dark leafy greens are -also- a great source of magnesium. This is because magnesium is at the core of the chlorophyll molecule which plants use to capture energy from sunlight. Hence: more green = more magnesium. (Purple fruits tend to have magnesium as well, but for a different reason.) Incidentally, magnesium is also at the core of a molecule called CoQ10 which is essential for energy metabolism.

Calcium and magnesium work together as a pair in biological systems. (As do sodium and potassium.) Therefore, it stands to reason that consuming a lot of calcium without the corresponding magnesium (i.e. dairy products) is probably not the best idea.

Beans are also a great source of magnesium- two of the highest being the coffee bean and the cacao bean.

But anyway, back to protein. Yes, it is true that, compared to other vegetables, dark leafy greens have tend to have more protein. Problem is- there wasn't much to begin with.

Here is an example. This information comes from NutritionData which has great information on the nutrient content of foods. They even have a handy search tool where people can do a reverse search by nutrient, such as looking for foods which have the most calcium and magnesium.

OK. So according to this source:

1 cup of carrots = 1 gram of protein
1 cup of celery = 1 gram of protein
1 cup of kale = 2 grams of protein

As one can see- the kale indeed has TWICE as much protein as the carrots or celery. But it is still not very much.

Also, a cup of kale has 33 calories. That means the kale is 25% protein by calorie. But that statistic is misleading because there aren't that many calories in kale.

By contrast:

1 cup of peas = 8 grams of protein
1 cup of almonds = 30 grams of protein
1 cup of lentils = 50 grams of protein

Almonds and lentils are both 25% protein by weight. By calorie, almonds are 15% protein and lentils are 30% protein. See the difference?

By calorie, kale has more protein than almonds at 25%. By weight almonds have more protein than kale at 25%. But in the real world, most of us neither serve ourselves according to calorie, nor according to weight, but according to volume.

The reason so many people are confused about nutrient content of food is because we are using three different units of measurement- the calorie (energy), the gram (mass), and the cup (volume)- and people talk about them as if they were interchangeable concepts, which they are not.

On top of this, when some intellectual, rational, nerdy, "math whiz" type comes along one of these people, or their websites, they rapidly conclude that the speaker/writer doesn't know what they are talking about. And this is because... they don't. They are using words without knowing what they mean. They haven't actually looked up the definitions of the words they are using, and so they are speaking in babble. What is worse, they are "educating" others in this babble-speak, and thus adding to the confusion already present in their minds. As if it isn't bad enough with the dairy and corn associations crawling down our throats with propaganda at every opportunity. :-/

What is sometimes even worse than that- when faced with the actual truth about their comments, they tend to get butthurt, and react emotionally, rather than asking intelligent questions, just as you have done here. Then- when confronted by a "skeptic" these people tend to conclude that they must be a member of "the establishment" or a "disinformation agent".

Pretty ironic since these folks themselves are some of the biggest agents of disinformation, and play right into the hands of the establishment!

Quote:There is a movement towards more leafy greens via 'green smoothies' which can dramatically increase leafy green intake. I make a 'savory veggie stew' for lunch most days. It has as much greens as about 3 huge salads! With some added other veggies...all condensed into a single bowl of a very satisfying stew. I add hemp hearts too and I have no idea how many grams of protein it is, but wow, it's really filling and satisfying. I could never eat that much leafy greens otherwise.

That's great! We try to aim for 3 - 4 cups a day but it doesn't always happen. Thinking of creative ways to include greens, like in smoothies and soups as you mentioned, is a great approach!

Incidentally- when consuming raw or steamed greens, dressing them with 1 tablespoon of something oily (like olive or coconut oil) and 1 tablespoon of something acidic (like lemon juice or apple cider vinegar) will help to make the vitamins and minerals more bioavailable.

Quote:And, do you know why we need so much protein to build muscle?

Sure! Firstly, muscle tissue is 1/4 protein by weight. So the body needs 112 grams of protein just to make 1 pound of muscle tissue. Divide that over a week and it amounts to 16 extra grams of protein a day. But beyond that, there is an increased protein need because of the extra enzymes which need to be produced to actually build the muscle tissue, over and above the protein needed for the muscle tissue itself. And then there is even MORE protein needed to cover the additional energy expenditure that needs to be invested in exercise by the body as a whole in order to shift the hormones toward muscle-building.

So, all-in-all, for an "average" person to put on about a pound of muscle a week will take about an extra 30 grams of protein a day. Considering that the "average" person who isn't building muscle needs about 60 grams of protein a day, that comes out to around 150% of the normal protein intake, or approximately 1.2 grams of protein per kilogram body weight.

People who are "hardcore" bodybuilding will find their protein needs to be even higher- around 2.0 grams of protein per kilogram body weight.

Now, once that muscle is built, it WILL take more protein to maintain it. But luckily it isn't all that much. Doing the calculations reveals that it takes about an extra 0.3 grams of protein daily to maintain every extra pound of muscle.

Quote:In the ongoing protein debate, it's often pointed out that at the time in which we grow the most - as babies - and our organs and muscles are forming, our protein needs are actually very very low. Human milk has very low protein, comparatively. Any comments on that?

It's all relative, and numbers can be confusing. Even more confusing when there are so many out there that are more interested in spreading their agenda, rather than spreading truth. Check out this growth chart:


As we can see, from birth to about nine months, we should expect baby to put on about 1/2 kilo per month. That's about 1 pound. Keep in mind this is "on average".

Now the "rule of thumb" for feeding is about 2.5 ounces of milk daily per pound of baby. Breast milk has about 1/3 gram of protein per ounce.

So let's do the math:

Baby is born weighing 8.0 lbs and it feeds 20 ounces of milk per day. The 20 ounces of milk contains about 7 grams of protein. That's almost 2.0 grams / kg, which is in the "bodybuilder" range of protein intake.

At one month, baby now weighs 9.0 lbs and feeds 22.5 ounces of milk per day. The 22.5 ounces of milk contains about 7.5 grams of protein. Still in the "bodybuilder" range.

At two months: 10 lbs weight, 25 ounces milk, 8 grams protein. The ratio is going down, but still in muscle building range at 1.8 g / kg.

At three months: 11 lbs weight, 27.5 ounces milk, 9 grams protein. Still at 1.8 g / kg.

At six months, baby should be taking whole food in addition to breast milk. But even if they weren't, let's do the math: 15 lbs weight, 37.5 ounces milk, 12.5 grams protein. Still at 1.8 g / kg.

Cow's milk has about three times as much protein as human milk, or about 1 gram of protein per ounce. But then again, a newborn calf can be putting on a pound a day, rather than a pound a month. They also take a lot more milk!

Sometimes in the past when I have talked about these things I have remarked that some people just don't know what they are talking about. Perhaps that wasn't the best choice of words. But it doesn't make them any less true.

A lot of these people you are referring to that talk about how much protein greens have or how much protein babies supposedly don't need, are misinformed. They read facts and figures, and then falsely interpret them to fit according to their personal agendas and preconceived notions about what they want to believe.

If they would have actually taken the time to sit down, look a few things up on the Internet, and do some simple math on a calculator, they would see the truth for themselves quite plain as day.

It took me about an hour to put together all of the information you asked for in your last question. I took the time out of my day to do this because I actually care enough about babies to do this. And I don't even have kids!

Point being- I'm sure all these parents who are spreading misinformation would have a conniption fit were I to suggest that they didn't love and care for their babies more than any other parent on the planet. Now, I would never suggest such a thing. But I must wonder- what was really prohibiting them to take a single hour out of their lives to get the facts straight? Especially before spreading false knowledge to others?

One of those little mysteries of life, I guess. :-/

Now here is my question: Why is there, as you say, an ongoing protein "debate"? What is there to debate when the facts are well-established and easily demonstrable? Who is really benefiting from this debate? And why?

Quote: A lot of these people you are referring to that talk about how much protein greens have or how much protein babies supposedly don't need, are misinformed.

How about source vs assimilable? Does the percentage mean as much if a body can't assimilate it as well?

(08-16-2012, 05:10 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: A lot of these people you are referring to that talk about how much protein greens have or how much protein babies supposedly don't need, are misinformed.

How about source vs assimilable? Does the percentage mean as much if a body can't assimilate it as well?

There are a few different ways to measure protein digestibility, each with its own advantages and drawbacks.

The oldest and simplest method is called Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) which takes into account the weight gain of an animal as compared to its protein intake. It is now considered obsolete as it is in many ways oversimplistic and we have better methodologies. Plus, it was originally based in rat research, and there are several differences in protein metabolism between rats and humans.

There is the Biological Value (BV) which is still fairly simple to calculate. Basically you take the nitrogen content of the food input and compare it to how much nitrogen is coming out in the urine and the stool to determine how much was absorbed into the blood. Drawbacks are that it doesn't differentiate between the varying levels of digestibility among different amino acids. Also, it doesn't account for protein that was actually fermented by gut bacteria instead of being absorbed.

The current standard is called Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS). It is much more complex of a formula. You can read about it in more detail here:

Criteria and Significance of Dietary Protein Sources in Humans

Here is a basic listing of protein digestibility according to PDCAAS:

1.00 casein (milk protein)
1.00 egg white
1.00 soy protein
1.00 whey (milk protein)
0.92 beef
0.91 soybeans
0.78 chickpeas
0.76 fruits
0.75 black beans
0.73 vegetables
0.70 Other legumes
0.59 cereals and derivatives
0.52 peanuts
0.42 whole wheat

As you can clearly see- animal sources of protein actually have a HIGHER digestibility ranking than plant sources across the board.

Still, this methodology has many limitations and oversights. It does attempt to somewhat account for fermentation by gut bacteria, but still doesn't account for differences in the digestive function from human to human.

None of the methods do.

Protein digestion is dependent on the presence of stomach acid and other factors, as well as proteolytic (protein-digesting) enzymes produced by the pancreas. All of these can vary widely from person to person, and even in the same person at different times under different circumstances.

Stomach acid can be measured using something called a Heidelberg Test where the recipient actually swallows a pH meter that sends out a radio signal that can be picked up by a receiver. However, this test is not really used all that much as it is expensive and time consuming.

People can also do what is called a "Gastric Acid Function Test" by taking HCl capsules before meals and recording symptoms. But this kind of "test" doesn't produce any objective data, and so it cannot be used for research purposes.

Pancreatic enzyme function can be estimated by measuring the amount of an enzyme called pancreatic elastase present in a stool sample. Now, elastase actually digests fats, not protein. But unfortunately, the proteolytic enzymes are easily degraded in the bowels, and so measuring the amount in the stool wouldn't really tell us anything. Elastase holds up well in the bowel, and so this is the one we use in order to generalize about digestive enzyme production in general.

In addition, I highly suspect that different gut bacteria enterotypes digest and absorb different kinds of protein with varying efficiencies. Research has shown that human gut bacteria can be categorized into three different clusters with significant differences in metabolism. One type is dominated by iron metabolism, another by thiamin, and the third by biotin. My intuitive sense is that these three types have evolved along with the three dominant protein sources of human populations: sea animals, land animals, or plant-based proteins.

So my guess is that certain people digest vegetable protein better than others. Even perhaps in those people they digest vegetable protein better than animal protein. But I don't have any evidence to back that up. We will just have to wait and see.

In the meantime, I think that the body is a pretty good communicator of what it needs IF we are listening to it. It is turning out that gut microbes can even influence our cravings in order to induce us to feed them what they need in order to thrive. Now if we have a healthy gut flora, this is a good thing. But if we have "nasties" in there, such as opportunistic bacteria or yeast which feed primarily on sugar, this could work against us.

Also both the rational mind and the emotions can get in the way of correctly reading the body's signals.

Quote: So my guess is that certain people digest vegetable protein better than others. Even perhaps in those people they digest vegetable protein better than animal protein. But I don't have any evidence to back that up. We will just have to wait and see.

As a type 0 I don't think I fit the established standards. My father in law has had to move away from even their free range meals. Mother in law refused to believe that animal products were the cause of her digestive issues. Those issues vanished when she went on some mainstream veggie diet and cut out all animal products.

My own assumption (without asking) is that we all have the ability to choose what DNA to activate. I can't really say our gut bacteria is hereditary or genetic when conscious choice can change that. The excuses I have read about dietary needs being DNA based are almost meaningless in this modern day. Whatever DNA someone has that can be pinpointed as the reason for the need can be found in my DNA as well. My DNA lineage spans just about every country. My fathers side is the "reptilian" bloodline. My mothers side had cannibalism. Where can you find my excuse in this?

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]I think it is safe to say that needs to vary from person to person, and from time to time. But for the most part, the research indicates situations where a person might require more than 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram body weight. For example, people who are trying to build muscle mass or lactating moms producing milk. If the body is in need of repair due to illness or injury, protein needs may also temporarily increase.

Sometimes if somebody has severe renal disease and is on dialysis, they will go below that amount, as the kidneys are responsible for filtering out the urea (nitrogen waste) from the blood.

As far as I am aware, hardly anybody argues against that protein needs are less than 0.8 g / kg. Those few sources which I have come across that do tend to be making emotional arguments, rather than intellectual ones and don't seem to have much of an understanding of biochemistry.

Even if a vegan ignored protein needs completely, and ate based on vitamin and mineral content alone, they would end up getting enough protein anyway because they would be eating plenty of nuts, seeds, and legumes.

Where people tend to get into trouble is when they conflate different approaches to diet and/or have a personality-type that is inherently mistrustful of people who are rationally-minded and instead trust whomever seems the most excited.

For example, the principle of a low-fat diet really has little bearing for somebody who is already eating little to no animal product. It is the animal fat which causes health problems. Plant fat (nuts, seeds, avocado, coconut) is a good thing, and omega-3s are absolutely necessary.

There is also some anti-bean misinformation floating around that talks about molecules called phytates present in them which interfere with mineral absorption. While phytates do interfere with mineral absorption, beans contain WAY more minerals than could possibly be interfered with by the phytates. Eating beans will definitely result in a net gain of minerals by the body. The misinformation occurs when some folks make the claim that eating phytates will somehow pull minerals out of the body, resulting in a loss. This is just not true. Now- soaking beans does cause some of the phytates to be broken down which could increase the bioavailability of the nutrients. But even unsoaked beans are a great food choice.

As one can see- if somebody is trying to go vegan, but also low-fat, and also avoids beans, they are probably going to get into some trouble nutritionally-speaking.

Agreed on all points!

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]However generally speaking, my intuitive sense is that sprouted and fermented veggies are the way to go.

Optimally, yes!

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]There are good arguments on both sides of the raw vs. cooked debate so with respect to that I tend to stay in the middle with lightly steamed. It's definitely a poor choice to boil the heck out of one's vegetables, but there are some valid concerns about raw- especially in people whose digestive systems might already be compromised.

I'm one of those people who had severely compromised digestion (which started during those years I was sick due to acidity and mineral deficiency from drinking distilled water). I do best with sprouts, raw veggie juices, and raw veggies stews made in the VitaMix.

I'm not totally vegan. Your thread on protein is very timely. Because I was trying to lose weight, I wasn't eating much. I realize now, after reading all this, that eating more, including more protein, might help with weight loss. (I should be skinny, with the lean, clean diet I have! But my metabolism slowed down when I was sick years ago.)

So, you might be pleased to know that your thread has prompted me to pay more attention to protein. I knew that protein was needed to build muscle, and muscle requires more calories so can help with weight loss. But I didn't have the exact numbers. So thank you!

I don't digest cooked protein very well. I do mostly soaked nuts, seeds, and nut/seed milks. After reading this, I've increased my nut milks, and have even started tossing in a raw (organic, free-range!!!!) egg into my smoothie occasionally. (I could never stomach it otherwise, but blended, I can't even tell it's there. And, I have no issue with eggs provided they're humanely produced. No animal died!)

So...good info! Thanks!

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Then again, for the vast majority of people, simply eating more veggies, in whatever form, is going to be a vast improvement!

True!

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]

EAT YOUR GREENS!

YES!!!

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Dark leafy greens are indeed the most nutrient-dense food one could eat. I dunno why but many people seem to have some sort of mental block about these. (Mind control?)

Haha, probably! Or maybe it's that canned spinach Popeye ate...yuck!

When I was a kid, the only veggies I ever saw fresh were iceberg lettuce and tomato. I remember seeing my ex-sister-in-law forcefeeding her daughters canned asparagus and canned spinach. I thought they were the grossest stuff ever!

Now, I marvel at how delicious fresh, raw (or lightly steamed) asparagus is! I often juice it too. And fresh, raw spinach is so wonderful! I juice it, I make salads, and I make stews with it in the VitaMix.

In our house, we all juice dark leafy greens (kale, beet, spinach, chard, etc.) on a daily basis. I probably get the juice from a whole bunch of kale (or other green) daily, in addition to another bunch's worth in the veggie stew. I have no idea how many cups that is, but it's way more than I could ever eat in salads. Yea for juicers and VitaMix!

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]What I am talking about are DARK. LEAFY. GREENS. You know, like kale, collards, turnip greens, mustard greens, beet greens, or ANYTHING greens!

Yup. And remember the wild greens too! I've been making green smoothies every day with wild purslane. Did you know that purslane is the only plant other than bluegreen algae that has high amounts of Omega-3?

I've been eating a couple of handfuls' worth of purslane every day, and the next day, the plant looks like I never took anything! It just gives and gives and gives. I love love love purslane! it tastes sorta like spinach, but tangier. It's a succulent. It's beautiful and you probably have some growing in your backyard!

Dandelions are awesome too but of course they taste strong. Excellent for the liver. I am horrified that my neighbor routinely sprays his yard. I tell the dandelions to come over to my place!

Another awesome wild green is nettles. Oh, I wish I could get nettles to grow in my yard! They keep trying but dry up. They are exquisite steamed.

Greens are so easy to grow. I planted about 10 plants - kale, chard, and lettuce - last fall, in pots, and we had enough juicing and salad greens for the 4 of us all winter and into the spring. Saved a lot of $$! And got fresh, organic greens! I'm planting right now for the fall. Greens don't do well here in the summer - too hot. (but I have wonderful purslane!)

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]First and foremost, dark leafy greens are a great source of calcium. Something which even many dietitians seem to overlook due to being indoctrinated by the dairy association. Dark leafy greens are -also- a great source of magnesium. This is because magnesium is at the core of the chlorophyll molecule which plants use to capture energy from sunlight. Hence: more green = more magnesium. (Purple fruits tend to have magnesium as well, but for a different reason.) Incidentally, magnesium is also at the core of a molecule called CoQ10 which is essential for energy metabolism.

I didn't know that about purple fruits.

Mag is the at the core of bluegreen algae too, by the way. It has more chlorophyll than any other plant. (We call it concentrated sunlight!)

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Calcium and magnesium work together as a pair in biological systems. (As do sodium and potassium.) Therefore, it stands to reason that consuming a lot of calcium without the corresponding magnesium (i.e. dairy products) is probably not the best idea.

Yeah, actually causes calcium to deposit outside the bones...

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Beans are also a great source of magnesium- two of the highest being the coffee bean and the cacao bean.

That's good to know for coffee and chocolate lovers. I can't do either of those because I'm ultra-sensitive to caffeine. What's next in line?

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]But anyway, back to protein. Yes, it is true that, compared to other vegetables, dark leafy greens have tend to have more protein. Problem is- there wasn't much to begin with.

Enough to fuel a gorilla...but they have to munch all day!

I wonder how much protein is in a glass of kale juice...I guess I'd have to figure out how many cups in a bunch of kale. I'll do that next time I make kale juice! :idea:

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]1 cup of lentils = 50 grams of protein

I don't think that's right. That sounded high so I did a search and they all say 17-18 grams per cup. Unless you meant dry rather than cooked?

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Almonds and lentils are both 25% protein by weight. By calorie, almonds are 15% protein and lentils are 30% protein. See the difference?

Yes. Good info, but I'm more interested in the actual amount per serving, which I find more useful. I've never cared much for those %-based diets. Seems like a lot of trouble!

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]The reason so many people are confused about nutrient content of food is because we are using three different units of measurement- the calorie (energy), the gram (mass), and the cup (volume)- and people talk about them as if they were interchangeable concepts, which they are not.

Aha! :idea:

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]On top of this, when some intellectual, rational, nerdy, "math whiz" type comes along one of these people, or their websites, they rapidly conclude that the speaker/writer doesn't know what they are talking about. And this is because... they don't. They are using words without knowing what they mean. They haven't actually looked up the definitions of the words they are using, and so they are speaking in babble. What is worse, they are "educating" others in this babble-speak, and thus adding to the confusion already present in their minds. As if it isn't bad enough with the dairy and corn associations crawling down our throats with propaganda at every opportunity.

So true! I just saw an atrocious video by David Wolfe, one of the raw vegan gurus. He totally got it all mixed up about water! It was awful! And so many people follow his advice.

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]What is sometimes even worse than that- when faced with the actual truth about their comments, they tend to get butthurt, and react emotionally, rather than asking intelligent questions, just as you have done here.

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Then- when confronted by a "skeptic" these people tend to conclude that they must be a member of "the establishment" or a "disinformation agent".

Pretty ironic since these folks themselves are some of the biggest agents of disinformation, and play right into the hands of the establishment!

I agree that truth should be able to withstand scrutiny. With the caveat, however, that many truths cannot be verified using mainstream methodologies. Homeopathy is a prime example.

And, established 'facts' sometimes turn out to be false, as new info becomes available. Not saying this is the case here with protein, but just sayin'.

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]That's great! We try to aim for 3 - 4 cups a day but it doesn't always happen. Thinking of creative ways to include greens, like in smoothies and soups as you mentioned, is a great approach!

[quote='Tenet Nosce' pid='94433' dateline='1345136665']
Incidentally- when consuming raw or steamed greens, dressing them with 1 tablespoon of something oily (like olive or coconut oil) and 1 tablespoon of something acidic (like lemon juice or apple cider vinegar) will help to make the vitamins and minerals more bioavailable.

Good info!

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]As we can see, from birth to about nine months, we should expect baby to put on about 1/2 kilo per month. That's about 1 pound. Keep in mind this is "on average".

Now the "rule of thumb" for feeding is about 2.5 ounces of milk daily per pound of baby. Breast milk has about 1/3 gram of protein per ounce.

So let's do the math:

Baby is born weighing 8.0 lbs and it feeds 20 ounces of milk per day. The 20 ounces of milk contains about 7 grams of protein. That's almost 2.0 grams / kg, which is in the "bodybuilder" range of protein intake.

At one month, baby now weighs 9.0 lbs and feeds 22.5 ounces of milk per day. The 22.5 ounces of milk contains about 7.5 grams of protein. Still in the "bodybuilder" range.

At two months: 10 lbs weight, 25 ounces milk, 8 grams protein. The ratio is going down, but still in muscle building range at 1.8 g / kg.

At three months: 11 lbs weight, 27.5 ounces milk, 9 grams protein. Still at 1.8 g / kg.

At six months, baby should be taking whole food in addition to breast milk. But even if they weren't, let's do the math: 15 lbs weight, 37.5 ounces milk, 12.5 grams protein. Still at 1.8 g / kg.

Cow's milk has about three times as much protein as human milk, or about 1 gram of protein per ounce. But then again, a newborn calf can be putting on a pound a day, rather than a pound a month. They also take a lot more milk!

Oh wow! See, I got bit on the % thing again! I read that human milk is something like 2% protein (not sure if I'm remembering correctly, but it was a low number). I don't know if it was by weight, calories or volume. Never before have I ever seen anyone do the math as you just did! Now it finally makes sense!! Thanks!

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]A lot of these people you are referring to that talk about how much protein greens have or how much protein babies supposedly don't need, are misinformed. They read facts and figures, and then falsely interpret them to fit according to their personal agendas and preconceived notions about what they want to believe.

If they would have actually taken the time to sit down, look a few things up on the Internet, and do some simple math on a calculator, they would see the truth for themselves quite plain as day.

Well, in order to do that you first need to know what data you're looking for. They have the right idea - for example they know that gorillas get strong on mostly fruit and greens, and they know that babies grow muscles, bones and organs on Mama's low-protein breastmilk, so the obvious conclusion is that those foods are adequate.

The mistake is making the conclusion that those foods must be 'high' in protein, when they're not. And yet, somehow the foods are adequate! So the answer has to do with volume consumed, and probably assimilability.

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]It took me about an hour to put together all of the information you asked for in your last question. I took the time out of my day to do this because I actually care enough about babies to do this. And I don't even have kids!

I had wondered about the human milk question, but didn't have the background knowledge about protein so it just never entered my mind to do what you did. But I'm glad you did!

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Point being- I'm sure all these parents who are spreading misinformation would have a conniption fit were I to suggest that they didn't love and care for their babies more than any other parent on the planet.

It's not parents who are saying that...it's proponents of low-protein diets. I see now that their entire premise is flawed.

(08-16-2012, 01:04 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Now here is my question: Why is there, as you say, an ongoing protein "debate"? What is there to debate when the facts are well-established and easily demonstrable? Who is really benefiting from this debate? And why?

I think the debate has more to do with sources of protein, than with amounts of protein. As you said, a vegan can get plenty of protein without counting grams of protein at each meal. The debate probably started before this fact was obvious, back when vegetarians were on the defensive.

The adequacy of a well-balanced vegetarian diet, even vegan, is so well-established now that we no longer need to be defensive.

Also, I think we should cut them a little slack. So much of what we've been told has turned out to be false, that it's reasonable for the established 'facts' about protein to be questioned.

---

(08-16-2012, 09:20 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]My own assumption (without asking) is that we all have the ability to choose what DNA to activate. I can't really say our gut bacteria is hereditary or genetic when conscious choice can change that.

I agree! I also think we can mutate, so all these facts could change.

(08-16-2012, 09:20 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]As a type 0 I don't think I fit the established standards.

The "Type A" protocol didn't work so well for me, either. But that whole Blood Type Diet thing is over 20 years old. We now know that there are many, many other antibody-antigen interactions beyond blood type alone, so the approach, while very forward-thinking at the time, is kind of outdated.

Quote:My father in law has had to move away from even their free range meals. Mother in law refused to believe that animal products were the cause of her digestive issues. Those issues vanished when she went on some mainstream veggie diet and cut out all animal products.

Experience is always the best teacher! If somebody can admit that maybe food has -something- to do with their health, that is a good starting point. Many are still in total denial that it has any effect at all.

Quote:My own assumption (without asking) is that we all have the ability to choose what DNA to activate.

I agree we probably have some influence over this. But where would we even begin?

Quote:I can't really say our gut bacteria is hereditary or genetic when conscious choice can change that.

Well, they had to come from somewhere. But- who can say- since gut bacteria are living creatures, maybe their choices about themselves trump ours.

One thing that is kind of creepy, and has been scientifically validated, is that gut bacteria can influence our minds and emotional states. They can even affect our food cravings so that we are more likely to eat foods that support their growth. Explains why some people with Candida have such a difficult time getting the processed sugar out of their diets.

I've also seen overgrowth of Strep in more than one person who was consuming large amounts of fruit sugar. Similarly, these people seem to have a hard time giving up the massive quantities of fruit they regularly eat.

Quote:The excuses I have read about dietary needs being DNA based are almost meaningless in this modern day.

There is also communication going the other way. We know that certain foods can result in changes to our DNA, and that those changes can be passed onto the next generation.

Your diet affects your grandchildren's DNA, studies say

Quote:You are what you eat, the saying goes. And, according to two new genetic studies, you are what your mother, father, grandparents and great-grandparents ate, too.

Diet, be it poor or healthy, can so alter the nature of one's DNA that those changes can be passed on to the progeny. While this much has been speculated for years, researchers in two independent studies have found ways in which this likely is happening.

The findings, which involve epigenetics, may help explain the increased genetic risk that children face compared to their parents for diseases such as obesity and diabetes.

The punch line is that your poor dietary habits may be dooming your progeny, despite how healthy they will try to eat.

Quote:Whatever DNA someone has that can be pinpointed as the reason for the need can be found in my DNA as well. My DNA lineage spans just about every country. My fathers side is the "reptilian" bloodline. My mothers side had cannibalism. Where can you find my excuse in this?

Gives a new meaning to the term omnivore.

Quote: You are what you eat, the saying goes. And, according to two new genetic studies, you are what your mother, father, grandparents and great-grandparents ate, too.

Diet, be it poor or healthy, can so alter the nature of one's DNA that those changes can be passed on to the progeny. While this much has been speculated for years, researchers in two independent studies have found ways in which this likely is happening.

The findings, which involve epigenetics, may help explain the increased genetic risk that children face compared to their parents for diseases such as obesity and diabetes.

The punch line is that your poor dietary habits may be dooming your progeny, despite how healthy they will try to eat.

I have read this before. Not entirely accurate. We may have presets but we also have a game of free will. Conscious choice. Even demons can be epigenetic.

(08-20-2012, 03:49 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]since gut bacteria are living creatures, maybe their choices about themselves trump ours.

One thing that is kind of creepy, and has been scientifically validated, is that gut bacteria can influence our minds and emotional states. They can even affect our food cravings so that we are more likely to eat foods that support their growth. Explains why some people with Candida have such a difficult time getting the processed sugar out of their diets.

We have more bacteria in our bodies than we do human cells. Very disconcerting! Especially knowing what we know from Ra about higher density beings using lower 2D beings to influence us.

(08-20-2012, 03:49 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]We know that certain foods can result in changes to our DNA, and that those changes can be passed onto the next generation.

I heard this from both the superfoods companies and some of the practitioners who recommend Electrolyzed Reduced Water. I think rapid mutation is likely occurring right now.

---

Update:

You got me on the human milk math, Tenet. Thank you for that! I never paid much attention to protein because I knew vegetarian foods were adequate. My mistake, however, was in being confused about the amount of vegetarian foods to meet protein requirements, primarily because of that "human breastmilk has very low protein" myth floating around. Since so much of what I'd been taught was wrong, I questioned the 'established facts' about protein too, and this was reinforced by that breastmilk point.

By doing the math on babies and milk, you've convinced me that the chemistry holds true. While I do believe in the possibility of rapid mutation as we transition, I also recognize the laws of chemistry. (This is why I steadfastly adhere to what I know about hydration. It's simple chemistry.)

So, after being impressed by your presentation about babies and milk, I counted my protein grams. And lo and behold! I came up short! Not by much, and certainly not because of poor food choices, but because I just don't eat much.

I often say "I should be skinny, as little as I eat!" which has always been very annoying...I eat clean and lean, and according to the old school thought, I really should be skinny. But I'm not. I've had some stubborn weight that hadn't budged no matter what I did!

Well, I now realize that weight loss has eluded me because I don't eat enough. :idea: Since I've been about 10-20 grams beneath the minimum protein threshold, I probably wasn't getting enough to feed the muscles which in turn would turn on the fat burning metabolism. WOW!

So, yesterday I made a point to get the 'casual athlete' level of protein. All vegan, all raw.

(By the way, last week I tried tossing in a raw egg into my smoothie...I did this 3 days, and very single time I got joint pain in my hands and a dry mouth! My body clearly doesn't want eggs! Cooked eggs are too heavy for me, so I am now officially Beegan...vegan except for a bit of organic honey.)

Here's what I ate yesterday:

Upon arising: After my usual quart of ionized water, I had 2 nectarines.

A little later, I had a smoothie made of almond/flax/chia milk, + purslane + hemp hearts + SunWarrior Raw Vegan protein powder. (I recently quit mixing protein and fruit, because I do better eating them separately.)

Lunch was a pint of fresh veggie juice (cucumber, kale, carrot, turmeric, red&yellow bell pepper) and a bowl of lentil sprouts covered in a dressing made from raw tahini, garlic, and tomato. Yum! I calculate that had as much protein as the breakfast shake.

After doing my afternoon Sun worshiping, I had some watermelon.

Dinner was another protein smoothie. And I wasn't hungry any more after that.

This wasn't a regular day for me. It was an experiment.

Well, I not only slept great, but woke up an hour earlier than normal, with more energy than normal! I went for a walk this morning, then did 3 sets of weight training, then some rebounder. I had fruit before the walk, and another protein shake after the workout.

I gotta admit, I can definitely tell a difference!!

This proves to me, for me anyway, that I truly don't need any animal foods, but I do need to make sure I get the minimum amount of protein. I was the victim of the 'eat less get skinny' mentality and that did work for me the first time, 30 years ago, but it sure didn't work when I got older.

I feel much better after having more vegan protein, than I did when I was trying the eggs. This says to me that it's the quantity, not the quality, in this case, that was the issue.

Thanks for providing an important missing piece, Tenet!

---

(08-20-2012, 05:07 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]I have read this before. Not entirely accurate. We may have presets but we also have a game of free will. Conscious choice. Even demons can be epigenetic.

Maybe genetics are in the category of automatic random catalyst, but can be overridden by conscious choice.

(08-20-2012, 05:07 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: You are what you eat, the saying goes. And, according to two new genetic studies, you are what your mother, father, grandparents and great-grandparents ate, too.

Diet, be it poor or healthy, can so alter the nature of one's DNA that those changes can be passed on to the progeny. While this much has been speculated for years, researchers in two independent studies have found ways in which this likely is happening.

The findings, which involve epigenetics, may help explain the increased genetic risk that children face compared to their parents for diseases such as obesity and diabetes.

The punch line is that your poor dietary habits may be dooming your progeny, despite how healthy they will try to eat.

I have read this before. Not entirely accurate. We may have presets but we also have a game of free will. Conscious choice. Even demons can be epigenetic.

Well, yes, the door swings both ways! I wouldn't personally go so far as to say that we are "doomed" based on what our grandparents ate. On the other hand, we are seeing all these "new" diseases in children whose grandparents and great-grandparents were the first generation to eat a chemical diet.

At any rate, I was delightfully surprised to find a mainstream media outlet talking about this at all!

---

(08-20-2012, 05:29 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]We have more bacteria in our bodies than we do human cells.

Yes, bacteria outnumber human cells 9:1! Kind of makes one rethink our concept of identity. Even on a physical basis, are we really a singular entity, or a collective? And what happens to our health when we act in disregard to the other lifeforms which are part of our bodies?

Quote:Very disconcerting! Especially knowing what we know from Ra about higher density beings using lower 2D beings to influence us.

I've been wondering how much of that genetic tinkering they referred to had to do with introducing different bacterial strains into our guts, along with changes to our diet. The introduction of large amounts of grains is highly suspect to me on account of how grains have become so closely interwoven with our cultural mythology, and even in modern times so heavily pushed on us by the "authorities".

I also have strong suspicions that grains have been leveraged as a manipulative chip in the 6000-year-old meat-eating vs vegetarian debate. Arguably, the mass cultivation and consumption of grains is at least as damaging to the health of our bodies and the planet as farming/eating large quantities of meat.

Assuming these were evolved beings giving us these new agricultural practices and dietary guidelines, then they should have known that the foundation of a healthy human diet, whether vegetarian or not, is dark leafy greens.

Quote:You got me on the human milk math, Tenet. Thank you for that!

You're welcome!

Quote:This proves to me, for me anyway, that I truly don't need any animal foods, but I do need to make sure I get the minimum amount of protein. I was the victim of the 'eat less get skinny' mentality and that did work for me the first time, 30 years ago, but it sure didn't work when I got older.

(11-21-2012, 05:23 AM)usher Wrote: [ -> ]You mention veggies. My understanding is that leafy greens have much higher protein content than other veggies, and a very favorable amino acid ratio. Humans just don't generally eat much of them, unlike gorillas who get a very high percentage of their protein from leafy greens.

VitaMix!!!

You do realize that was taken from post #7?

Oh wow, no I didn't. I thought it sounded odd. Spambot alert!

just look at David Wolfe. does he look like he lacks anything? he constantly eats superfood smoothies. i think that's all you need.

(11-22-2012, 02:48 PM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]just look at David Wolfe. does he look like he lacks anything? he constantly eats superfood smoothies. i think that's all you need.

Now that is a healthy boy!

he is, he's not even really skinny or anything. David though i think looks a little thin. but i think that's due to his slight anorexic tendencies to balance out the overweight problem he had before. or he just has a slight frame to begin with and just looks that way. i remember when i was somewhat thin people told me i was too thin even though i totally wasn't, it was just my slight bone structure that makes it seem that way i guess. David also has a very small bone structure so when he's thin he appears really slight and skinny.

---

oops, when i say David i mean David Wilcock. i forgot David Wolfe is also called David.

(11-23-2012, 05:01 AM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]he is, he's not even really skinny or anything. David though i think looks a little thin. but i think that's due to his slight anorexic tendencies to balance out the overweight problem he had before. or he just has a slight frame to begin with and just looks that way. i remember when i was somewhat thin people told me i was too thin even though i totally wasn't, it was just my slight bone structure that makes it seem that way i guess. David also has a very small bone structure so when he's thin he appears really slight and skinny.

---

oops, when i say David i mean David Wilcock. i forgot David Wolfe is also called David.

We have no way of knowing what health challenges David W might face, or what his diet is. Oh wow, not only are they both David, but they're both David W! I meant David Wilcock.

David Wolfe consumes not only a raw vegan diet, but also a lot of superfoods. I think that might have a lot to do with his vitality. Of course, genetics and pre-incarnational programming also come into play. And stress can certainly take its toll. There are so many factors to health!

I think of the raw vegan diet, along with superfoods, as high octane fuel, very useful as our DNA mutates.

DW is pretty much orthobuds with David Wolfe so i think his diet is similar. he has actually explained it. he did consume meat at some point due to weakness, i dunno if he does that anymore. but i think he's similar to David Wolfe. it's just his overwork, gigantic brain and slight frame that make him seem sickly.

i also think as our dna mutates the vegan diet will become more natural and feel easier. that's what i've noticed myself anyway. even stuff like milk and eggs doesn't really do it for me anymore like it used to. i just feel drawn to really chisome stuff.

(11-23-2012, 07:53 PM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]DW is pretty much orthobuds with David Wolfe so i think his diet is similar. he has actually explained it. he did consume meat at some point due to weakness, i dunno if he does that anymore. but i think he's similar to David Wolfe. it's just his overwork, gigantic brain and slight frame that make him seem sickly.

i also think as our dna mutates the vegan diet will become more natural and feel easier. that's what i've noticed myself anyway. even stuff like milk and eggs doesn't really do it for me anymore like it used to. i just feel drawn to really chisome stuff.

Orthobuds? Chisome? I can guess what they mean but those are new words to me!

I'm the same way. I used to want eggs every now and then but now I'm not even eating much cooked food anymore. I have nothing against free-range eggs, ethically, but I just can't eat them anymore. Same with cheese, even though it used to be a comfort food. I haven't eaten cheese in awhile, so I guess that means I'm vegan - er, Beegan - now. I just got tired of feeling so yucky afterwards.

(11-23-2012, 10:13 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]I'm the same way. I used to want eggs every now and then but now I'm not even eating much cooked food anymore. I have nothing against free-range eggs, ethically, but I just can't eat them anymore. Same with cheese, even though it used to be a comfort food. I haven't eaten cheese in awhile, so I guess that means I'm vegan - er, Beegan - now. I just got tired of feeling so yucky afterwards.

Monica, you beautiful enlightened being, I can see that within 5 years you will be subsisting on air and sunlight alone, living off the prana itself.



I have to admit, though, I feel the same way about cheese. Pretty gluggy stuff.

ps you should ask Austin about cheese lol. There's a story there!

(11-23-2012, 10:54 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]Monica, you beautiful enlightened being, I can see that within 5 years you will be subsisting on air and sunlight alone, living off the prana itself.

Awwww...

(11-23-2012, 10:54 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]I have to admit, though, I feel the same way about cheese. Pretty gluggy stuff.

Giving up meat and junk food was easy for me, because it was obvious they were 'bad.' But getting off 'organic, humane' cheese was harder because it was kinda in the middle...not quite as blatantly 'bad' and oh so yummy.

But gosh, I know from experience that it turns to gooey glop in the body and contributes to colds, etc. It also makes the body acidic.

What finally did it for me was learning that it's also quite addictive! Horrors!

(11-23-2012, 10:54 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]ps you should ask Austin about cheese lol. There's a story there!

OK! Austin you around?

as long as they're treated well the milk is then ethically fine. i can also see milk being used for more alkalising purposes in the form of kefir and yogurt which i love. it seems everyone processes food differently at different times. to me consuming non fermented milk feels wrong at the moment but i still love certain cheeses and will eat them when life throws them in front of me.

---

definitely bee keeping in a humane fair way is also wonderful. i would try directing them toward tea trees like they have in auralia. that would make that honey which protects from superbugs.

(11-24-2012, 08:02 AM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]as long as they're treated well the milk is then ethically fine. i can also see milk being used for more alkalising purposes in the form of kefir and yogurt which i love. it seems everyone processes food differently at different times. to me consuming non fermented milk feels wrong at the moment but i still love certain cheeses and will eat them when life throws them in front of me.

Agreed! There's a huge difference between humanely-produced milk and commercial milk. The commercial milk is full of antibiotics, hormones, and other drugs, + the cows are really treated cruelly. I had thought there was less cruelty involved with dairy, but I was wrong. Dairy cows are in pain almost constantly.

But I agree, cows allowed to graze outside and live normal lives, and then humanely milked, there's nothing unethical about that. And yes, fermented milk products are much healthier! Raw milk is healthier too. And not acidifying.

I should have been more clear. My comments were about the commercial dairy products.

(11-24-2012, 08:02 AM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]definitely bee keeping in a humane fair way is also wonderful.

I had no idea how badly bees are treated by commercial beekeepers. They use chemicals, and then cut the honey with GMO corn syrup. So whenever we buy 'Grade A' honey it isn't pure honey but a mixture! So I buy only raw, organic honey from local beekeepers, who are doing their part to save the bees.

I actually considered getting a beehive myself, but chickened out. :-/

One of our members, Pablisimo, has bees and just loves them.