British newspaper slams raw veganism

[Couture547]

Yeah, i mean where did that do the protein come from that is on the animal if all they eat is unbalanced protein yet there meat is balanced? I bet the same thing would happen if you eat a frutians persons muscle meat that was built eating fruit which they would say is very deficient. Wouldn't it be more better to look at the profile of human breast milk then cows milk? or Human muscle ratios rather then a cow?

[michaelhobson]

I thought I posted this earlier but I don't see it so I'll expand on my original thought.

 

You did post this earlier, I read it and then it disappeared later, strange. Anyway, it's the most intelligent post in this thread.

[FormicaLinoleum]

I thought I posted this earlier but I don't see it so I'll expand on my original thought.

 

Yes, isolated plant proteins are less suitable for our needs than isolated animal proteins. This should come as no surprise... that animal already did the work. They're animals, we're animals, no shit their muscular makeup and their food for their young (egg and milk) are close to what we are made of and what we need. I bet human muscle has a damn good profile as well. That doesn't mean that we did (or did not) evolve to eat these things.

 

We probably evolved to eat a little of both. Our lack of cellulolytic bacteria is pretty telling--it'd be pretty hard to eat solely vegan without agriculture. That doesn't mean that a good vegan diet isn't extremely healthy. We're losing sight of the forest for the trees.

 

The nonsense is the belief that most plant proteins are incomplete such that they are unusable, and that eating a variety of plants with different amino profiles isn't something we do by default. Yes it's important to eat a variety of things, but the idea that a good vegan diet as a whole is inferior is just false.

Nicely put.

 

The statement that plant proteins are "inferior" is a little misleading/vague. Sure, single plants sources have a less ideal balance of amino acids thans some single animal sources, but what's the point of considering the profile of a single plant when almost no one lives on a single plant? If one eats a variety of legumes, grains, vegetables, and seeds and nuts each day and gets enough of all amino acids this way, is that still inferior to getting those amino acids through animal sources? Or when people say that plant sources are "inferior" do they mean that it's inferior because it take a bit more thought to get all amino acids than it does through just eating some eggs?

 

Regardless, it seems to me that as long as one can get enough of of all the amino acids, that's the important thing.

 

However, I do also see the other side in that I think it is important that we vegans not deny such issues for fear it makes veganism "look bad". Some things do take a bit more thought in a vegan diet. Pretending this is not so can lead to health issues in oneself, or worse, in other vegans who believe you when you say not to worry about it. For example, it drives me crazy when vegans argue against the need to supplement B12, out of fear that acknowledging the need for a supplement will make veganism seem "unnatural" and will give anti-vegans ammunition, or because it goes against one's own beliefs against veganism (e.g., that veganism is the most "natural" diet for humans).

 

I personally am a vegan for ethical reasons, so if I have to take B12 as a supplement, that has no bearing on my belief in my veganism. I don't care whether veganism is the most healthy diet, or whether it is "natural", or whether we evolved to eat it. These things have no relevance to my life. What matters is that I can survive and be healthy on a vegan diet in the here and now, using the resources available to me, which includes B12 sprays. Who cares if B12 spray didn't exist 1000 years ago so my ancestors couldn't use it? I don't live 1000 years ago.

 

In other words, I think there is a middle ground in these discussions. I think we certainly should not deny issues with the vegan diet that are important to consider and take account for in planning what you eat. On the other, we can do this without going overboard and sounding anti-vegan ourselves. For example, on this topic I would say that plant proteins in single sources don't have ideal amino acid profiles, so we need to eat a variety of plant types to make sure we are getting a good balance overall. But this can be done while acknoledging that it is of course quite possible to do this. And I personally would avoid the use of "inferior" when referring to plant proteins, as within a well-rounded vegan diet, plant proteins aren't infererior in any practical sense--that is, it's certainly sufficient for our needs.

 

(sorry for any typos--my screen is doing some weird thing where I can't see what I am typing at the bottom.)

[Guest]

FormicaLinoleum, you're pretty much spot-on on:

 

The PDCAAS method may also still be considered incomplete, since human diets, except in times of famine, almost never contain only one kind of protein—however, calculating the PDCAAS of a diet solely based on the PDCAAS of the individual constituents is impossible. This is because one food may provide an abundance of an amino acid that the other is missing, which means that in this case the PDCAAS of the diet is higher than that of any one of the constituents. To arrive at the final result, all individual amino acids would have to be taken into account, though, so the PDCAAS of each constituent is largely useless.

 

For example, grain protein has a PDCAAS of about 0.4 to 0.5, limited by lysine. On the other hand, it contains more than enough methionine. White bean protein (and that of many other pulses) has a PDCAAS of 0.6 to 0.7, limited by methionine, and contains more than enough lysine. When both are eaten in roughly equal quantities in a diet, the PDCAAS of the combined constituent is 1.0, because each constituent's protein is complemented by the other.

 

Source: Wikipedia.

[Fallen_Horse]

I thought I posted this earlier but I don't see it so I'll expand on my original thought.

 

Yes, isolated plant proteins are less suitable for our needs than isolated animal proteins. This should come as no surprise... that animal already did the work. They're animals, we're animals, no shit their muscular makeup and their food for their young (egg and milk) are close to what we are made of and what we need. I bet human muscle has a damn good profile as well. That doesn't mean that we did (or did not) evolve to eat these things.

 

We probably evolved to eat a little of both. Our lack of cellulolytic bacteria is pretty telling--it'd be pretty hard to eat solely vegan without agriculture. That doesn't mean that a good vegan diet isn't extremely healthy. We're losing sight of the forest for the trees.

 

The nonsense is the belief that most plant proteins are incomplete such that they are unusable, and that eating a variety of plants with different amino profiles isn't something we do by default. Yes it's important to eat a variety of things, but the idea that a good vegan diet as a whole is inferior is just false.

+1

 

The statement that plant proteins are "inferior" is a little misleading/vague. Sure, single plants sources have a less ideal balance of amino acids thans some single animal sources, but what's the point of considering the profile of a single plant when almost no one lives on a single plant? If one eats a variety of legumes, grains, vegetables, and seeds and nuts each day and gets enough of all amino acids this way, is that still inferior to getting those amino acids through animal sources? Or when people say that plant sources are "inferior" do they mean that it's inferior because it take a bit more thought to get all amino acids than it does through just eating some eggs?

 

Regardless, it seems to me that as long as one can get enough of of all the amino acids, that's the important thing.

 

However, I do also see the other side in that I think it is important that we vegans not deny such issues for fear it makes veganism "look bad". Some things do take a bit more thought in a vegan diet. Pretending this is not so can lead to health issues in oneself, or worse, in other vegans who believe you when you say not to worry about it. For example, it drives me crazy when vegans argue against the need to supplement B12, out of fear that acknowledging the need for a supplement will make veganism seem "unnatural" and will give anti-vegans ammunition, or because it goes against one's own beliefs against veganism (e.g., that veganism is the most "natural" diet for humans).

 

I personally am a vegan for ethical reasons, so if I have to take B12 as a supplement, that has no bearing on my belief in my veganism. I don't care whether veganism is the most healthy diet, or whether it is "natural", or whether we evolved to eat it. These things have no relevance to my life. What matters is that I can survive and be healthy on a vegan diet in the here and now, using the resources available to me, which includes B12 sprays. Who cares if B12 spray didn't exist 1000 years ago so my ancestors couldn't use it? I don't live 1000 years ago.

 

In other words, I think there is a middle ground in these discussions. I think we certainly should not deny issues with the vegan diet that are important to consider and take account for in planning what you eat. On the other, we can do this without going overboard and sounding anti-vegan ourselves. For example, on this topic I would say that plant proteins in single sources don't have ideal amino acid profiles, so we need to eat a variety of plant types to make sure we are getting a good balance overall. But this can be done while acknowledging that it is of course quite possible to do this. And I personally would avoid the use of "inferior" when referring to plant proteins, as within a well-rounded vegan diet, plant proteins aren't inferior in any practical sense--that is, it's certainly sufficient for our needs.

 

(sorry for any typos--my screen is doing some weird thing where I can't see what I am typing at the bottom.)

+1, but I'm still not afraid to use the word inferior.

[Couture547]

I'd use the word superior protein when referring to plant proteins from whole foods. I'd take a food that is low in saturated fat, doesn't contain cholesterol, has many minerals, vitamins, has fiber, has healthy mono/ poly unsaturated fast, doesn't constipate you, takes short time to place though system any day over: No cabs, high cholesterol, high saturated fat to unsaturated fat ratios, has no fiber, has little to no vitamins or minerals, takes many days to past though the system(hence will people bowl movements spell like a rotting corpse) ect.

We should look at the whole complex of foods rather then try and break down certain parts of certain foods. Highest doesn't equal best. You can't get the positives from animal products without taking the negatives with it. Can't imagine we're supposed to get are protein from foods that have such a negative side.

[offense74]

Here's an article by Jeff Novick on the subject:

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-complementary-protein-myth-wont-go-away.html

[offense74]

Also makes you wonder how long it takes for you to die of "incomplete protein":

One thing is sure; the vegetable was popular all over Europe before the World War I. During the war, swede became a very affordable “last resort” food. After the harsh winter of 1916-1917 rutabaga gained a reputation of famine food; this period, known as “rutabaga winter”, no other crop was available and thousands of Germans were keeping alive eating swede and nothing else. Until these days, rutabaga has a bad reputation in Germany and is rarely planted or used in cooking.

Rutabagas has 1% (per weight) of protein.

 

I would (as some others have done) cautiously raise the BS flag on the issue of complete proteins.

Edited August 1, 2009 by offense74

[Guest]

I think I will have to re-post this:

 

The PDCAAS method may also still be considered incomplete, since human diets, except in times of famine, almost never contain only one kind of protein—however, calculating the PDCAAS of a diet solely based on the PDCAAS of the individual constituents is impossible. This is because one food may provide an abundance of an amino acid that the other is missing, which means that in this case the PDCAAS of the diet is higher than that of any one of the constituents. To arrive at the final result, all individual amino acids would have to be taken into account, though, so the PDCAAS of each constituent is largely useless.

 

For example, grain protein has a PDCAAS of about 0.4 to 0.5, limited by lysine. On the other hand, it contains more than enough methionine. White bean protein (and that of many other pulses) has a PDCAAS of 0.6 to 0.7, limited by methionine, and contains more than enough lysine. When both are eaten in roughly equal quantities in a diet, the PDCAAS of the combined constituent is 1.0, because each constituent's protein is complemented by the other.

 

Source: Wikipedia.

[Im Your Man]

 

However, I do also see the other side in that I think it is important that we vegans not deny such issues for fear it makes veganism "look bad". Some things do take a bit more thought in a vegan diet. Pretending this is not so can lead to health issues in oneself, or worse, in other vegans who believe you when you say not to worry about it. For example, it drives me crazy when vegans argue against the need to supplement B12, out of fear that acknowledging the need for a supplement will make veganism seem "unnatural" and will give anti-vegans ammunition, or because it goes against one's own beliefs against veganism (e.g., that veganism is the most "natural" diet for humans).

 

I personally am a vegan for ethical reasons, so if I have to take B12 as a supplement, that has no bearing on my belief in my veganism. I don't care whether veganism is the most healthy diet, or whether it is "natural", or whether we evolved to eat it. These things have no relevance to my life. What matters is that I can survive and be healthy on a vegan diet in the here and now, using the resources available to me, which includes B12 sprays. Who cares if B12 spray didn't exist 1000 years ago so my ancestors couldn't use it? I don't live 1000 years ago.

Actually, vitamin b12 comes from the plant kingdom, or if you prefer on the soil where plant-based foods grow, doesn't come from animal foods; animals get it from plants or animals that ate plant foods so then its in their muscles/meat. If you eat organic vegetables that grow on a soil rich in minerals and vitaminb12 and you dont rinse the vegetables too much because there is no insecticides on it, you get b12. But even in processed foods like all flour products, some of the dirt, insects and b12 are in the final product. Also, the main problem with b12 is not that b12 is missing in the diet, it is that the absorption is deficient, due to bad intestinal flora, bad food combinings causing some vitamins, minerals, proteins and calories to not even being digested so its flushed. its always unhealthy people that get b12 deficient. They're not unhealthy because they're deficient in b12, they are deficient in b12 because they are unhealthy. why do meat eaters get b12 deficiency?

[Im Your Man]

PS. Maybe some stuff doesn't have PDCAAS score since the tests are really expensive and marginal ingredients haven't been tested since hippies lack money to do such research.

expensive and the results are stupid, false and impossible: for instance if you look at raw beef and then the exact same thing but cooked and braised, it says that cooking actually improved the amino acids score or protein quality and created more vitamins !

 

Beef, chuck, arm pot roast, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/8" fat, all grades, raw

Beef, chuck, arm pot roast, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/8" fat, all grades, cooked, braised

[beforewisdom]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[michaelhobson]

I thought I posted this earlier but I don't see it so I'll expand on my original thought.

 

You did post this earlier, I read it and then it disappeared later, strange. Anyway, it's the most intelligent post in this thread.

 

And now my response to Formicalinoleum has also disappeared. Admin hitting the delete button by mistake?

[xjohanx]

Actually, vitamin b12 comes from the plant kingdom, or if you prefer on the soil where plant-based foods grow

 

It's produced by bacteria that you can find in soil but also in a lot of animals intestines. Your statement makes no sense, sorry.

[Fallen_Horse]

How about we all just agree that the British newspaper is USUALLY wrong and raw vegans are USUALLY wrong.

[Couture547]

How about we all just agree that the British newspaper is USUALLY wrong and raw vegans are USUALLY wrong.

 

 

Yeah i'll go with that one

[Richard]

Ehh, if an admin / moderator has been deleting posts, can they contact me? I haven't been reading this thread so I don't know what's up, if there's a problem I'd like to know about it. I'm not sure that deleting posts is the way to go, unless they're personal attacks

[michaelhobson]

Ehh, if an admin / moderator has been deleting posts, can they contact me? I haven't been reading this thread so I don't know what's up, if there's a problem I'd like to know about it. I'm not sure that deleting posts is the way to go, unless they're personal attacks

 

Richard, both Chrisjs and my posts were just general thread banter, both quite positive really. I don't think anyone would have intentionally deleted them.

[FormicaLinoleum]

 

However, I do also see the other side in that I think it is important that we vegans not deny such issues for fear it makes veganism "look bad". Some things do take a bit more thought in a vegan diet. Pretending this is not so can lead to health issues in oneself, or worse, in other vegans who believe you when you say not to worry about it. For example, it drives me crazy when vegans argue against the need to supplement B12, out of fear that acknowledging the need for a supplement will make veganism seem "unnatural" and will give anti-vegans ammunition, or because it goes against one's own beliefs against veganism (e.g., that veganism is the most "natural" diet for humans).

 

I personally am a vegan for ethical reasons, so if I have to take B12 as a supplement, that has no bearing on my belief in my veganism. I don't care whether veganism is the most healthy diet, or whether it is "natural", or whether we evolved to eat it. These things have no relevance to my life. What matters is that I can survive and be healthy on a vegan diet in the here and now, using the resources available to me, which includes B12 sprays. Who cares if B12 spray didn't exist 1000 years ago so my ancestors couldn't use it? I don't live 1000 years ago.

Actually, vitamin b12 comes from the plant kingdom, or if you prefer on the soil where plant-based foods grow, doesn't come from animal foods; animals get it from plants or animals that ate plant foods so then its in their muscles/meat. If you eat organic vegetables that grow on a soil rich in minerals and vitaminb12 and you dont rinse the vegetables too much because there is no insecticides on it, you get b12. But even in processed foods like all flour products, some of the dirt, insects and b12 are in the final product. Also, the main problem with b12 is not that b12 is missing in the diet, it is that the absorption is deficient, due to bad intestinal flora, bad food combinings causing some vitamins, minerals, proteins and calories to not even being digested so its flushed. its always unhealthy people that get b12 deficient. They're not unhealthy because they're deficient in b12, they are deficient in b12 because they are unhealthy. why do meat eaters get b12 deficiency?

This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about.

 

Nowhere did I state, or imply, that I am under the impression that B12 is an animal product. I am very well aware that it is not. If it were an animal product, my B12 spray wouldn't be vegan. So I don't know why you felt the need to "correct" me on that.

 

However, it is NOT from the plant kingdom. It is synthesized by bacteria. That's still vegan, though.

 

It has NOT been demonstrated that organic vegetables, flour, or whatever else has any B12 content. The only sure sources of B12 are supplements and supplemented food.

 

Yes, SOME people have trouble absorbing B12, so intake is not going to help their deficiency and this is unrelated to diet. However, most people (especially younger people) can absorb it, so these people will have deficiency only if they are not taking in a sufficient level of B12.

 

Anyone who want to be sure that he/she is getting sufficient B12 (as we all should) should be taking/eating supplements, not taking a wild gamble that there is going to be enough insect parts in their flour to provide for their needs!

 

B12 deficiency can result in irreversible damage to the nervous system. This is why I think it is highly irresponsible to go around telling people that they can get enough B12 through unwashed veggies (they can get e coli through that source, too) or flour. If you personally want to take that gamble, go for it, but don’t try to talk other people out of supplementing.

 

Read this very thorough article on B12 (link taken from beforewisdom's B12 sticky post in this forum.): http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/all. It addresses all the myths about B12 that you bring up.

Edited August 3, 2009 by FormicaLinoleum

[blabbate]

PS. Maybe some stuff doesn't have PDCAAS score since the tests are really expensive and marginal ingredients haven't been tested since hippies lack money to do such research.

expensive and the results are stupid, false and impossible: for instance if you look at raw beef and then the exact same thing but cooked and braised, it says that cooking actually improved the amino acids score or protein quality and created more vitamins !

 

Beef, chuck, arm pot roast, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/8" fat, all grades, raw

Beef, chuck, arm pot roast, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/8" fat, all grades, cooked, braised

I don't suppose you can actually explain why that's impossible. I suspect you're just assuming it's impossible because it doesn't match what you already believe.

[Zack]

PS. Maybe some stuff doesn't have PDCAAS score since the tests are really expensive and marginal ingredients haven't been tested since hippies lack money to do such research.

expensive and the results are stupid, false and impossible: for instance if you look at raw beef and then the exact same thing but cooked and braised, it says that cooking actually improved the amino acids score or protein quality and created more vitamins !

 

Beef, chuck, arm pot roast, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/8" fat, all grades, raw

Beef, chuck, arm pot roast, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/8" fat, all grades, cooked, braised

I don't suppose you can actually explain why that's impossible. I suspect you're just assuming it's impossible because it doesn't match what you already believe.

 

 

x2

[Im Your Man]

I don't suppose you can actually explain why that's impossible. I suspect you're just assuming it's impossible because it doesn't match what you already believe.

if you wanna write something, write something, explain, don't just make suspicions and assumptions about what others write, what is the utility of such behavior?

Nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed. Starting from that elemental rule, explain us how heat affects vitamins.

[blabbate]

I don't suppose you can actually explain why that's impossible. I suspect you're just assuming it's impossible because it doesn't match what you already believe.

if you wanna write something, write something, explain, don't just make suspicions and assumptions about what others write, what is the utility of such behavior?

Amusement?

Nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed. Starting from that elemental rule, explain us how heat affects vitamins.

Let's start more basic. What's the serving size of each, raw and cooked?

[Im Your Man]

Let's start more basic. What's the serving size of each, raw and cooked?

ahah ! you didn't even bothered to go look at the links... is this a joke ?

[blabbate]

Let's start more basic. What's the serving size of each, raw and cooked?

ahah ! you didn't even bothered to go look at the links... is this a joke ?

No, I went to the sites, but I want you to say it for yourself. What are the serving sizes?