re: Switching to vegetarian diet

I'm not moving the goaliposts you freaking moron. You just refuse to try and defend your idiotic statement.

Here is an article from the American Journal of clinical nutrition. I guess the author does not know what the term means either.

LINK

quote:

---

DIETARY PROTEIN AND AMINO ACID BIOAVAILABILITY A second important issue in quality evaluation relates to the bioavailability or digestibility of a protein or the capacity to provide metabolically available nitrogen and amino acid to tissues and organs. The food matrix in which a protein is consumed can have significant impact on the bioavailability of amino acid for metabolic needs. Digestive losses and structural changes of amino acids are caused by numerous antinutritional factors in foods. These issues have been addressed with particular attention to animal compared with plant proteins.

---

quote:

---

Bioavailability refers to the protein's ability to be used by the body and it is measured by Biological Value (BV). The higher the BV, the more bioavailable the protein

---

LINK

Biological value

quote:

---

Biological value (BV) is a measure of the proportion of absorbed protein from a food which becomes incorporated into the proteins of the organism's body. It captures how readily the digested protein can be used in protein synthesis in the cells of the organism.

---

quote:

---

Unlike some measures of protein usability, biological value does not take into account how readily the protein can be digested and absorbed (largely by the small intestine). This is reflected in the experimental methods used to determine BV.

---

You can't break down all the cellulose to get to all the protein that is there. Hence the second quote. It is experimental, but not exact. People through out the word bioavailability not really knowing what it means. It is apples to oranges. Like the earlier studies saying Paranthropus robustus ate grass. Well, that's good, I'm glad to know that. But don't write an article about the study proclaiming early humans ate grass because Paranthropus robustus isn't a homo sapien

I'm not trying to be mean or anything. I'm not even the one downvoting you.

I'm not sure why you refuse to just say "it's possible to get the protein you need from a vegetarian diet"

Just do it.... it'll only sting for a minute

Instead you two have just been quoting every definition of bioavailability you can find. But you're running in circles

Yay or nay: can you get protein you need by eating a vegetarian diet?

I already know the answer, and so do most others with a brain. But I'm just wondering how much you will avoid just saying yes. I don't need you to tell me you can get protein more efficiently from meat, you've said that for days now. Answer the question... I challenge you to use your own words and not quote me more articles. Yay or nay. We believe in you brother!

So if someone ingested 500 grams of plant protein in a day through whole food sources and plant based protein shakes they could not absorb enough to get the rda of 60 grams? You really are embarrassing yourself.

I actually had time to go back a read the first article linked called Why you can all stop saying meat eating fueled evolution of larger brains right now

The author, though right on a number of points, is entirely wrong when it comes to ketones. The comments are picking apart his argument.

In the comments he posted this jewel.

quote:

---

But the brain itself is different -- ketones will only replace glucose use only after long periods of starvation. That's a nice adaptation when food is scarce that I'm not discounting, but it's not really ideal long-term (also since ketone accumulation can lead to ketoacidosis). I wouldn't consider that "efficient". Here's the thing: I certainly understand that a ketogenic diet might have some uses (such as in epilepsy) or even for weight loss.

---

Ketone accumulation does not lead to ketoacidosis or I'd been dead yrs ago.

The next comment was gold

quote:

---

That's definitely what the biochemistry and nutrition textbooks will tell you.

---

then goes on to explain why he is wrong.

David Despain had no idea what he was talking about in regards to ketosis. I believe in the same comment someone mention that being in a state of ketosis and using ketones to fuel the brain is *more* efficient, I happen to agree with that hypothesis.

As to the article Ancient Oat Discovery May Poke More Holes in Paleo Diet

The author bases the whole article on one study about a rock tool which had grain studs in it. She used a ton of suggestive language.
Here is the study in full text. The point here is that this study shows us that man used a tool to grind oats and how agriculture emerge, earlier than we previously thought. That is all.

quote:

---

The idea that prehistoric people didn’t eat grain “is just wrong. It’s misinformed,” says Huw Barton of Britain’s University of Leicester, who studies ancient starch grains. “People ate what they could get their hands on. Eating is surviving.”

---

They didn't. The study she provides only shows dates on when agriculture started, not that man ate grain while foraging, which she suggests.

Back to the study itself...

quote:

---

The production of flour requires multistep processing and manipulation before cooking, depending on the different parts of the plants used. Grinding requires a previous drying of the plant portion to be processed, and drying may be accelerated by means of heat treatment. The present analysis indicates that the inhabitants of Grotta Paglicci (sublayer 23A) were the most ancient population to use a method that involves at least four subsequent steps in preparing plants for consumption. The examination performed on the Paglicci pestle-grinder provides direct evidence of heating and grinding. Although there is no direct evidence of the following steps, namely the mixing of the flour with water and the cooking, these processes can be plausibly hypothesized because the rehydration is necessary for cooking and the cooking is necessary to make the starch digestible

---

I wonder why they went through the trouble processing, grinding, heating, rehyrating...

It does not show that man can digest oats or grains as efficiently as herbivores (in fact, it shows that considerable processing is necessary to digest it).

Though I find the study fascinating and a decent read, that article takes us off the point of nutrition and digestion, and to the point of when agriculture started. It has no context in which I presented my argument.

I'm not denying most of what you said above but you are saying it is physically impossible to absorb the rda of protein from plant sources which is absurd. You said this as if it is an absolute and then your above post admits you have no proof to back up your statement.

So you're saying you can't get required protein from a vegetarian diet? Yes or no?

Didn't you say earlier it wasn't? Lol

It is possible to get the amount you need from plants or there wouldn't be vegan bodybuilders. But it takes a lot more to make that happen compared to meat.

But it's still a stupid diet and is much less effective at accomplishing what a diet like whole30 can do. Hell even doing the bacon expierement(nothing but free range, extremely high quality uncured bacon) would accomplish those goals easier.