Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Apple_Blossem

Veggies and Protein? Broccoli 42% protein, carrots, lettuce, etc

Since I did the no meat diet and started using living things as my sources of iron, calcium, protein, I noticed my skin has cleared up a lot. I also noticed my overall health improved, and I'm happy I tried this.

The FDA website said that we do not need to rely on meats for our protein and Iron, and that even people who remove dairy products from their diet equally healthy as any other person.

It was also interesting to learn that the average American consumes 5 times more protein than he actually needs each day, and this is the #1 cause of Osteoperosis. We need to worry about "Are we consuming TOO much protein?" Each day just as much as "Are we getting enough protein?"

I cut out meat with my friend and it was a lot of fun doing this. I had never tried this because I believed we needed to "Combine foods" to get enough protein. After I started researching this on the internet, I discovered it was an OLD book written that was disproven about 10 years ago. It is now regarded as a "myth."

We have discovered MANY MANY VERY NICE restaurants who serve meatless items (WOW - try the meatless-ribs... very tastey). We certainly improved our diets by trying new things during that month. We improved our overal health and diets.

Thought this was interesting:

Vegetables (1 cup cooked) Protein (g)

Lentils 24.0g

Broccoli 4.65g

Brussels sprouts 5.64g

Peas, green, frozen 8.24g

Peas, split 16.35g

Spinach 5.97

Vegetables mixed, frozen 5.21g

Artichokes 5.85g

Asparagus 5.31g

Beet Greens 3.7g

Beets 2.86g

Tomatoes 1.53g

Peppers 1.25g

Parsnips 2.06g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I did the no meat diet and started using living things as my sources of iron, calcium, protein, I noticed my skin has cleared up a lot. I also noticed my overall health improved, and I'm happy I tried this.

The FDA website said that we do not need to rely on meats for our protein and Iron, and that even people who remove dairy products from their diet equally healthy as any other person.

It was also interesting to learn that the average American consumes 5 times more protein than he actually needs each day, and this is the #1 cause of Osteoperosis. We need to worry about "Are we consuming TOO much protein?" Each day just as much as "Are we getting enough protein?"

That's mainly a problem of sulphur containing protein which lead to osteosclast dissolving of the calcium in the bone. Thought protein are necessary for bone health and maintenance

I had an underlined list of foods that have a negative effect on calcium balance and foods that have a positive effect on calcium balance given their: sodium content, magnesium content, sulphur containing amino acids content, bioavailable calcium content, phosphorous content

Negative Positive Calcium balance Foods

I cut out meat with my friend and it was a lot of fun doing this. I had never tried this because I believed we needed to "Combine foods" to get enough protein. After I started researching this on the internet, I discovered it was an OLD book written that was disproven about 10 years ago. It is now regarded as a "myth."

France More Lappe book was a good one especially for the environmental and eco-sustenable theories but it helped to spread the misinformation of incomplete proteins

The biological value of protein the VAT has been extrapolated from the growth of rats and calves

According to the early after was theories the best proteins were the one that lead to faster growth in babies

It is nowadays well documented that babies who grow fast have an high incidence of childhood and adult cancer compared to kids that grow slowly and steadly and keep growing into their twenties, being shorter then their counterparts along the process but becoming even taller at the end

In fact, growth spurts, are not healthy and both refined carbs and high meat consumption lead to documented increases in IGF which is known to cause the growth spurt and the adverse effects associated with it

The biological value is actually a nonsense way to measure proteins quality

The more logical way is to consider the amount of essential amino acid in 1 gram of a protein and estimate whether given a proper caloric intake would that protein alone provide an adequate amount of ALL essential amino acids at the end of the day

Only few proteins like starfruits and pear ones would result inadequate at providing all essential amino acids

Beans, nuts, veggies for the most part are adequate and complete

Plant Proteins are Complete

Thought this was interesting:

Vegetables (1 cup cooked) Protein (g)

Lentils 24.0g

Broccoli 4.65g

Brussels sprouts 5.64g

Peas, green, frozen 8.24g

Peas, split 16.35g

Spinach 5.97

A best way to consider the REAL amount of protein of foods is to considet the proteins by calories

Since we don't eat by weight and don't have needs by weight but need to consume calories the amount of protein in a given amount of food is way less important and often irrelevant than the amount of protein in 100 calories of a given food. That's why broccoli contain effectively more proteins than beef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I had 5x as much protein as I needed. I would look like he-man. For how active I am and for how much I lift (Meaning how often my muscles need to repair themselves) plant protein with the exception of maybe lentils won't do it.

You are arguing that we consider protein by calories but can you tell me how many calories I would need in broccoli to equal over 100 grams of protein? Now tell me how many cups that would be? According to your chart that is over 20 cups a day. How would determining any macronutrient by calorie when it comes to veggies make sense? Do you know how little chicken or beef you need to equal that amount. Or even whey isolate?

I also need the growth hormones in animal products. PLus it keeps me younger longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I had 5x as much protein as I needed. I would look like he-man. For how active I am and for how much I lift (Meaning how often my muscles need to repair themselves) plant protein with the exception of maybe lentils won't do it.

The amount of protein neeeded for muscle repair of heavy athletic resistance training is not that much

First of all one would need an extra 6-7 grams of protein daily to build the MAX amount of muscle mass an human being could possibly develope in a week (muscle is 80% water) but also what really increases the protein need in resistance training is not the amount of protein needed to repair the muscles (which is secured simply by eating the RDA for protein and by endogenous amino acids reciclying) but the increased turnover

That makes resistane athletes who train more than 60 minutes every day o 6 days a week a maximum of 1.8 grams per Kg of body weight

Also more protein are not going to make the muscles bigger indefinitely, it's not like when there are more protein the body is going to use every brick of it to build (repair) muscles

The tearing of muscle fiber is limited daily and so is the amount of repairing hence of tissue thickening

As authorities who have devoted their time to protein need for active individuals state, once you've reached a positive nitrogen balance each grams more of protein will be simply useless to whatever kind of task especially muscle building

[PMID: 11023001]

[PMID: 9841962]

[PMID: 1474076]

You are arguing that we consider protein by calories but can you tell me how many calories I would need in broccoli to equal over 100 grams of protein? Now tell me how many cups that would be? According to your chart that is over 20 cups a day. How would determining any macronutrient by calorie when it comes to veggies make sense? Do you know how little chicken or beef you need to equal that amount. Or even whey isolate?

You're missing the point

We were not arguing whether it is easy to get calories from plant foods, that is what you're arguing

I was just stating that a caloric dense foods given a certain amount of micronutrients per weight contains less nutrients than a non-caloric dense foods

So if you want to know which food contains more nutrients you don't have to see the amount of nutrients in 100 grams, cause 100 grams is a useless and variable criteria ... we don't eat by grams but by calories, but the amount of nutrients in 100 calories

The point that non-caloric dense foods don't provide much calories is a different one unrelated to what I was saying. Clearly certain caloric-dense foods are needed to get enough calories at the end of the day ... but a diet which is founded on non-caloric dense foods and is supplemented which caloric dense foods will always be more nutrients rich than a diet which is founded on caloric dense foods and supplemented with non-caloric dense foods

I also need the growth hormones in animal products. PLus it keeps me younger longer.

Actually you need a nutrients dense diet in order to manufacture your own optimum level of growth hormones. The risk associated with growth hormones in meat are well documented, especially with synthetic bovine growth hormones used by intensive farming which is correlated with high levels of IGF-1 and many kind of cancers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you clearly said was that broccoli is a better source of protein per calorie than meats. While this may be true, it's pretty much useless in the real world. You don't eat low calorie foods by the calorie, you eat them by the gram. It's just like different glycemic measures. Who takes into account how nuch nutrients they get from 100 calories of broccoli or kale or spinach? 100 calories of broccoli would equal 12 oz or somethign like 300 grams or basically one of those stocks.

The vast majority don't take thier daily caloric intake and make any significant space for veggies. It may work in a perfectly healthy world where vegans rule but for the forseable future people will determine thier total caloric intake by high calorie foods and then add in veggies because of nutrient value only, not calories. They will take into account how many they need per day(And this is the healthy ones which are a minority) and determine how many grams are in a serving and go from there. Most people won't even do this and just judge the serving size by looks. 5 servings of veggies, while they may be nutrient dense, won't add any significant calories to thier diet so it's considered an afterthought. It may not be perfect but it's what everyone does and that's all that matters.

I live in Canada and we don't allow artificial growth hormones to be added to our animal products. Most of the free wold outside the US is like this as well. Not in dairy, not in animal meats, nowhere. When I said growth hormones in meats I meant that the amino acid profiles in them trigger the release of growth hormones better than plant sources.

I've worked out my protein needs based on my maintenance and growth levels at different activity levels and for what weights I want to be at through years of trial and error. I'm 190lbs, extremely active and a huge ectomorph. If plant based sources could help me with this I would do it but other than lentils, nothing really come close to animal products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you clearly said was that broccoli is a better source of protein per calorie than meats. While this may be true, it's pretty much useless in the real world. You don't eat low calorie foods by the calorie, you eat them by the gram. It's just like different glycemic measures. Who takes into account how nuch nutrients they get from 100 calories of broccoli or kale or spinach? 100 calories of broccoli would equal 12 oz or somethign like 300 grams or basically one of those stocks.

You're still missing the point

You seem to claim that if a food provide many calories it is a best source of a nutrient because you need little of it to get that nutrients

But it's just the opposite

If a food is rich in calories it means that the amount necessary to get a LITTLE AMOUNT OF NUTRIENTS is already a BIG AMOUNT OF CALORIES

Since we eat by calories if you just need 300 grams of something to get 2500 calories then all the nutrients in you are contained in those 300 grams

The more food by weight you need to make enough calories the more nutrients by weight you can obtain

If a food provides 2 grams of iron per 100 grams and 100 grams are 500 calories it means that 1800 calories will provide you with 7 grams of iron

If a food provides 1,2 grams of iron per 100 grams and 100 grams are 200 calories it means that 1800 calories will provide you with almost 11 grams of iron

Even though the first food seems to have more nutrients because of a lower water content the second food is the richest source of iron and in fact if they both could be dried the second one would have more grams per 100 grams, it's the water that creates the illusion that the first food is riched in iron ... but the truth about calories (that once you have consumed your daily need of calories you have NO MORE CHANCES to feed your body more nutrients) solves this illusion

As I stated is simple logic that the more caloric dense a food is the less nutrients it will be able to provide at the end of the day. Therefore the amount of nutrients by 100 grams is a useless criteria because has no application in the real world ... because when I know that a food has 1 grams of whatever nutrient in 100 grams of weight I also know that I need 1200 grams of that food to make 12 grams of the nutrient I need ... only that those 1200 grams happen to be 5100 calories

That's why it's absolutely useless to know how much grams of a nutrients are contained in 100 grams of a food, because if the food is caloric dense I can only consume as much grams by weight and by consequence as much needed nutrients. Nutrients by weight is misleading because it depends on the amount of water a food is composed of but doesn't depend on the real density of nutrients of that foods which is the only thing we care

So broccoli will always contain more protein than beef because their nutritious part is riched in protein than beef is, the rest of the weight is just non-nutrient water which gives the illusion of a diluted nutrient density

The implications in the real worlds are:

If the diet is comprised of only calorically dense foods the nutrients intake will be small or deficient

If the diet is comprised of only nutrients dense foods (hence not calorically dense) the stomach will be full before enough calories can be secured to the body and hence starvation occurs

The solution is to base the nutrients intake on calorically sparse foods and the caloric intake on calorically dense foods. Hence having a diet which is nutrients rich dominated and supplemented with high caloric (but nutrients poor) foods to get enough calories

The fact remains that the only meaingless criteria to estimate the nutritional density of a food, the real nutrients a foods provide, is to consider the nutrients by calories not by weight

I've worked out my protein needs based on my maintenance and growth levels at different activity levels and for what weights I want to be at through years of trial and error. I'm 190lbs, extremely active and a huge ectomorph. If plant based sources could help me with this I would do it but other than lentils, nothing really come close to animal products.

I don't think you need more than 150 grams of protein a day ... or at least there are not scientific basis to claim that more than that will have any addictional beneficial effect for your growth or health

Well ... the amino acids profile (as I have showed with tabs) of many plant foods is very similar to animal protein ... in other words it is adequate to obtain, given an adequate caloric intake, all the essential amino acids you need in the correct amount

A vegan varied diet (with an assortment of legumes, nuts, seeds and vegetables) would provide on average about 50-55 grams of protein per 1000 calories

A vegetarian diet would be able to provide about 70 grams of protein per 1000 calories because of the addiction of eggs which have an high protein content while being not very calorically dense (and in fact many consider them a better source of protein than meat)

When I said growth hormones in meats I meant that the amino acid profiles in them trigger the release of growth hormones better than plant sources.

How?

There's no amino acid profile which is able to do things that other amino acids profiles can't do

All you have is an essential amino acids need to keep your body from dying

Whatever you eat is being scomposed into single amino acids by your body which are bound to other essential amino acids (found mostly on the body reciclying hematic pool) to make proteins peculiar to the human body since animal proteins would be an extraneous subtance to attack as they don't suit our protein needs

So if you eat a plant food its proteins will be decomposed and the amino acids will be bound to others to forms proteins

If you eat a food which is somehow deficient in one amino acids, it will decomposed and bound the missing amino acids abundantly found in your amino acid hematic pool

If you eat meat the same thing happens, the amino acid profile won't be able to trigger more growth hormone as the amino acid profile of the food you eat is irrelevant to your body, the amino acids needed will be utilized the ones unneeded at the moment will be recycled and kept on the endogenous "store" where single essential amino acids are kept up to 12 days

The only thing that may make a difference is taurine, but it is synthesized by your body and it's not a problem for a vegetarian diet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather not have 20 bowel movements a day. Body building requires 1.5 grams of protein/lean lb of body weight for optimal recovery and growth. The idea of consuming a cup of broccoli for 5 grams of an inbalanced amino acid profile is a joke. Not only is it suboptimal, but the fiber content would induce dozens of liquidy bowel movements each day and rape all of the nutrients out of your digestive tract. Things like spinach would inhibit iron absorption and create other mineral dificiencies.

Vegetables provide great nutrient profiles but should never be the sole dietary source. Studies have shown that lean meats, high protein diets along with fruits, veggies, essential fats provide optimal health and body composition.

There have been studies on this and some are cited in this article:

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=460048

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=460051

But I'm sure you're going to reply with some garbage about synthetic hormones, ihumane animal treatment, and other vegan propaganda, but I don't buy convential meat so stop preaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather not have 20 bowel movements a day. Body building requires 1.5 grams of protein/lean lb of body weight for optimal recovery and growth. The idea of consuming a cup of broccoli for 5 grams of an inbalanced amino acid profile is a joke. Not only is it suboptimal, but the fiber content would induce dozens of liquidy bowel movements each day and rape all of the nutrients out of your digestive tract. Things like spinach would inhibit iron absorption and create other mineral dificiencies.

I don't know where you get this figure

The most important studies made on atheletes (real athletes that workout every day) came to the conclusion that more than 1.8 grams of protein per Kg of bodyweight is useless for everyone

Lemon PW, which is an authority on protein requirement studies and agree that athletes need more proteins than sedentary individuals, agree with these figures

Those are the grams required to be on a positive and optimal nitrogen balance, more of that is not going to change the balance hence is not going to increase the amount of amino acids utilized for repair and growth

I can understand your concern about bulk ... but this doesn't change the fact that the more caloric sparse foods a diet is based on the more nutrients rich it is and that nutrients must be calculated by calories not by grams of foods

I'm not saying that a diet should be founded on just calorically sparse food as I'm well aware that would result in a bulky and hypocaloric diet and eventually starvation

Each kind of diet has a calorically dense source to get calories without the excessive bulk ... the point I was making is that the ideal is to find a balance between nutrients dense and calorically sparse foods and calorically dense and nutrients sparse foods

Even though phytates and oxalates may prevent mineral absorption to a certain extent there are no clinical evidence that these compounds on a varied diet have any relevant influence on mineral absorption

According to ADA since the effects of antinutrients are only seen when hypocaloric diets on third world country are based on foods rich in antinutrients and lacking variety, their role in a normocaloric varied diet is irrelevant and if mineral absorption is compromised it is just by a 0.01%

But I'm sure you're going to reply with some garbage about synthetic hormones, ihumane animal treatment, and other vegan propaganda, but I don't buy convential meat so stop preaching.

I just reply for the love of "truth" or apparent "truth" from the evidences we have nto for ideologies

If you seen my other posts I have suggested diets relatively high in meat and talked about fish consumption

I was just stating facts that were being mislead like amino acids profile of 95% of plant if absolutely complete, amino acids are "stored" in the body ... even if in a different way than a real store like fat is, nurtients should be calculated by calories not by weight of foods

Does that imply that according to me you should abandon meat consumption, get your protein from just broccoli, consume just water rich and calorically sparse foods and die of starvation?

I wasn't implying anything ... just stating certain documented facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mistake me. I never implied that the higher the calories the higher the nutrients we get. You're examples are highly exaggerated. In real life the public eats according to high calorie foods and nutrients by either weight or by some measurement like a cup. They then take a handful of carrots or a few parts of broccoli after they factor in all the stuff in their potatoes, chicken, etc... and say, "Well I guess this is around 50 grams or a cup so I am getting x amounts of nutrients from this becasue the labeling says so" and then throw it on thier plate. It's what people know. It's how stores label products. It's everywhere.

I don't think you want to take people and try to modify their eating habits en masse because it's too hard. All you can do is work with the system they have now and make the best of it. Every one of my posts you disagree and state some theoretical argument that is correct. I never once said you were wrong, I said in the real world it doesn't work that way.

Like I said, I use a lot of energy. I need a lot of calories and it is more realistic that I eat a big piece of chicken(Note I don't care how many calories of grams or even cups of chicken I have. I've measured how much chicken is 40 grams of protein in the past and forgot the amoutn but remembered the size) and take in 40grams of protein than many many cups of broccoli, even though calorie for calorie I am getting a worse deal. I don't care how many nutrients my veggies have in them per 100 calories, I take in my total calories and with the exception of legumes, I then add a few hundred extra for my daily intake of veggies. In fact I don't really care how many calories are in them because even with 7 servings it isn't going to add up to much. 100 calories of carrots is a shit load of beta carotene. 100 calories of broccoli is a shit load of vitamin C. I would never eat 100 calories of these in one sitting. In fact I don't even know what 50 calories look like but I know how much 100, 50 25grams or 1 cup 1/2 cup looks like. I like the idea that I get a certain amount of these nutrients in a handful or so (A handful is usually 100g). It may be wrong but you know what? It doesn't matter to me because I'm more fit and have a better diet than 99% pf the population. It's helped me as a naturally skinny guy keep up a great physique.

In the end we obtain the same results. I eat high calorie foods with little nutrition to add calories and I eat nutrient dense foods that won't give me a lot of calories. I just don't base everythign on calories and I'm doing just fine. I don't care how many vitamins are in liver per calorie. I care that in a certain portion of liver that I am willing to eat at that time has X amount of nutrient value. I look at the chicken and say I know how big a piece will give me 40 grams of protein and so I eat it. If I were bigger I would be willing to eat more. I am willing to eat a half cup of chopped string beans or maybe a handful in a meal. I don't care how many B vitamins it has per calorie or 50 calories or whatever. I care that in that hald cup that I am willing to eat, it has X amount of nutrients. At the end of the day I end up with the right amounts of calories and nutrients so I'm not going to change.

Besides, if you get the most bioavailable forms of vitamins and supplement them, this whole issue is really not that relevant. I dont' consume much dairy at all and I don't eat a lot of greens high in calcium but I have bones harder than steel because of what I supplement with.

lysine and arginine release growth hormones more than other amino acids. Different things trigger different levels of reaction in the pituitary gland. Certain foods are higher in certain amino acids hense the different profiles. Unless I completely don't get the meaning of the word profile in this context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes


×