The results seem to indicate that you are either one extreme or the other. You are either pro animal protein or pro plant protein at the complete exclusion of the other.
I was wondering what kind of nutritional affect you’d get by consuming a meal with a reasonable serving of animal protein from fresh cuts of meat (like 20-40g) with a variety or two of plant based proteins from whole food sources.
One of the arguments against plant based diets is you have to mix and match various foods to create a complete amino acid profile (peanut butter/whole grain bread, beans/rice, etc). What happens if you eat a complete animal protein with a couple of different incomplete plant sources (you have a glass of milk with your PB&J sammy, or you eat some chicken or ground beef with your rice and beans, cheese with almonds,cashews other nuts).
Even if you consume a complete animal source, is bioavailability and absorption still an issue with the incomplete plant sources?
Yes. There’s been a tightly-controlled RCT on this topic where they matched amino-acids between animal and plant proteins, and the animal protein group showed better absorption and/or hypertrophy (don’t remember the outcome. Ill have a look around)
I’m loathe to get into these type of discussions but the fact is plants possess natural defence mechanisms, such as phytoalexins. Then you have more sinister substances like lectins, which are linked to leaky gut - resulting autoimmune issues. In that landscape alone, I fail to see how plant protein can be matched with animal protein.
And if you want to compare content, look at the nutritional content of 100g of beef liver and see if you can get the same bang for your buck from any plant (or plants, plural).
I was in-the-moment hypothesising in another thread that maybe, with plants, it’d be an idea opting for ones that “want” to be consumed, ergo varieties that spread through the dissemination of their seeds. Do you know if these natural defense mechanisms are present in more or less every plant or are there fruits and vegetables that do not seem as hostile towards being consumed?
Curious, given our evolution i.e teeth and digestive tract do we wrongly assume humans ate a lot of nuts, plants, etc.? Why did we not adapt better? Why do we not see any signs of the detrimental effects of these foods in remains?
Or do modern humans just eat too much in general making it on issue of quantity of these natural defenses consumed?
Eating fruit is beneficial for the plant, which it relies on to have its seeds spread by animals that ingest the fruit and pass the seeds. That’s why fruits are naturally delicious so they entice animals to eat them. Can you think of anything else that is, in its natural state as you come across it, more appetizing than ripe fruit?
That said, most plants are not naturally high in protein. Protein powders based on peas or rice just taste “wrong” because to make them high protein you have to heavily process them.
Not really - lots of people ask the question: “How do I get protein on a plant based diet?” because its actually a hard question.
Nobody asks “how do I get protein on a meat based diet?”
Besides, on social media there are a lot of vocal advocates for plant based diets and there was recently a documentary on plant based athletes that was popular, so “plant-based” is just a trending term right now.
On the other hand there aren’t many athletes I’ve seen that really “preach” about the need for meat or animal protein, or have their entire persona revolve around eating animal protein, or go out of their way to tear down anyone that doesn’t eat animal protein. So googles algo is just reflecting less information exchange surrounding animal based diets vs plant based ones
I mostly agree with this: the Western diet has people consume too much [fill in the blank] leading to obesity and health problems. I also agree that fruit juice is not something one should be consuming regularly, especially those that come from cartons or plastic jugs at the store (even if it is 100% juice).
But I don’t think moderation is needed with fresh fruits. Put a bowl of apples or bananas in front of someone, and it would be the rare person that would eat them to caloric excess. Processed foods beg for that, of course, where it is the rare person that can eat a just a couple of doritos or potato chips. I say eat an apple whenever you want. Eat a handful of raspberries. I have yet to meet anyone with a bulging belly whose cause was hitting the tangerines too hard.
Well, eat or drink most things in moderation and you won’t get fat. No one will dispute that (well, there is always one!).
The issue is over-consuming fructose, and remember fructose is in more than just fruit, e.g. it makes up 50% of sucrose, and is also widely used as high fructose corn syrup. As mentioned, given it cannot be held intramuscularly like other sugars, the liver, with its limited storage capacity, can become overwhelmed over time and end up pumping out more and more FFAs, potentially leading to obesity. Chronic consumption eventually leading to a fat build up in the liver itself - which is full blown metabolic disfunction.
You should research Robert Lustig’s work on that. Many years ago he was behind a famous study on obese kids with various metabolic diseases. They removed the simple fructose/sugar items from their diets and matched those calories with starches from junk food, like brown bagels, etc. The results: improved metabolic function across a range of markers. Not all sugars are created equal, it seems.
I think a lot of people get stuck here. Bread is such a staple. Wheat is such a staple. But if they succeed there then they end up at the next step: what about oats? What about rye? What about maize? It’s one of those words that captures so much but might be confusing.
Another thread here brought up The Perfect Health Diet, which cites Pollan’s “eat mostly plants” and if one closed the book there they’d miss that plants exist on a spectrum (with some even being best avoided) and I find that this has potential to be confusing in the same manner.