I analyzed 11000 products of a Dutch supermarket to find the cheapest sources of protein [OC]marriedacarrot t1_j408270 wrote
Reply to comment by Morczubel in I analyzed 11000 products of a Dutch supermarket to find the cheapest sources of protein [OC] by MemeableData
Please share the medical journal sources that explain why it's not perfectly safe. I've been eating lots of seitan over the last 25 years and, while I feel great, I may be racing to an early grave and not realize it! My health depends on your insights!
Also eager to learn why, contrary to every reputable nutritionist's input, I can't actually get high quality and complete protein through a diverse diet containing beans, legumes, grains, and vegetables. Must be a wild conspiracy in the medical community.
goodluckonyourexams t1_j4144x7 wrote
lots of gluten can lead to leaky gut
marriedacarrot t1_j41nq2h wrote
It can if that's a thing your body does! If that's how your body reacts to gluten you shouldn't eat too much. But if your body doesn't have that reaction, there's no problem. You might as well tell everyone to avoid strawberries because some people are allergic to strawberries.
[deleted] t1_j40dzlm wrote
[deleted]
GladstoneBrookes t1_j40imsy wrote
What are your thoughts on trials like this one that find when you look at the protein-related outcome we presumably care most about, muscle growth and strength, there are no significant differences between vegans and omnivores undergoing resistance training when matched for protein?
AlvinoNo t1_j40lcj2 wrote
I don’t think working out twice a week for 12 weeks is enough to note any real difference in your one rep max leg press. I’d be interested to see a longer form study with a workout regime designed for muscle growth.
Rygerts t1_j411uy1 wrote
My point is that the leucine content generally is lower in plants and that's a limiting factor. Vegetables have a less ideal amino acid profile. As long as you get enough leucine you're good when it comes to muscle building.
Regarding the study you linked: if you look closer at the nutrient composition the protein intake and amino acid intake is roughly equal between the groups but the vegan group has a higher carb intake, and as we age we all become more or less carb intolerant and that's one of many drawbacks of a pure vegan diet. Other drawbacks are lack of micro nutrients that need to be taken through supplements unless extreme care is taken, and for practical reasons it's not easy to achieve compared with an omnivore diet.
Morczubel t1_j40g1v3 wrote
I dont like your tone, lady. I am open to rational discussion, but Your condescending tone is a warning that I will be wasting my time.
As far as I am concerned, You can get enough complete protein to live on a vegan diet. But I was referring to the vegan sausage specifically. To explain simply: the Amino acid profile is not as balanced as with meat, as atleast one amino acid (depending on plant it is derived from) is lacking compared to the rest. But still, I really wanna see the macros on your sausage; 'more protein per energy than chicken' seems really good, considering chicken breast is around a 80 protein/20 fat/0 carbs split already! But even in this case, from a nutrition standpoint, I'd stick to chicken breast, due to the amount of processing the sausage probably went through.
I dont trust nutritionists, especially not the publically outspoken ones. Nutritional science has a long history of public misinformation to the point of deception, lobbying and conflict of interest. I try to only rely on the information put out there by primary papers, whose methodology I find sound after reading them (so overwhelmingly no epidemiological studies to begin with) and find to have no conflict of interest in terms of funding especially (which might be utopian).
marriedacarrot t1_j41qijj wrote
Feeding a chicken a diet of processed corn product and antibiotics: Not processed, totally natural. Mushing a bunch of plants together in a tube shape: Disgustingly processed, inherently unhealthy.
Plant sausage is a bit salty, so it's a good thing no vegan sits around just eating fake sausage.
Other than soy, no one plant protein has all 9 amino acids that the body needs from food. That's why the first rule of a vegan diet is "get protein from multiple sources."
Please share these primary sources that demonstrate the points you're trying to make about a plant-based diet being unhealthy.
Morczubel t1_j41wva4 wrote
>Feeding a chicken a diet of processed corn product and antibiotics: Not processed, totally natural. Mushing a bunch of plants together in a tube shape: Disgustingly processed, inherently unhealthy.
Thats why you buy organic chicken. Double points if you get your protein from all kinds of sources, not just animals. If your sausage actually only contains a few things without added sugar or seed oils or additives, that would be great. The backside won’t tell you about how it is processing other than that though. If it really has better macros than chicken ontop of that, then I would be throroughly amazed.
​
>Plant sausage is a bit salty, so it's a good thing no vegan sits around just eating fake sausage. Other than soy, no one plant protein has all 9 amino acids that the body needs from food.
Afaik quinoa is more complete than soy, which is limited in sulphur containing amino acids. Though not exactly relevant if combined with other sources.
​
>That's why the first rule of a vegan diet is "get protein from multiple sources."
I know; I somewhat stated this myself in my last comment. Yet it is still far easier to get the things You need from an omnivore diet.
​
>Please share these primary sources that demonstrate the points you're trying to make about a plant-based diet being unhealthy.
I have never claimed this. Let me reiterate yet another time: I was solely referring to my opinion that highly processed vegan replacement products are not the ideal food (see above). To add: usually the burden of proof lies with the one challenging the status quo. The status quo for nutrition science is that we know absolutely nothing other than a few select things. Even if I wanted to, I cannot fully disprove a plant-based diet being healthy as much as you cannot prove it is healthy as of right now. Same goes for any other diet. Nutrition science is inherently extremely complex as variables are plenty and longterm study/protocol adherence is bad. We just are not there yet and claiming anything else is just an ideology at this point.
marriedacarrot t1_j42gxum wrote
The point isn't to compare one specific product to one specific product; you compare a holistic diet with a holistic diet. If I got 50%+ of my protein from seitan sausage, cautioning against processed foods might be relevant, but nobody actually eats that way. (Also, what harm does physically processing foods in machines actually do? Adding salt in the factory and running it through an extruder is no worse than adding salt at home.)
What percent of the chicken an omnivore eats is organic? Do people who say "I only eat organic chicken and beef from my uncle's special farm" never eat at restaurants or friends' houses? Never buy TV dinners? Omnivores seem to enjoy comparing the best theoretical meat-based diet with the worst theoretical plant-based diet, regardless of how people actually eat.
You kicked off this thread with "Gluten is still not considered perfectly safe if as well you read the literature," and are now not providing links to the literature that you told me to read. I'm asking for evidence that gluten is "not safe."
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments