Is my answer to the notion of incomplete protein correct?

[nine9s]

Jeff,

Since these responses below are my normal staple answer to plant protein questioning, I wonder if any of it is incorrect?

People often ask me the proverbial “where do I get protein.” I answer that protein is in almost all food and it would be nearly impossible to not get enough protein, assuming you eat enough calories and do not center your diet around highly processed foods. Sometimes the subject is then dropped but occasionally I have a few people question the quality of plant protein, some adding the “incomplete.”

Of the latter, I often ask what they mean by incomplete protein and some will say that means plant proteins lack some amino acids that your body needs. If the person wants to explore the subject more, I say (this is where I am wondering if I am correct), the “incomplete protein” notion is wrong in many ways.

First, pretty much any plant food with a material protein source has all the essential amino acids – the amino acid profile in each food is different but none of the essential amino acids are missing, therefore it is not “lacking.” I tell the person that word lacking is implied because, in comparison to an “ideal” amino acid profile, some plant sources might be “lower” in one or a few essential amino acids but this is misleading in two ways.

One, there are no studies showing this “ideal” amino acid profile is correct – it seems anecdotal at best and likely just dogma of the dairy and egg industry, as the “dieal” amino acid profile both those foods.


Two, in comparison to that “ideal” amino acid profile, some vegetables might be lower in one or two essential amino acids but it is usually within 75% and again that is only one or two generally - all the rest are near 100% or higher. And that is certainly not lacking.

Also, to add some humor, I will add if one accepts the “ideal” amino acid profile and the concept of “incomplete” proteins, one must conclude that many cuts of hamburger meat are an “incomplete” protein because it is lower, in comparison to the “ideal” in the essential amino acid tryptophan than rice is in lysine but while you often hear that rice is an “incomplete” protein, I have never heard someone say hamburger meat is. And the reason is that “incomplete” protein is an incorrect concept and is mostly just a red herring knock against plant protein.

Also, I add that if you ever did entertain not eating enough protein for any prolonged length of time, you will easily be able to tell because your body would go into crisis mode and conserve amino acids for vital organs and you would start losing lean muscle mass noticeably.

[JeffN]

Hi,

I think you covered many of the points.

I like to keep things simple and could sum it up as follow...

If "incomplete" means not containing all the essential amino acids then.... (the incomplete protein theory)

1) All plant foods are complete as they contain all the essential amino acids.

2) the only food that is not a complete protein is an animal food, gelatin.

If "incomplete" means lacking in sufficient quantity of one or more amino acids...(the limiting amino acid theory)

1) Getting all the amino acids in at once at the same meal, or even in the same day, as some may suggest, is not necessary due to the amino acid pool, which is a circulating level of amino acids in the blood, that the body can draw from if needed. As long as one follows the recommendations below, the amino acid pool will maintain a sufficient stock of any potentially needed (or limiting) amino acids.

2) However, as long as one consumes enough calories, eats a variety of food, and limits junk foods and refined foods, and is not an all, or mostly all, fruit diet), then they will get in enough protein and enough amino acids in sufficient quantity. There will be no limiting amino acids

3) there is some evidence that the amino acids that are slightly lower (but adequate) in plant foods, may actually be a benefit to health and longevity and not a concern.

Most every major health organization including the NAS, the WHO and the ADA all recognize these statements to be true.

One of the leading sources for this misinformation was the book, Diet For A Small Planet, which corrected this myth in the 10th anniversary edition back in 1982.

If anyone would just take the time to use the USDA SR 20 database and input foods based on the above recommendations, they would see their argument is incorrect.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

[Suebee]

There is a problem: I've NEVER seen the explanation for what happens when you are trying to lose weight and you DO lower your caloric needs--after all, to lose weight, you need lower calories. So, this begs the questions: Don't you NEED higher protein levels to compensate? So if one forms one's diet on a starch with not very high protein levels to begin with, like potatoes or rice, AND you drop your calories to 1500, instead of say, the usual 2,000, aren't you at risk? Assuming you eat quite a bit of fruit, say at least 500 of those calories in fruit? What do you think?

[JeffN]

What do you think?

The same principle apply.

I would not recommend anyone get 33% of the calories from fruit, so consuming 500 calories of fruit on a 1500 calorie diet is not recommended. I think Dr McDougall would agree 100%.

In addition, is why it is not a good idea to lower ones calories tremendously to lose weight. It is possible if the calorie level was low enough, that you may compromise the intake of "all" your essential nutrients and not just anyone of them. However, I have never come across and instance where someone needed to drop their caloric intake that low in order to lose weight.

This is why nutrient density is important and why anyone should be consuming nutrient dense foods as calculate per calorie. And, the foods recommended here are the most nutrient dense foods.

If you were concerned, you could easily input your food intake into a dietary analysis program and see for sure.

In Health
Jeff

[Suebee]

Now I'm really confused! I thought I understood this, but it's obvious I don't. I thought when you ate nutrient-dense, low-calorie foods, you could have a problem eating enough calories. However, does that mean I can't add in some calorie dense foods AND lose weight? Such as l or 2 oz. nuts/seeds--usually I don't eat nuts anymore as it's hard to stop at a few, or else I incorporate them into salad dressings or use a bit of tahini; and fruit--well it's easy to eat 400-500 calories of fruit a day, especially now in fruit season: one or two bananas; 1-2 cups berries and maybe a handful of cherries--I thought fruits were nutrient dense and ok to eat. I'm not eating bread lately, but do eat a few rice cakes (NOT nutrient dense, I know)--just convenient to add the humus, baba ganoush, etc. Does this mean NO avocado? I don't know how to use these foods along with starch and NOT gain weight unless I drop some calories. Also is soy milk considered nutrient dense or not? Each cup weighs a lot--how do you figure that? I guess I've been straddling the fence between Dr. McDougall's diet guidelines and Dr. Fuhrman's--I want some fat in my diet (and sometimes fish) but I also want some starch and of course fruit. I suppose that's why I'm not losing weight. I really don't know how to eat!
Dr. Furhman's plan seems to limit calories because he avoids starch. Otherwise, who could lose weight on his plan?

[JeffN]

Now I'm really confused! I thought I understood this, but it's obvious I don't. I thought when you ate nutrient-dense, low-calorie foods, you could have a problem eating enough calories. However, does that mean I can't add in some calorie dense foods AND lose weight? Such as l or 2 oz. nuts/seeds--usually I don't eat nuts anymore as it's hard to stop at a few, or else I incorporate them into salad dressings or use a bit of tahini; and fruit--well it's easy to eat 400-500 calories of fruit a day, especially now in fruit season: one or two bananas; 1-2 cups berries and maybe a handful of cherries--I thought fruits were nutrient dense and ok to eat. I'm not eating bread lately, but do eat a few rice cakes (NOT nutrient dense, I know)--just convenient to add the humus, baba ganoush, etc. Does this mean NO avocado? I don't know how to use these foods along with starch and NOT gain weight unless I drop some calories. Also is soy milk considered nutrient dense or not? Each cup weighs a lot--how do you figure that? I guess I've been straddling the fence between Dr. McDougall's diet guidelines and Dr. Fuhrman's--I want some fat in my diet (and sometimes fish) but I also want some starch and of course fruit. I suppose that's why I'm not losing weight. I really don't know how to eat!
Dr. Furhman's plan seems to limit calories because he avoids starch. Otherwise, who could lose weight on his plan?

If you reread what you posted you will find both the problem and the solution within it.

However, what you might want to consider doing is creating the SueBee plan.

Download the free CRON-O-Meter (or other similar program) and take all the foods you like to eat and want to eat in the relative amounts you think you want to eat them and enter them into the program

Then , you can see exactly where you are in regard to all macronutrients and micronutrients. You will know for sure.

If it is not where you want it to be, then you can adjust from your own list accordingly until you are satisfied.

If losing weight is a problem, then you are consuming more calories than you are burning. You may want to review the threads/discussions on Calorie density.

In Health
Jeff

[langerangersquared]

You've made the point that all plants provide "complete" protein in that there are no "limiting" amino acid deficits. What I don't understand is that if this is true (and I hope it is) why then is there so much ballyhoo about foods such as quinoa being "complete?" Don

[JeffN]

why then is there so much ballyhoo about foods such as quinoa being "complete?" Don

Marketing and misinformation which seems to garner much more interest than simple truths even amongst the health conscious

In Health
Jeff

[cubby2112]

why then is there so much ballyhoo about foods such as quinoa being "complete?" Don

Marketing and misinformation which seems to garner much more interest than simple truths even amongst the health conscious

In Health
Jeff

Yeah, it just happens to be closer to the profile that is commonly accepted as "complete" than any other grain. It is fairly similar to soy if I remember correctly.

[JeffN]

Yeah, it just happens to be closer to the profile that is commonly accepted as "complete" than any other grain. It is fairly similar to soy if I remember correctly.

There is no "profile that is commonly accepted as being "complete." The concept of "complete" simply refers to having all the amino acids. Foods are not "more" complete than others.

Even if there was such a profile, (i.e., the amino acid profile of an egg)it is still a false concept and may actually be more detrimental than beneficial to try and replicate, as why would we want to "closely" replicate something that is not healthy. Turns out that the amino acid profile of animal protein is higher in methionine and cysteine both of which are 2 that we may want to limit in our diets.

What is important is that all plant foods have all the essential amino acids in the amounts neccessary for human health.

There is only one food that does not have all the essential amino acids and it is an animal food.... gelatin.

In Health
Jeff

[cubby2112]

I guess I should have said ideal instead of complete. Most people confuse the two words and that is what I was getting at. I was referring to how many people consider animal proteins to be ideal or "complete" and how quinoa and soy are two of the plant foods closest to the profile of say eggs or milk.

[JeffN]

I guess I should have said ideal instead of complete. Most people confuse the two words and that is what I was getting at. I was referring to how many people consider animal proteins to be ideal or "complete" and how quinoa and soy are two of the plant foods closest to the profile of say eggs or milk.

Just re-read my last comments and substitute the word "ideal" for where I used the word "complete" and the principle remains.

We shouldn't be using an unhealthy reference as a standard (regardless of the term we use to describe it) or trying to replicate it, or continuing outdated and misinformation.

In Health
Jeff

[cubby2112]

I guess I should have said ideal instead of complete. Most people confuse the two words and that is what I was getting at. I was referring to how many people consider animal proteins to be ideal or "complete" and how quinoa and soy are two of the plant foods closest to the profile of say eggs or milk.

Just re-read my last comments and substitute the word "ideal" for where I used the word "complete" and the principle remains.

We shouldn't be using an unhealthy reference as a standard (regardless of the term we use to describe it) or trying to replicate it, or continuing outdated and misinformation.

In Health
Jeff

I am not trying to follow the standard of what some believe to be a complete protein or really the standards of health in almost any aspect put out there in the mainstream. I was just stating that for an explanation as to why some tout quinoa to be such a "super grain," regardless of how flawed their reasoning.

Soy makes up a minuscule (one percent or so) part of my diet and I am not even consuming quinoa right now. I do quite well at the gym, feel great and haven't been sick for over two years, so there is obviously no need to follow mainstream protein recommendations.

Sorry if my comments have made it seem that I am promoting protein consumption standards supported by misguided people.

[JeffN]

Soy makes up a minuscule (one percent or so) part of my diet and I am not even consuming quinoa right now. I do quite well at the gym, feel great and haven't been sick for over two years,

Glad to hear!!

Sorry if my comments have made it seem that I am promoting protein consumption standards supported by misguided people.

No problem. Today seems to be the day of "misunderstandings"

In Health
Jeff

[cubby2112]

No problem. Today seems to be the day of "misunderstandings"

Indeed it does.