Plant Based Diet Thread

[CKinnard]

so sick and tired of hearing how on a HCLF vegan diet, you can eat UNLIMITED calories and still lose weight. Total garbage.

well nothing is UNLIMITED. everyone is going to be limited by how comfortable their gut feels.

Not every HCLF diet is the same. If one eats a higher % of fibrous carbs, they will reach satiety before taking in excessive Calories.
If one eats a higher % of grains, one is likely to take in too many Calories.

The problem is the great majority of people who struggle with weight and health issues either were brought up by ignorant and uncaring parents who cbf'd feeding their kids right. Or these people are too apathetic to eat the right foods. Without doubt every obese person I've dealt with has an aversion to fibrous carbs.

The most high profile vegans I know who say you can eat all you want are Durian Rider and his gf. And people do put on weight following their advice. Why? because they recommend heaps of starch and fruit, and not enough fibrous carbs. But they are idiots.

[mikesbytes]

so sick and tired of hearing how on a HCLF vegan diet, you can eat UNLIMITED calories and still lose weight. Total garbage.

well nothing is UNLIMITED. everyone is going to be limited by how comfortable their gut feels.

Not every HCLF diet is the same. If one eats a higher % of fibrous carbs, they will reach satiety before taking in excessive Calories.
If one eats a higher % of grains, one is likely to take in too many Calories.

The problem is the great majority of people who struggle with weight and health issues either were brought up by ignorant and uncaring parents who cbf'd feeding their kids right. Or these people are too apathetic to eat the right foods. Without doubt every obese person I've dealt with has an aversion to fibrous carbs.

The most high profile vegans I know who say you can eat all you want are Durian Rider and his gf. And people do put on weight following their advice. Why? because they recommend heaps of starch and fruit, and not enough fibrous carbs. But they are idiots.

Ultimately the energy intake has to go somewhere and replicating the dietary intake of someone who does a lot more exercise than one is going to result in energy surplus.

CKinnard what are your preferred fibrous carbs?

[CKinnard]

CKinnard what are your preferred fibrous carbs?

The simplest theme I espouse is get a riot of color into you.
Color variance means nutrient variance.

A salad I had over Easter had:
grated or finely sliced red or tuscan cabbage
2-3 leafy greens - basil, baby spinach, rocket, mustard or dandelion greens, kale
sliced tomatoes
sliced cucumber
sliced red capsicum
broccoli florets and sliced stalk
grated zucchini
grated carrot
sliced radishes
1 fruit - halved and sliced orange pieces, or pear, peach, nectarine, rockmelon, pineapple.
finely sliced ginger

dressing
lemon juice and balsamic vinegar
lightly salted
optional 1tspn tumeric (I don't like the flavor of it on salads necessarily, but sometimes take it for the health benefits. Otherwise I use it a lot with soups, in addition to cumin).

add 1 can per liter of 440g legumes (or home made cooked legumes)
or
throw the salad into a half a large pita bread

This sounds like a lot, but I make it in bulk so it can account for lunch and dinner, and sometimes lunch the following day.
If you get really good ingredients, it won't go bad in that time.

I would do more sprouts, but they go off too quick. When younger I smashed them in.

Of course, you don't need 10 different plants in your meal every day...but I'd certainly suggest at least 5. Meat and 3 vege (where one is potato) just doesn't cut it.

I think the problem for many is they don't "like" this vege or that. My solution for this is to not have too much of any one, and mix them all in a salad or soup or steam vege stack.

To make salads more palatable and colorful, I recommend 1-2 types of fruit. The sweetness really helps a salad or steam vege. This is where the idea of relishes and dressings came from. In fact, any salad can be nicer for some by adding a dressing containing sweet, sour, salt, and bitter, which is what the vietnamese do wiht their ra salads.

I think Michael Gregor gets across a simple enough message with his daily dozen (from his book How Not to Die).
I suggest you read it. An e version can be had for the price of 3 coffees!

What I'd suggest you think about more so, is the mechanical and more gross benefits of fibrous carbs (salad and vege). They keep blood glucose and insulin more even, are more filling, keep things flowing through the intestines nicely, are a top source of butyric acid for gut flora, alkalize, help stopping old crap accumulate in the intestines, and are a superior vitamin and mineral hit...in addition to strong anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidants. These are the nutrients most of western society have avoided during the obesity epidemic.

Oh, and for dinner, if I don't have salad, common fibrous carbs are asian greens, broccoli or lini, snow peas, asparagus, red cabbage.
Cauliflower and heavier vege I tend to have more so in winter.

I think that's the thing to keep in mind. Prefer in season local produce. It tends to be cheaper and fresher.

[CKinnard]

Ultimately the energy intake has to go somewhere and replicating the dietary intake of someone who does a lot more exercise than one is going to result in energy surplus.

The issue with DR and Freelee is they advise EVERYONE to eat as much as you want. Last year they were saying everyone needed at least 3000 Calories a day, no matter your age, weight, or activity level. They just cannot be taken seriously on this stuff. This advice is directly against the advice of their gurus (Esselstyn, McDougall, etc) At the end of the day, I like that they are preaching plant based eating, but they need to keep evolving their knowledge and message, because they are turning as many people off plant based as they turn on imho.

[Tim]

I"m becoming more and more interested in taking on a completely healthy eating habit.
Whole food, plant based, as has been the case for most of my life but minus the two or three small (approx. 100gm) weekly meat servings.
Vegetarian, not necessarily vegan, though possibly so later.
Can anybody (perhaps Nobody) steer me towards a credible and complete information source, preferably printed rather than online. For the sake of simplicity and convenience a handful of authoritative publications would be welcome.
I seek optimum good health only. My weight, cholesterol, blood pressure, glucose etc. levels don't need any alteration or improvement, as far as I know. I am 53 years old, fit and healthy, no significant medical conditions past or present however joint inflammation, wear and damage have become an increasing cause for concern, and pain.
Any suggestions?

[Nobody]

Hi Tim,

Here is list of books. I've read all but The Pleasure Trap and The Forks Over Knives Plan. From what I've read, I believe The Campbell Plan is the best book there for someone in your situation. I don't agree with everything he writes, but I think it's the most well rounded introduction and plan which also deals with the mental issues associated with making the change. Then if you want to get some other opinions, Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease and The Starch Solution are also OK for those starting out.

As for rest:
Both The China Study and Whole are interesting books, but better suited to people who want to know why the food world is in such a mess, than anything else. Neither are really plans.

I've heard good things about The Pleasure Trap and Doug Lisle does some interesting talks, but I can't recommend it as I haven't read it yet. Similar with Forks Over Knives. I've heard good things about the movie/video, but I haven't read the plan or heard much about it yet.

Power Foods For The Brain is a useful and entertaining read, but not suited to what you want.

I've also got How Not To Die which is useful, but not very comprehensive as a plan IMO. Greger is strong on high nutrient density foods like Joel Fuhrman. At least some of the authors of the other plant based books above don't agree with them, thinking that they are getting too extreme. I agree with them. The Campbell Plan is at the other end of the scale being very relaxed. Which is something that I believe you want to be when starting out. I don't eat a lot of things I started out eating, but a relaxed transition is more likely to keep you with the change while you slowly adjust to being comfortable with it.

I hope that helps.

[CKinnard]

A world leader in anti-angiogenesis therapy for cancer - his dietary recommendations to reduce cancer risk.
I don't agree with wine and coffee, or green tea to a lesser extent....it's obvious he has holes in his reading and surmising of the literature. Michael Greger could sort him out.

resveratrol - (from wine or grapes)
cruciferous vegetables - broccoli including the stem, brussel sprouts, cabbage, bok choy, cauliflower, kale
tomatoes
eat bright colored plants (purple sweet potato, beetroot, pawpaw, avocado, berries, mangoes, etc, etc)
green tea
omega 3 fatty acids (the higher omega-3 taken during pregnancy, the higher the IQ of children at age
coffee

[Nobody]

so sick and tired of hearing how on a HCLF vegan diet, you can eat UNLIMITED calories and still lose weight. Total garbage.

Most people when normally eating to satiated, eat a set number of calories a day (all other things being equal). Jeff Novick is making a generalization from observations to explain a concept. There are always going to be exceptions to the rule. His knowledge is just another tool for people to use to manage their weight. I've tried it and had limited success with it, so I thought it was worth telling others about. For those who try anything different with their diet, it's a good idea to weight themselves daily. I find myself quick to gain weight but slow to lose it.

Below is something I posted in the Diet Thread last year (reworded) which sums up what I believe works for me:

From my reading and self experimentation this is what I found to work so far for managing weight. It is arranged in order of decreasing importance.

Removing animal products from diet

Animal products add weight in 3 ways:

- Even lean cuts of meat have 20% fat by calorie intake. Standard milk has 48% fat by calorie intake.

- Lean animal products increase blood insulin levels, especially when combined with carbohydrates (which is how most people eat them). The increase can be up to 43% compared to just plant eaters. Raised insulin levels are associated with adding body weight.

- Animal products are calorie dense, which has been shown to make it harder for your body to regulate your calorie intake.

Fat intake

You only need about 1.1g of ALA (omega-3) and 6g of LA (omega-6) to avoid fat deficiency. From Barnard, simply put, your body weight plateaus to your fat intake. If I get more than 40g/d, my weight climbs, regardless of the average daily calorie density. Also my fat intake is mainly due to nuts & seeds which some studies suggest don't add weight. Somehow I suspect those studies may have been indirectly funded or influenced by industry. Either that, or I'm a freak, which I doubt.

Adjusting macro-nutrient ratio

This is a good tool to get your diet on track. It is more of a guide than anything. It may be possible to lose weight with any macro-nutrient ratio, but to be healthy and lose weight requires us to stay around certain guidelines. It is based on calorie intake rather than food weight and so you need to know how to calculate it (which is shown in an earlier post).

As an example, the standard American diet is C40:F40:P20, which results in an average BMI of 28.8.
From studying successful early civilizations, the ideal human diet is considered to be C80:F10:P10. By following this and therefore keeping fat and protein low, you should expect to have a BMI under 25 and more likely around 23. Or a waist to height ratio around 0.45.

Calorie density

This is a model that is supposed to explain why a whole food plant diet reduces body weight. As said above, it is supposed to make it easier for the body to self regulate. I found that fat intake over-rode it and added weight for me, even though my calories density was quite low.
It is supposed to operate on the basis that the body monitors food weight as well as calories. What my food tracking found is that my body tracks calories absorbed so that as the calorie density gets lower, I eat not only more food by weight, but also more calories for the same satiation.
Getting the calorie density lower should help to a degree. I found that under 1 Cal/g, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to lower it further. So at this stage I think it's more a pointer to whole plant foods which do the work, rather than any other significant mechanism.

Calorie counting/restricting

This is the common way most people diet and some can make it stick over the long term. My observation so far is that many will do this by cutting carbs (both good and bad) and eat mainly animal products, non-starchy salad and/or veg, and a smaller amount of bread. But historically 99% of people on a diet will fail by the 5 year mark, by not maintaining the weight loss. Some will (for whatever reason) even put more weight back on than they originally started with. I'm not going to speculate as to why this is the case. But I believe that combining all the methods listed above should be an easier way of controlling weight than calorie counting.


Of course this is just my opinion at this stage of my learning and I certainly don't have all the answers. My opinion has changed and may change further in time. But I have lost about 40lb/18kg, or 22% of my body weight (BMI 21.4) and kept it off for over 2 years while eating until satisfied. This is while doing less exercise than I did when overweight.

[Tim]

Thanks Nobody. The Campbell Plan looks like a good practical book to start with.
I may be wrong but I don't anticipate having to make major changes other than dropping meat, reducing saturated fats and refined sugar and flour. I understand protein is easily sourced from plants but need to ensure micronutrients such as iron and B12 are adequately supplied.
I just don't and never have had any great emotional or mental attachment to food, particularly so called comfort or junk food. I rarely go near them.
It sounds a little boring but for me eating is often not much more than a necessary bodily function. If anything, in times of high stress I tend to "run lean".

[Nobody]

I may be wrong but I don't anticipate having to make major changes other than dropping meat, reducing saturated fats and refined sugar and flour.

Campbell believes you'll do better by dropping all meat, but he concedes the current large observational studies don't point to that. I believe that this is due to the people they study being vegan for ethical or religious reason and not particularly focused on health. The reality is that there aren't that many people as a percentage that are truly focused on health with their diet and vegan. Of the ones who are, many like me would have preexisting problems. However many smaller studies have shown that there are no animal products that will benefit you if you are already getting everything you need from plants.

I understand protein is easily sourced from plants but need to ensure micronutrients such as iron and B12 are adequately supplied.

IMO there is not a lot to worry about. Iron is only an issue if you have iron absorption or loss problems. As I have hemochromatosis, I always absorb too much iron. My ferritin is only approaching normal levels of 100 after about 18 months of regular 1 or 3 monthly venesections (bleeds). After a year of being vegan my ferritin was still 542 (normal range 30 - 300).

Because the diet is low fat, it's probably a good idea to make sure that the fat you do intake has enough of the essential ALA (omega-3) and LA (omega-6). Opinions are divided and the recommendations are varied, so I try to follow the WHO recommendations which I listed at the bottom of this post.

B12 is necessary. Another area where opinions become divided between authors. I started by following McDougall's recommendations, but my blood test levels were dropping, so changed brands of B12 and upped the dose from once a week to 3 times a week. Although not essential, it's a good idea to get blood tests regularly to know where you're at. Yearly tests are probably fine. I get my iron studies blood tests every 3 months along with bleeding and the normal type tests yearly so far. But I may start doing them 6 monthly to check cholesterol, vit-D, B12, blood glucose and all the usual things I don't get in the iron studies tests.

It sounds a little boring but for me eating is often not much more than a necessary bodily function.

You sound like me, so you should do well on a whole food plant based (WFPB) diet, or as I like to call it for clarity, whole food vegan (WFV).

[Nobody]

The most high profile vegans I know who say you can eat all you want are Durian Rider and his gf. And people do put on weight following their advice. Why? because they recommend heaps of starch and fruit, and not enough fibrous carbs. But they are idiots.

This is one of the few areas we differ on. You lean more toward Greger with more fibrous veg, while I lean more toward lighter starches and fruit. Although I totally agree that cruciferous veg are worthwhile and I usually eat at least 4 serves a day, about 50 to 65% of my diet is fruit by weight and most of the rest is starches. Since raw vegans (mainly fruit and salad eaters) have the lowest average BMI of 21.4 (like me) and followers of McDougall/Novick diet styles can also be quite lightweight, fruit and starches can work for most. But I agree it won't work for everyone and (like some other diets I won't mention) can be problematic for some. So for others reading, keep weighing yourself after any diet change. See below.



If I ate even more cruciferous veg, then I'd have to eat more than the 3.5kg/d I already eat. As Greger says, I'd have to "eat a truck load of veg" to get enough calories, since I'm not relying on animal products or overt fats for some of my calories (which I'm not saying you are ). People at work already think I eat an enormous amount of food. But they don't say much about it anymore, since it's obvious by the differences in body weight between them and I, that I know what I'm doing.

The issue with DR and Freelee is they advise EVERYONE to eat as much as you want. Last year they were saying everyone needed at least 3000 Calories a day, no matter your age, weight, or activity level.

I got the impression they occasionally went further than this, saying people should eat until they are stuffed. As you know, although not even a good idea with fruit and lighter starches like sweet potato, foods like heavier processed starches, dried fruit and sugars might really mess people around if they stuff themselves.

They just cannot be taken seriously on this stuff. This advice is directly against the advice of their gurus (Esselstyn, McDougall, etc) At the end of the day, I like that they are preaching plant based eating, but they need to keep evolving their knowledge and message, because they are turning as many people off plant based as they turn on imho.

Agree. Working on their general image and losing the bad language might help too. But I'd doubt they'd change a formula that's working for them financially any time soon.

[Nobody]

Further to the post above. Below is what I ate yesterday as a fairly typical day. As can be seen, about 3000 Cal, mainly of fruit, with a reasonable amount of starches. I find the more fruit, the higher the Cal intake before satiation. I suspect this has got to do with lower absorption rates for calories from fruit. If the fruit was lower, it may be around 2800 Cal. This can't be compared to an animal product and processed carb omni diet, as the way the body absorbs the food varies. This may be similar to a 2100 Cal omni diet.

[Nobody]

More from Diet Thread:



Second half of this video talks about variety and moderation. Both generally touted as good things, but the science indicates otherwise. Looks like there is a correlation between more variety and worsening diet quality.

McDougall's latest webinar also talked about the same subject last week.



My diet above is pretty regular. Not much changes. I just alternate rice or sweet potato regularly. There are plenty of foods listed there, but I don't regularly eat a lot of them anymore.

[Nobody]

More from Diet Thread:

This top one is particularly worth seeing if you have anything to do with diabetes.





The bottom one is interesting from about 03:30. He says some interesting stuff about ingested cholesterol and that he got his LDL down from 4.4 to 2.3 mmol/L (range 1.7 - 3.5) with diet change.

Google search for: cholesterol content of foods

The below video shows the real reason for the obesity epidemic in the US, which much of the world is not surprisingly following. For those who don't want to watch it, between 1970 and 2010:
Fats increased 66%
Grains increased 42% (most likely processed grains)
Dairy increased 10.9%
Sugar increased 10%
All the others increased too, but < 10%.
I've heard from another source that 93% of the US diet is processed grains or animal products. Looking at the tally in the video and removing fruit/veg gets 92% processed and animal products. I'll give some credit that some of the grains would be minimally or unprocessed, so the real number should be a bit lower. But still not a good result.


The original data came from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

[CKinnard]

This is one of the few areas we differ on. You lean more toward Greger with more fibrous veg, while I lean more toward lighter starches and fruit. Although I totally agree that cruciferous veg are worthwhile and I usually eat at least 4 serves a day, about 50 to 65% of my diet is fruit by weight and most of the rest is starches. Since raw vegans (mainly fruit and salad eaters) have the lowest average BMI of 21.4 (like me) and followers of McDougall/Novick diet styles can also be quite lightweight, fruit and starches can work for most. But I agree it won't work for everyone and (like some other diets I won't mention) can be problematic for some. So for others reading, keep weighing yourself after any diet change. See below.

Regarding fibrous carbs, I am influenced by nutrition science and clinical experience.
The majority of Westerners struggle with consuming too many Calories. A very high portion of these have endocrine dysregulation, evolutionarily high stress levels, and poor stress management.
You might be misunderstanding my stance on fibrous carbs because your focus is on your body and its needs. When you look at a broader group of people of all ages and sizes and activity levels, you appreciate some don't need a lot of starch.

I think another area you and I differ in perspective is your focus on food intake via weight. i don't do this as food varies in water content...so your note that 60% of your diet by weight is fruit is just a reflection of how much water is in it. If bananas were your primary fruit, this % would change significantly.

The studies I've read and clinical experience support that food volume is more highly correlated with satiation, and fibrous carbs have the highest volume:energy ratio.
Fibrous carbs also slow absorption and thereby are less likely to upset a dysregulated blood glucose control mechanism.
For too many reasons, esp nutrient density, fibrous carbs should be prioritized over starch when constructing a diet for weight loss or longevity.

Let's look at constructing a eucaloric diet for a 55yo female who weighs 52kg.
If she is reasonably sedentary apart from full time office work, she'll require around 1500 Calories a day.

Step 1
I always consider fibrous carbs and fruit first, as these have the highest nutrient density. The dietary guidelines say a minimum 5 serves a day (I know this can allow for 1 serve of legumes).
Considering veges do not carry the same nutrient density they did 50 years ago, it is the preference of many integrated health pros in the plant based world to shoot above this, so I'd allocate 6 serves for this smaller woman.
6 serves ~170 Calories.

Step 2.
The dietary guidelines say 2 serves fruit a day, minimum. Once again, I prefer a higher margin for reduced nutrient load cf 50 years ago and the various other science I won't go into right now. so say
4 serves ~240 Cals

Step 3.
protein. In her case, I go for 2 serves from the protein group, say legumes.
2 serves ~200 Cals

Step 4.
omega 3 seeds 1 tblspn = 10g = 55Cals
nuts 15g 100Cals

subtotal 765 Cals

discretionary Cals 150 Cals (caffeinated milk drinks, desserts, relishes, curries, pastes)

Step 5
I do starch last because it is the ingredient that is least required by the sedentary and elderly. It only becomes more important as activity level increases.
However, it is possible to meet protein needs from starch and not eat legumes.
starch group is left to make up 585 Calories
2cups of cooked whole grains 400Cals (weight doesn't mean a lot when talking about cooked state because there's a lot of water weight in there)
1 large potato 160Cals

The other thing to keep in mind is that starch and legumes contain significant protein, i.e. buckwheat 15% of total Calories, pinto beans 24%, wholemeal bread 21%.
So if you are trying to keep your protein load to that recommended, high starch intake will confound.

So the above comes out at fat 22g, pro 60g, carb 240g with protein at 1.1g/kg bwt.
If I wanted to drop the protein g/kg bwt under 1, I'd have to load up on fruit and vege, and drop legumes or starch.
Keeping protein below 1g/kg bwt becomes an important goal if longevity is a consideration. There is sufficient evidence that renal function deteriorates slower on a lower protein diet.

[CKinnard]

The below video shows the real reason for the obesity epidemic in the US, which much of the world is not surprisingly following. For those who don't want to watch it, between 1970 and 2010:.

not really. it doesn't account for the increase in average height, nor how ongoing migration patterns and mixed marriages skew data. (hispanics and asians are shorter but make up the bulk of migrants since the 1970s. ) nor does it address the significant reduction in activity levels. Where I worked in the US, school kids were not allowed to play or run around at lunch, nor before or after school. PE was a joke too. It was all due to overly litigious culture and officious school administrators. BTW, be careful interpreting studies because adequate activity is a very low bar.

[Nobody]

Not really. It doesn't account for the increase in average height...nor does it address the significant reduction in activity levels.

Although many external things can influence obesity, an increase in fat consumption of 66% and (mainly processed) carbs by 42% is significant considering that most other elements increased by 10% or less in the same time.

[Nobody]

You might be misunderstanding my stance on fibrous carbs because your focus is on your body and its needs. When you look at a broader group of people of all ages and sizes and activity levels, you appreciate some don't need a lot of starch.

If you mean bread, then I understand. But sweet potato is low in protein and fat (C93:F2:P3) while being reasonably low in energy density (0.76 Cal/g) and high in nutrient density.

I think another area you and I differ in perspective is your focus on food intake via weight.

Not usually. I just did it in my last post to give some perspective since 3% of Cal of broccoli didn't give much meaning compared to the ~55% fruit by Cal.

The studies I've read and clinical experience support that food volume is more highly correlated with satiation, and fibrous carbs have the highest volume:energy ratio.

No disagreement there, Volumetrics/Rolls. I haven't found much in the way of volume or weight being overly significant for my body's calorie tracking, but maybe I'm different to most. I find that if I eat less calories and/or do more the previous day, I'll eat more the next day. Over 3 days it generally evens out IME.

Let's look at constructing a eucaloric diet for a 55yo female who weighs 52kg.
If she is reasonably sedentary apart from full time office work, she'll require around 1500 Calories a day.

Thanks for going to the trouble of doing an example diet.
I calculated it as 1398 Cal for the diet you listed as 240g carb, 22g fat and 60g protein (C69:F14:P17). I used the BMR calculator below to find a 5'6" 55yo 52kg sedate woman will need 1200 Cal/d. So if you have 1398 and 10% fibre already cuts it to 1258, then 16% loss to digestion for WFV diet (REF:Barnard) brings it to 1056 Cal. It may be planned as eucaloric, but it could be a weight loss diet.
http://www.heathernicholds.com/calorie- ... calculator" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Keeping protein below 1g/kg bwt becomes an important goal if longevity is a consideration. There is sufficient evidence that renal function deteriorates slower on a lower protein diet.

Is this because scientists were studying people on omni diets? Greger's video below doesn't indicate that plant protein is a problem for the kidneys (at least not with any significance that I could see in the video). Happy to be corrected though as I think 1g/kg is enough for me. Anything above that is just bad planning on my part. I don't know why, but too many beans tends to increase my body weight.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/which-t ... r-kidneys/

[CKinnard]

re starch, I meant average whole grains.

ok. I was sure you've used kg and Cals/kg in the past for your daily food intake.

re that calculator, it uses the Miflin St Jeor BMR regression equation. I used to use this solely over a decade ago, but there's no one line of best fit optimized for every set of vital stats. My calculator uses multiple equations, selecting the best fit equation for a specific set of vital stats.
The calculator you chose doesn't individualize activity; it just adds 20% of BMR.
The thermic effect of food is not accounted for.

Re protein,
- the studies differentiating animal and plant protein effect on kidney filtration rate and deterioration, don't reveal the long term picture, which is unknown.
- Higher protein load adversely effects insulin/IGF-1 signalling and mTOR systems, both of which are implicated in longevity and reducing cancer.
- The longevity and morbidity benefit of calorie restriction in many animal studies is associated with reduced protein intake, particularly the AAs, methionine and cysteine.
Grains (and seeds and nuts) also have similar levels of methionine/g protein, to animal flesh!
Another reason I load fibrous carbs and fruit over starch is grains are more acid forming which stresses many systems, especially renal function, at least partially due to their protein content. A higher acid load is associated with higher mineral accumulation in joint capsules, tendons, and connective tissue. This leads to joint and tendon degeneration and a less flexible body.

[Nobody]

Yes you are correct, I use Cal/100g often to define Cal density. In the pink section of the spreadsheet at the bottom lists "Av Calorie Density (NF)" and "Av Calorie Density (incl fibre)". But I also use macronutrient ratio to assess meals/diets and describe my own. So I suppose I use both.

So regarding the calculator and diet example, are you trying to match a BMR + activity of ~1500 Cal? So does that mean you add the 10 - 14% fibre and thermal effect of whole food of 16% (or whatever you assign it) on top of the 1500? So does it need to become say 1950 Cal for a WFV diet and 1500 for a mainly processed grain and animal product diet, or what am I missing?

Thanks for the explanation about some of the negative effects of too much protein.
The question I suppose should be asked is, were the animal studies with reduced protein done with or without animal products?
As for testing individual amino acids, the books, The China Study and Whole taught me that those types of studies are often too reductionist. But I suppose they give us a pointer if we react the same was as the animals tested.

I went to Cronometer and put in some foods in to see what I would find. A list of food entered and their methionine percentage of RDI per 100g:
watermelon - 1%
bananas - 1%
oranges - 3%
cauliflower - 4%
sweet potato - 4%
potato - 4%
broccoli - 7%
rice - 8%
pasta (whole) - 14%
kidney beans - 18%
chickpeas - 18%
beef mince, 80% lean - 103%
Chicken breast - 136%

So if I'm worried about it, I should probably lose the beans first, which I did cut back 10% today.

[CKinnard]

her BMR is around 1200.
she works full time in an office, and is othewise sedentary.
I don't have time to go into the rest of it now.

what is important about comparing methionine is the quantity per gram of protein in different foods because you are trying to source the least toxic protein.

Reductionist studies have limitations but science also won't have watertight longitudinal studies to underwrite a plant based diet as best suited for homosapien sapiens in our life time.

At some stage, you just have to look at the universe of possible diets, pick one, and die with it....as the law of diminishing returns will apply to perpetual reading and tweaking of single ingredients (reductionism on roids yes?!), and the opportunity cost of doing so is real.

[Nobody]

Tweaking single ingredients is what Dr Greger does best with his daily dozen. Have you got a copy of "How Not To Die"? Have you read the chapter on beans yet? 390g a day of beans? Kind of flies in the face of reductionist methionine studies don't you think? Do I follow the rats, or Greger? That is one of the reasons I'm reluctant to recommend his book. Compared to some of the other broader observational dietary science and other plant based authors, his recommendations appear to be higher in fat and protein. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of his efforts in relaying the science, but I'm not a strong believer that all modern science is trustworthy. Nuts and weight gain, also nuts and arterial function come to mind. It depends on the subject's diets before the study.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/view ... ea81a63d84
Not Greger's fault, but it might skew the recommendations in his book.

Greger's video below gives evidence of why a recommendation of 390g of beans a day may require cost|benefit assessment by the individual.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/methion ... -strategy/

As time goes by my opinion is likely to change. But for now I'll keep the beans lower since previously eating too many beans appeared to have prevented me losing the last ~4kg. Once I reduced the beans, the body weight reduced quickly.

[CKinnard]

yes I've got How Not to Die.....greger agrees with methionine restrictive diets for longevity and cancer avoidance/therapy. I don't see that his daily dozen is at odds with the methionine studies.

as I said above, the more important measure when comparing methionine in foods is grams of it as a % of total protein. when you do this, legumes have lower methionine than starches.

further, legumes are a better source of total amino acids than grains which is important when people are on Calorie deficits, sedentary, or older. The research is showing that older people may benefit from increasing protein above 1g/kgbwt, to as much as 1.2. As I've said above, I consider grains the least essential food group. They come with a lot of energy attached to their nutrient load, relative to legumes and fibrous carbs. In addition to their acid effect on the blood, many people are developing sensitivities and allergies to grains, and many people overeat grains at the expense of fibrous carbs. My clinical experience is that people who have struggled with weight chronically have become addicted to grains. One common hypothesis is they are subclinically depressed and crave the serotonin stimulating effect starches deliver.

as a person's activity levels increase, I recommend a proportionally higher intake of starch.

[Nobody]

as I said above, the more important measure when comparing methionine in foods is grams of it as a % of total protein. when you do this, legumes have lower methionine than starches.

OK thanks. Obviously a slow learner here, but I think I've got it now. Not total methionine, but a percentage of total protein. So I went back to Cronometer and got the following ratios of daily % of methionine/protein:
Brown rice - 2.31
Pasta (whole) - 1.65
Oats - 1.88
Cauliflower - 1.41
Broccoli - 1.84
Kidney beans - 1.33
Chickpeas - 1.33
Beef mince 90% - 2.61
Chicken breast - 2.81

Further, legumes are a better source of total amino acids than grains which is important when people are on Calorie deficits, sedentary, or older. The research is showing that older people may benefit from increasing protein above 1g/kgbwt, to as much as 1.2. As I've said above, I consider grains the least essential food group. They come with a lot of energy attached to their nutrient load, relative to legumes and fibrous carbs. In addition to their acid effect on the blood, many people are developing sensitivities and allergies to grains, and many people overeat grains at the expense of fibrous carbs. My clinical experience is that people who have struggled with weight chronically have become addicted to grains. One common hypothesis is they are subclinically depressed and crave the serotonin stimulating effect starches deliver.

Thanks. Sounds like good advice. I'm not a big grain eater currently favoring sweet potato most of the time over brown rice.

Edit: Re-scaled results for more accuracy, but not much change.

[CKinnard]

hmmm....those meth numbers look off. my ballpark is grains, seeds, nuts, and animal products are generally over 3, legumes and fibrous and fruit under 3. I've got a reference somewhere so will dig it up some time.