Proteins from legume - confused with PDCAAA concept!

newdawn1974

Hi everyone,
for context purposes, I gave a try to the program from the "4h body" book to cut fat, and embarked on mostly lean meats/eggs and legumes. I did not count my macro and think I went into too big of a caloric deficit judging by the loss of muscle mass in the mirror and the sugar cravings (I find legumes quite filling) , so I decided to start tracking macros in MFP and set some macro targets, while continuing to use lean meat and legumes as staple food in hope to now proceed with clean bulking.
I was shocked to discover thanks to MFP how much protein was present in legumes, when I was consuming them (in my confused mind) essentially as a source of low GI carbs, so now I am getting some overall surplus of protein. I realize I could reduce the legumes and up the veggies to correct the situation, or ditch the daily scoop of whey, but this is beyond the point.
So now to the question! I am confused with the concept that proteins may have variable digestibility properties.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_Digestibility_Corrected_Amino_Acid_Score). Should I consider the proteins from legume at face value from the nutritional info on the label OR apply some type of absorption factor to adjust the protein content? If I did not screw up, a can of tuna and a full can of beans amounts to 480cal including 56g of protein (32 from the tuna, 24 from the beans) , 3g of fat and 72g of low-GI carbs.
Thanks!
Fred.

Gallowmere1984

The honest problem that I have with legume proteins is that you have to eat stupid amounts of them to get near leucine thresholds, assuming your body can even access 100% of the content, which isn't likely with even the most bioavailable of sources. Legumes are not known to be one of those. Too many question marks for my taste, though I do love me some black beans.

I'd honestly love to see any studies that exist on this, as I've never found one. Considering all of the known digestibility issues surrounding them, I wouldn't be shocked if they ended up being similar to the whole thing with nuts not providing all of the macronutrients believed, due to digestion inefficiencies.

newdawn1974

Thanks for the answer. Either way I guess I am fine with those legumes as I have plenty of other sources of protein. Where I am lost, is if those protein are NOT digested, what happens to them?

psuLemon

newdawn1974 wrote: »

Thanks for the answer. Either way I guess I am fine with those legumes as I have plenty of other sources of protein. Where I am lost, is if those protein are NOT digested, what happens to them?

You poop it out if it cant be metabolized.

Gallowmere1984

newdawn1974 wrote: »

Thanks for the answer. Either way I guess I am fine with those legumes as I have plenty of other sources of protein. Where I am lost, is if those protein are NOT digested, what happens to them?

Exactly as Lemon said. That's how it was determined that almond/walnut bioavailability was much lower than expected. Lots of fats just passing through.

newdawn1974

Ah! ok then, that would make sense that it was suggested for a weight loss regimen if those are `free`calories (or at least a portion of it). Would you reckon this holds true also for the carbs portion of the legume or just for the protein portion? Reason I am asking is that I treaded oatmeal+whole milk for beans as I was putting on fat, and my personal experience is that I did indeed loose fat, but my lifts hit a plateau, and I even regressed on the squats. I wonder if this just a confirmation bias of me missing my oatmeal or if there is some logic behind it all.

psuLemon

newdawn1974 wrote: »

Ah! ok then, that would make sense that it was suggested for a weight loss regimen if those are `free`calories (or at least a portion of it). Would you reckon this holds true also for the carbs portion of the legume or just for the protein portion? Reason I am asking is that I treaded oatmeal+whole milk for beans as I was putting on fat, and my personal experience is that I did indeed loose fat, but my lifts hit a plateau, and I even regressed on the squats. I wonder if this just a confirmation bias of me missing my oatmeal or if there is some logic behind it all.

If your lifts are plateauing, it has nothing to do with the minuscule differences in absorption of nutrients. If anything needs to be evaluated, it's your training.

What is your program? How long have you been plateaued? Have you deloaded recently?

newdawn1974

Compound moves in super set, 4x6 to 8 reps of 85% 1rm, 3xweek (went down to 2x once I added CF 2xweek+running roughly at the same time I started switching to legumes and lean prot as staplefood)
superset1: squat-bench-pullup (bodyweight)
superset2: deadlift-overhead press
superset3: bent over row-dips (bodyweight)-biceps curl
Plateaued after 3 months, shortly after I changed diet went I realized BF went from 13% to 15%, did not track calories and macro. I read a sticker on the FFB? (former fat boy?), ,guess I might have hit the panick button too quick?
Perf modest anyway, still room for beginner growth I hope. For 140lbs, squat (smith machine) at 180lbsx6reps, bench (smith) 140lbs x5rep, deadlift 225x8rep, row 135x5, OHP 85lbsx8, bicpes curl 60lbsx5. I could test during CF that loaded pull-up went to BW+70lbs x1rm, loaded dips to BW+90lbsx1rm (this one was though!)

jgnatca

Sheldon, is that you?

Really, you are over thinking this.

jgnatca

You don't have to worry about combining proteins.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_combining

newdawn1974

Ah, ah, ah, yes probably overthinking this instead of counting calories. Just started a few days ago, just that is going to help avoiding extremes and get a better picture. Thanks for the responses. Btw, who is Sheldon???

jgnatca

Sheldon Cooper!

http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Sheldon_Cooper

Hubby's been binge watching lately and of course I am as well.

psuLemon

newdawn1974 wrote: »

Compound moves in super set, 4x6 to 8 reps of 85% 1rm, 3xweek (went down to 2x once I added CF 2xweek+running roughly at the same time I started switching to legumes and lean prot as staplefood)
superset1: squat-bench-pullup (bodyweight)
superset2: deadlift-overhead press
superset3: bent over row-dips (bodyweight)-biceps curl
Plateaued after 3 months, shortly after I changed diet went I realized BF went from 13% to 15%, did not track calories and macro. I read a sticker on the FFB? (former fat boy?), ,guess I might have hit the panick button too quick?
Perf modest anyway, still room for beginner growth I hope. For 140lbs, squat (smith machine) at 180lbsx6reps, bench (smith) 140lbs x5rep, deadlift 225x8rep, row 135x5, OHP 85lbsx8, bicpes curl 60lbsx5. I could test during CF that loaded pull-up went to BW+70lbs x1rm, loaded dips to BW+90lbsx1rm (this one was though!)

Did you design this program or is it designed by someone else? Are you always at 85% of 1RM? Have you deloaded? What lifts are you actually plateaued with?

CharlieBeansmomTracey

jgnatca wrote: »

You don't have to worry about combining proteins.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_combining

wikipedia isnt a reliable source as info can be edited. now the scientific links will probably be more accurate as a lot of the info says[citation needed].

jgnatca

I did bother to follow many of the citations the last time I looked. I remember letting another of my carefully cherished urban legends die, die, die...

ritzvin

The posted Wiki seems to (I mainly just skimmed it) debunk having to combine proteins within the same meal, but still seems to agree that plant-based sources need to be "varied".

newdawn1974

psuLemon wrote: »

newdawn1974 wrote: »

Compound moves in super set, 4x6 to 8 reps of 85% 1rm, 3xweek (went down to 2x once I added CF 2xweek+running roughly at the same time I started switching to legumes and lean prot as staplefood)
superset1: squat-bench-pullup (bodyweight)
superset2: deadlift-overhead press
superset3: bent over row-dips (bodyweight)-biceps curl
Plateaued after 3 months, shortly after I changed diet went I realized BF went from 13% to 15%, did not track calories and macro. I read a sticker on the FFB? (former fat boy?), ,guess I might have hit the panick button too quick?
Perf modest anyway, still room for beginner growth I hope. For 140lbs, squat (smith machine) at 180lbsx6reps, bench (smith) 140lbs x5rep, deadlift 225x8rep, row 135x5, OHP 85lbsx8, bicpes curl 60lbsx5. I could test during CF that loaded pull-up went to BW+70lbs x1rm, loaded dips to BW+90lbsx1rm (this one was though!)

Did you design this program or is it designed by someone else? Are you always at 85% of 1RM? Have you deloaded? What lifts are you actually plateaued with?

Someone else (trainer at my gym), trying to meet the 86% 1RM, no deload but added CF and running and calorie deficit as caliper said I went from 13% to 15% BF.
Lifts that are still going up: deadlift, OHP, bench , biceps curls
Lifts that are plateau-ing: squat, bent over row, pull-up, dips (for the last 2 I do not have a belt to do weigthed pulls and dips, so just judging per ease and / reps

newdawn1974

BTW, I have beef, eggs, whey protein, greek yogurt and chicken on a daily basis (well not everything everyday but you see the point). I was just having beans and tuna as staple foods for a cut (based on the advise from the 4h body... I know, I know, I was just curious). Only recently did I logged macros and did not realize how much prot was in a can as per the label. Was confused in terms of what to do with this a prot actuals were higher than targets. Could ditch the whey and save some bucks if those are legit prots.
Did not know the big bang theory show , yeah I do overthink things.... But those cans of beans are just such a mystery. For less than a buck you get 410 cal, 72g of low GI carbs and 28g of prot (26g of fibre) and virtually no fat (meaning yo can add healthy fats of your choice in the mix). I have not see may choices in this price range that meet those macros, and are so versatile and convenient, so I was looking for the catch and found PDCAAA (maybe a confirmation bias...)

jgnatca

Eating more protein won't hurt you except for the pocketbook. Yes, beans are a miracle food. But as you have read, it does no good to eat them exclusively.