Give me name of some vegetarian food rich in protein ..
Options
Karansahani8123
Posts: 1 Member
I can't reach my protein goal.
0
Replies
-
Try a plant based protein powder?
Tofu!
Beans!
Broccli!
Quinoa!
2 -
My favourites are soybeans, lupini and spinach.0
-
Eggs, chickpeas, lentils.
There's a spreadsheet here:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10247171/carbs-and-fats-are-cheap-heres-a-guide-to-getting-your-proteins-worth-fiber-also
If you scroll down past all the meat and fish you'll find vegetarian options too.1 -
Low-fat dairy (milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, buttermilk, kefir, ricotta, certain lower fat cheeses) and/or eggs if you're lacto/ovo veg.
Beans of all kinds
Bean products (tofu, soy milk, commercial meat replicas such as crumbles, patties, chick' n, sausage, even fish)
Grains, e.g., quinoa
Seeds and nuts, but typically those come with more fat than protein
Protein powders
Defatted peanut flour0 -
I had my best (vegetarian) protein day ever yesterday and I was still short. It's ridiculous!! Sometimes I just have to not pay attention to that macro because I find it discouraging.
I don't eat hard boiled eggs or yogurt. I have found these new(er) protein bars at Aldi, called Elevation High Protein Bar, for a whopping 20g of protein in a bar (and also 270 calories, ouch) ~ they make a decent mid day meal for me. I also use collagen peptides in my coffee every morning for 9g protein. I'm sure there's bovine product in there -- but at this point I'm desperate to get enough protein. While I do eat dairy and eggs (only scrambled and almost never), I don't drink milk. The old suggestion of "nuts and seeds" isn't ideal because of the calorie count in a measly quarter cup of nuts -- but a snack of 1 oz Parmesan cheese and 20g walnuts comes in under 250 calories and it's delicious. It's not a ton of protein but it's something.
Good luck! Protein and vegetarianism sans eggs and yogurt is no joke, lol0 -
Karansahani8123 wrote: »I can't reach my protein goal.
What is your protein goal? We see a lot of posters on here with unnecessarily high goals (usually given by a trainer from the gym.)
Here's a reputable protein calculator:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I shoot for 400 - 500 calories of exercise per day, and when I achieve that, using the MFP default of 20% protein aligns with the protein recommendation from examine. If I were completely sedentary, I'd need to bump it up to 30%.0 -
Use the links Kshama and Lietchi suggested to get an evidence- based protein goal in grams, and to find new protein sources, respectively.
I'm ovo-lacto vegetarian, have been for 48+ years, thin to obese and back again. Now, at 5'5", maintaining weight in mid-120s pounds, quite active athletically, age 66, I target a 100g protein minimum daily, and usually exceed it. I don't use protein powder or fake meats - nothing wrong with those IMO, I just don't personally find them tasty/satisfying.
I got slightly less protein - usually 80s-90s grams and up - when on lower calories while losing.
I don't eat many eggs, but do eat a fair amount of dairy. (I think I could reach my goals fully plant based, but prefer my current eating style.)
My main advice would be to use your food log actively as a tool. Review what you've eaten, notice foods with relatively many calories, but relatively little protein, that aren't very important to you for satiation, other nutrition, or general happiness. Reduce or eliminate those, and replace the calories with other foods you enjoy that have more protein.
The "one big protein per meal" idea is important, but also look at other foods: Snacks, sides, flavorings, beverages, desserts, etc. Seeking small amounts of protein in those is a help. The small amounts add up through the day.
By going through the above kind of thought process, you can gradually revise your eating habits in the direction of more protein. (It's what I did when I first started calorie counting to lose weight.)
As rough rules of thumb for label-reading at the store, I consider single foods with 10ish or fewer total calories per gram of protein to be useful vegetarian protein sources. For actual multi- ingredient dishes, 20ish total calories per gram of protein seems good to me. You might choose different specific numbers, but looking at labels in that general way helped me along the way.
The only specific major-source foods I can think of offhand that I find useful, that weren't mentioned already, are seitan, tempeh, and legume-based higher-protein pastas. On the small-adds side, as flavorings and such, I like nutritional yeast, miso, and peanut butter powder.2 -
People seem obsessed with high protein now - that examine calculator up thread gave me a goal of MINIMUM 120. There is no way I am ever going to eat 120 grams of protein in a day.
My doctor told me that around 60-75 grams is more than enough. I stopped worrying about it.5 -
Wise choice. The standard (including safety margin) is 0.8 g protein per kg ideal weight. That standard has been used since more than half a century, and to the best of my knowledge, it has not killed anyone yet.People seem obsessed with high protein now - that examine calculator up thread gave me a goal of MINIMUM 120. There is no way I am ever going to eat 120 grams of protein in a day.
My doctor told me that around 60-75 grams is more than enough. I stopped worrying about it.
4 -
@33gail33 I totally agree about the being obsessed aspect. How did it happen? Protein was never a concern in my (fairly) recent past, but you start reading some nutrition boards and protein is the holy grail, not to be trifled with. I'm glad to read your post that 60-75g is enough. I'd like to stop worrying about it as well.1
-
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Wise choice. The standard (including safety margin) is 0.8 g protein per kg ideal weight. That standard has been used since more than half a century, and to the best of my knowledge, it has not killed anyone yet.People seem obsessed with high protein now - that examine calculator up thread gave me a goal of MINIMUM 120. There is no way I am ever going to eat 120 grams of protein in a day.
My doctor told me that around 60-75 grams is more than enough. I stopped worrying about it.
Well, there's a question of adequate vs. optimal, and different life circumstances influence that issue. But sure, no otherwise healthy person will die from kwashiorkor (or whatever) while getting the USDA/WHO recommended amounts.
FWIW, one example of circumstances where some might benefit from more than 0.8g/kg:To help older people (>65 years) maintain and regain lean body mass and function, the PROT-AGE study group recommends average daily intake at least in the range of 1.0 to 1.2 g protein per kilogram of body weight per day.
https://www.jamda.com/article/S1525-8610(13)00326-5/fulltext
For active seniors, and those with some chronic diseases, they recommend 1.2g/kg and above.
The protein calculator upthread links to a protein guide that explains the rationale behind the calculator recommendations, and that includes links to research on which it relies, so folks interested in nutrition can take a look, decide whether the recommendations are useful to them or not.2 -
Sure. That distinction is valid. Unfortunately, we don't know (yet) what optimal levels are. Until there is hard evidence for that, we'd be wise not to play l'Apprenti Sorcier. A lot of harm can be - and is - caused by misinterpretations and overextrapolations by often well-meaning people.Well, there's a question of adequate vs. optimal, and different life circumstances influence that issue. But sure, no otherwise healthy person will die from kwashiorkor (or whatever) while getting the USDA/WHO recommended amounts.
Not just some, many, I recently had a lecture about protein-needs of people with kidney failure for example, but these are all people who are no longer what could reasonably be considered healthy. Pathological situations, for lack of a better word, require different ways of reasoning and different standards.FWIW, one example of circumstances where some might benefit from more than 0.8g/kg
I am afraid that protein has essentially become the "radioactive water" of our time.
1 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Sure. That distinction is valid. Unfortunately, we don't know (yet) what optimal levels are. Until there is hard evidence for that, we'd be wise not to play l'Apprenti Sorcier. A lot of harm can be - and is - caused by misinterpretations and overextrapolations by often well-meaning people.Well, there's a question of adequate vs. optimal, and different life circumstances influence that issue. But sure, no otherwise healthy person will die from kwashiorkor (or whatever) while getting the USDA/WHO recommended amounts.
Not just some, many, I recently had a lecture about protein-needs of people with kidney failure for example, but these are all people who are no longer what could reasonably be considered healthy. Pathological situations, for lack of a better word, require different ways of reasoning and different standards.FWIW, one example of circumstances where some might benefit from more than 0.8g/kg
I am afraid that protein has essentially become the "radioactive water" of our time.
It's interesting that you went to pathologies, when the main example I cited was for healthy, active people . . . unless being over 65, or specifically an athlete over 65, is a pathology? (I'm aware of that particular recommendation because that's my demographic, and part of my rationale for a personal minimum goal around 100g, which is just under 1.8g/kg goal weight.)
You're implying that suggesting higher protein than 0.8g/kg is some kind of dangerous pseudo-scientific myth. It's not.
I have no argument with you choosing to stick to the traditional "standard (that) has been used since more than half a century" as you describe it. My position is that it's misleading to tell others there's no reason even to consider more recent research.
Of course there's still debate at the margin. If someone is uninterested in more personalized nutrition, it's not unreasonable to stick with the USDA/WHO numbers. Humans are adaptive omnivores: Quite a range of choices can work out OK.
It's also not unreasonable for someone to take a deeper interest, consider more recent mainstream research . . . as a bet-hedge, if nothing else, since there's no evidence that it's dangerous for a healthy person to get protein at the higher levels being suggested here, and some evidence that there can be benefits.1 -
I went to pathologies because that was the subject I attended a lecture about a few days ago, nothing more needs to be sought after that, and I did it to show exactly your point: namely that there are situations where higher protein needs have been demonstrated.It's interesting that you went to pathologies, when the main example I cited was for healthy, active people . . . unless being over 65, or specifically an athlete over 65, is a pathology? (I'm aware of that particular recommendation because that's my demographic, and part of my rationale for a personal minimum goal around 100g, which is just under 1.8g/kg goal weight.)
You're implying that suggesting higher protein than 0.8g/kg is some kind of dangerous pseudo-scientific myth. It's not.
I have no argument with you choosing to stick to the traditional "standard (that) has been used since more than half a century" as you describe it. My position is that it's misleading to tell others there's no reason even to consider more recent research.
Of course there's still debate at the margin. If someone is uninterested in more personalized nutrition, it's not unreasonable to stick with the USDA/WHO numbers. Humans are adaptive omnivores: Quite a range of choices can work out OK.
It's also not unreasonable for someone to take a deeper interest, consider more recent mainstream research . . . as a bet-hedge, if nothing else, since there's no evidence that it's dangerous for a healthy person to get protein at the higher levels being suggested here, and some evidence that there can be benefits.
It gets more complicated when older people are considered. What is older? What is a healthy older person? I have been wrestling with that point myself. I am "only" 60 about to become 61, but I feel there are good reasons to consider the consequences of becoming older. In medicine, a person of 65 and older is traditionally considered "elderly" and there are very good reasons why that is the case. We now have longer life expectancies than every before (not in the US, because COVID-19 has led (and is leading) to a drop, but I think we can consider that a bit of an anomaly that is not necessarily to be taken into account here). Longer life expectancies does not mean that we are now becoming elderly later. That is not the case. What is happening, is that we are now (on average) elderly for a longer time.
We should not forget that biological reality does not change. Evolution is all about living until reproduction. Once we are no longer reproducing, we have no longer an influence on evolution (there are a few potential exceptions to that claim, but –as far as I know– they have never been substantiated, but still, they should be considered/studied).
In other words, once the reproductive phase is over deterioration starts in earnest. While completely normal, I consider it nevertheless a pathological sitation because it is typically a time when different kinds of chronic pathologies start to become really debilitating and because even normal and natural biological changes are creating abnormal situations.
In summary, I would not be surprised if a doctor would tell me to consult a geriatrician. It is unlikely, especially in view of current shortages of geriatricians, but just because there aren't any available, does not miraculously turn me into someone who does not need one. I almost certainly don't but I may very well be wrong.
I hope that explains why I am talking about pathologies. You don't have to agree. You can hammer me down. If I am certain of something, I should be able to defend that position or at the very least explain why I have it. If neither is possible, I should reconsider my position. There is nothing more to it than that. I think it was Don Corleone who said "it's nothing personal", but it has been a few decades since I read the book, so I could well be wrong.
As for implying that more protein than 0.8 g/kg is dangerous pseudoscience, I implied nothing of the sort. All I meant, is that the recommendations are based on hard science, while claims of needing more in normal people have not been demonstrated. That includes "athletes" by the way. Most of the extra protein they are being sold by quacks of all stripes will simply be stripped of its nitrogen and turned into normal body fat which will then be used as a source of energy.2 -
vivmom2014 wrote: »@33gail33 I totally agree about the being obsessed aspect. How did it happen? Protein was never a concern in my (fairly) recent past, but you start reading some nutrition boards and protein is the holy grail, not to be trifled with. I'm glad to read your post that 60-75g is enough. I'd like to stop worrying about it as well.
The best thing you can do is ask a doctor. A real one, i.e. an MD, he/she should be able to put your mind at ease. You can also find the information online, but it will take you much more time and effort to learn to distinguish between information and disinformation and to put it all together in a coherent understanding.
While there are some genuine reasons to up protein intake, the vast majority of people do not need it and while, if they are in good health, it is not very likely to do them harm, it is also not going to do them any good.
Please do not do what I do (or anyone else does), just because I do it, but I just looked at my numbers for the time I have been of MFP (since 25 September). Most of my intake is between 60 g and 65 g. There are a few outliers as well: the lowest one was 40 g. That is clearly not enough, but nothing to worry about, since it was exactly that, an outlier, the only case in fact. I also had an outlier of 104 g. Again, nothing to worry about, as it was the only time.
My main message remains unchanged: ask an MD. These people study this stuff in depth. They know what they are recommending. Once you have done that, you could go to a dietitian to get advice on how to achieve the recommended goals, but do not skip the doctor. He/she is your most reliable source of information even if you are studying medicine yourself (because you do not know yet what he/she knows already ^_^)0 -
I just noted this unfortunate typo. Please note I am not OF MFP. I meant ON MFP.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »for the time I have been of MFP
1 -
Most Dr's don't have a clue, literally, when it comes to nutrition and most guidelines are political at best, and of course, that's just my opinion. I'm just over 2.0 on average. For the average westerner, protein malnutrition is never going to happen unless of course they're chronically undereating. The AMDR range is around 10-35% of energy intake, and most experts from what I've gleaned from the literature recommend at least 2g and more for elderly populations. cheers.
2 -
I tend to agree that a doctor isn't the be-all, end-all of nutrition advice. I've learned about nutrition predominantly from this website. Long time reader of the forums, and the forums have helped to dispel much misinformation around "dieting" and weight loss. (The most refreshing information ever: you can eat whatever you'd like, and as long as you are in a caloric deficit, you will lose weight.)
I'm not super stressed about the protein, but as I approach 60 I want to make sure I have enough. So I'm inclined to shoot for "adequate," rather than "optimal." I exercise consistently 4 to 5 days a week and want to preserve whatever muscle I've got. It can be hard to hit the protein goals MFP prescribes, and there was a time that it would bother me greatly. (Plus, it doesn't help that my favorite foods are all pretty much bereft of protein...can you say Sweet Tooth?
) 0 -
neanderthin wrote: »Most Dr's don't have a clue, literally, when it comes to nutrition and most guidelines are political at best, and of course, that's just my opinion. I'm just over 2.0 on average. For the average westerner, protein malnutrition is never going to happen unless of course they're chronically undereating. The AMDR range is around 10-35% of energy intake, and most experts from what I've gleaned from the literature recommend at least 2g and more for elderly populations. cheers.
I know that claim, I hear it often. I wonder where it comes from because it is contrary to my experience. When I went to med school, now a little over 40 years ago, nutrition information already started being given from the very first weeks of instruction. It was everywhere. The only thing that could be said, is that there was no course called "nutrition". Such a course would not have made much sense, because nutrition permeated everything.
While I am always ready to be proven wrong, and having to change my mind, I'd need to see some pretty hard evidence before I accept that claim. I also find it rather suspicious that it is (seemingly) mostly quacks who make the claim. How do they know, since what they know is largely based on nothing or disproven nonsense?1 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Most Dr's don't have a clue, literally, when it comes to nutrition and most guidelines are political at best, and of course, that's just my opinion. I'm just over 2.0 on average. For the average westerner, protein malnutrition is never going to happen unless of course they're chronically undereating. The AMDR range is around 10-35% of energy intake, and most experts from what I've gleaned from the literature recommend at least 2g and more for elderly populations. cheers.
I know that claim, I hear it often. I wonder where it comes from because it is contrary to my experience. When I went to med school, now a little over 40 years ago, nutrition information already started being given from the very first weeks of instruction. It was everywhere. The only thing that could be said, is that there was no course called "nutrition". Such a course would not have made much sense, because nutrition permeated everything.
While I am always ready to be proven wrong, and having to change my mind, I'd need to see some pretty hard evidence before I accept that claim. I also find it rather suspicious that it is (seemingly) mostly quacks who make the claim. How do they know, since what they know is largely based on nothing or disproven nonsense?
https://hindawi.com/journals/jbe/2015/357627/
Most US medical schools (86/121, 71%) fail to provide the recommended minimum 25 hours of nutrition education; 43 (36%) provide less than half that much. Nutrition instruction is still largely confined to preclinical courses, with an average of 14.3 hours occurring in this context.
It cannot be a realistic expectation for physicians to effectively address obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, hospital malnutrition, and many other conditions as long as they are not taught during medical school and residency training how to recognize and treat the nutritional root causes.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions