Give me name of some vegetarian food rich in protein ..
Options
Replies
-
Haha, another fibre fan? I am always wondering why fibre is almost never talked about. We so often hear the claim about the caloric availibility in protein, and indeed, it does take more energy to extract energy from protein than from fat or sugar, but that is relatively insignificant, while energy availability in fibre is so low that it is about as close to "free food" as we can get. Could perceived taste have something to do with that? Fibre is great and before I started my weight loss adventure, I regularly ate more than a 100 grammes a day. Now, it is more something between 30 and 50, but if available information is correct, that would still be between two and three times what "normal" people eat. I wonder how they do that.To each their own - someone on keto would probably balk at the amount of fibre I consume in a day.
0 -
Consuming copious amounts of an indigestible substance makes about as much sense as poking myself in the eye with a sharp stick. Cheers.0
-
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.
Like many "crazes", the protein "craze" is largely born out of the fitness industry and more specifically the bodybuilding community and has seeped it's way into gen pop. This happens with a lot of things...for example, calorie cycling which was trendy about 5-10 years ago was born out of the fitness industry where athletes needing to cut weight but still maintain physical performance would cycle calories around their most physically demanding training bouts. This eventually made it's way into mainstream as a "magical" weight loss approach. The oh so trendy HIIT is a training modality used by elite athletes to get that extra .00002% and then trickled down to gen pop as being the type of cardio everyone should be doing...even though pretty much everything marketed as HIIT really isn't and true HIIT would obliterate someone who wasn't already a very seasoned athlete or someone with a substantial base of fitness.
There is evidence that more protein than the RDA is beneficial for those who are dieting in that it helps mitigate muscle loss...but I've seen nothing that points to it having to be at a bodybuilders level of consumption. There is also evidence that more protein is beneficial to active individuals but to what degree that protein amount would be would also be dependent on what kinds of activity that person was engaged in. Someone engaged light to moderate physical activity most days (like someone recreationally active) would likely benefit from a bit more protein than the RDA, but would see little benefit IMO of consuming protein in the quantities that would benefit a bodybuilder or someone who is regularly engaged in rigorous physical activity that is breaking down the body over and over and over on a regular basis.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »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?
So, it would be better for me to learn about my protein needs from my individual personal general practice MD (for whom medical school was probably 40 years back) than to believe a 2013 report on the subject from a group formed for the purpose by the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society; authors of which include 10 MDs (among others); and that cites and discusses research that supports the study group's conclusions? Because such a report (together with its references) would not be evidence, and its authors would be quacks?
Interesting.
Sounds like you are of the opinion that your doctor doesn't keep up on new research and is less capable than you of accessing said research? What make you think that your doctor isn't aware of the 2013 report?
If my doctor hadn't updated their knowledge base in 40 years I think I would be tempted to change doctors.
Your conclusion that protein wasn't warranted because of the possible increase in calories from consuming more and the fact that you eat what might be considered a very high amount of firer does lead myself for example that most of your protein are coming from plant based sources which along with protein will have carbohydrates and generally lots of them. Animal protein is nutrient dense and doesn't have carbohydrates. Maybe look to include more animal sourced protein as opposed to thinking that maybe higher protein diets might not be good, that's kinda a confirmation bias.
I don't think I said that higher protein diets aren't good. I think that I said I came to the conclusion that worrying about it was not required for me. 120 grams of protein per day does not fit into my preferred eating style. 75 (ish) grams does and I believe that to be sufficient for my needs at this time.
Thus my original post that *I* stopped worrying about it.
(Including more animal sourced protein is not an option for me, thus the original dilemma that caused me stress.)0 -
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?
So, it would be better for me to learn about my protein needs from my individual personal general practice MD (for whom medical school was probably 40 years back) than to believe a 2013 report on the subject from a group formed for the purpose by the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society; authors of which include 10 MDs (among others); and that cites and discusses research that supports the study group's conclusions? Because such a report (together with its references) would not be evidence, and its authors would be quacks?
Interesting.
Sounds like you are of the opinion that your doctor doesn't keep up on new research and is less capable than you of accessing said research? What make you think that your doctor isn't aware of the 2013 report?
If my doctor hadn't updated their knowledge base in 40 years I think I would be tempted to change doctors.
I don't look to my individual doctor for detailed dietary recommendations. That's not his wheelhouse. He does keep up on recent research, and I have consulted with him about my weight goals, plus we've specifically done blood tests to ensure that I'm on track with specific nutritional issues (to the extent that can be determined) that could be relevant for me. You're welcome to differ, but I think an expert study-group formed by a major geriatric medical organization is worth paying attention to.
I'm more focused on getting my doctor's guidance in personal issues more central to his scope of practice. (That's also where I think it's most important for him to keep up with research. Doctors are humans with limited time budgets, like the rest of us.)
I don't know whether you're in the US, but in my case, we're talking about 15-20 minute appointments every 6 months (unless some symptoms develop). Those focus on things like my hypothyroidism, early COPD, status with vaccinations and screening tests, symptoms that may be relevant post-cancer, and that sort of thing.
I'm not arguing with your personal take, or anyone else's. I'm suggesting that there are alternatives to "ask your doctor" that may be relevant to others in the MFP community who may be interested in other sources of information, in addition to "ask your doctor". That's it.
ETA: While I consider some of the more recent recommendations (in research, or from such study groups) to be non-definitive, I do think it's odd to see the recommendation of more protein (than the USDA/WHO minimums) to be characterized as unfounded myth-making, quackery, or anything of that nature. I think there are enough hints of value to make it a good bet-hedge, especially for someone who's older, active, or losing weight. That's an individual choice.
Me either - but when I mentioned I was trying to lose weight and having a hard time hitting my protein goal she asked me why I was trying to eat so much protein and assured me that it wasn't necessary. Which is when I began to question what I was trying to do and looked into it further.0 -
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?
So, it would be better for me to learn about my protein needs from my individual personal general practice MD (for whom medical school was probably 40 years back) than to believe a 2013 report on the subject from a group formed for the purpose by the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society; authors of which include 10 MDs (among others); and that cites and discusses research that supports the study group's conclusions? Because such a report (together with its references) would not be evidence, and its authors would be quacks?
Interesting.
Sounds like you are of the opinion that your doctor doesn't keep up on new research and is less capable than you of accessing said research? What make you think that your doctor isn't aware of the 2013 report?
If my doctor hadn't updated their knowledge base in 40 years I think I would be tempted to change doctors.
I don't look to my individual doctor for detailed dietary recommendations. That's not his wheelhouse. He does keep up on recent research, and I have consulted with him about my weight goals, plus we've specifically done blood tests to ensure that I'm on track with specific nutritional issues (to the extent that can be determined) that could be relevant for me. You're welcome to differ, but I think an expert study-group formed by a major geriatric medical organization is worth paying attention to.
I'm more focused on getting my doctor's guidance in personal issues more central to his scope of practice. (That's also where I think it's most important for him to keep up with research. Doctors are humans with limited time budgets, like the rest of us.)
I don't know whether you're in the US, but in my case, we're talking about 15-20 minute appointments every 6 months (unless some symptoms develop). Those focus on things like my hypothyroidism, early COPD, status with vaccinations and screening tests, symptoms that may be relevant post-cancer, and that sort of thing.
I'm not arguing with your personal take, or anyone else's. I'm suggesting that there are alternatives to "ask your doctor" that may be relevant to others in the MFP community who may be interested in other sources of information, in addition to "ask your doctor". That's it.
ETA: While I consider some of the more recent recommendations (in research, or from such study groups) to be non-definitive, I do think it's odd to see the recommendation of more protein (than the USDA/WHO minimums) to be characterized as unfounded myth-making, quackery, or anything of that nature. I think there are enough hints of value to make it a good bet-hedge, especially for someone who's older, active, or losing weight. That's an individual choice.
Me either - but when I mentioned I was trying to lose weight and having a hard time hitting my protein goal she asked me why I was trying to eat so much protein and assured me that it wasn't necessary. Which is when I began to question what I was trying to do and looked into it further.
The RDA is the basement for protein consumption to prevent a negative nitrogen balance on a population level. Also the bioavailability of protein are not equal and some protein is barely absorbed and if the diet is high in fiber that will further block absorption, so when someone says higher protein intake than the RDA isn't necessary, I going to assume they have little understanding of nutrition in general and it's time to talk with someone else, which is especially true if someone is elderly. imo0 -
Thanks @cwolfman13 - makes perfect sense. Funny you mention HIIT. That label has been slapped on many a home workout DVD -- hardly the elite athlete crowd!! (I know I'm not, but hey, any exercise is good exercise, especially when it's consistent.)0
-
IMO a 9 out of 10 explaining protein and the recommended dietary allowances, RDA. It's long though, but valuable.
https://youtu.be/BqmG2y4IeY80 -
It is always an individual choice, but consider this: when something goes wrong, the doctor usually gets the blame. When something goes right, the quack usually gets the credit. I wonder why that is, I have a few suspicions, but suspicions are nothing more than that, they are not proof.I think there are enough hints of value to make it a good bet-hedge, especially for someone who's older, active, or losing weight. That's an individual choice.
As for the protein hedge-bet, don't forget that PSMF (protein-sparing modified fast) is a doctor-developed diet. It is highly successful, but is often blamed for unsustainability. That criticism is quite warranted. What those criticising usually leave out however, is that it was not designed to be sustainable. It was designed for fast natural weight loss while *attempting* to minimise lean tissue loss and mitigating nutritional deficiencies as much as reasonably achievable. It is meant for fast weight loss in urgent circumstances, nothing more. In other words, it is a treatment, not a lifestyle.
But, and that is the point here, it is higher in protein than normally considered acceptable. There are some claims that it is dangerous, but –to the best of my knowledge– these claims have never been substantiated. That said, there are good medical reasons to fear that the protein-intake is too high and not ideal. I am *guessing* but cannot prove, that the main reason negative effects have not been substantiated is the short duration of the diet.
The high protein levels often recommended in weight loss are controversial for a very simple reason: there are good reasons to suspect it is dangerous, we just don't know *if* that is truly the case and we don't know how long such diets can be followed before they become really detrimental. We should never forget that things seem to go well until they don't. For comparison, look at the road system in the US. It is almost universally reviled for how bad it is. Yet, for decades, red *and* blue administrations chose to cut back on maintenance costs and claimed that all was well. It was, but the system was deteriorating, and the people are now paying the price for that negligence. The same might be true with high protein intakes. We know for a fact that they are harmful for some people, we know they are beneficial and even necessary for others, but we don't know what the long-term effects are yet, and –sadly– it is next to impossible to find it out in an ethically responsible manner.
In short: the warnings against high-protein intakes could well be wrong, but as long as this has not been conclusively demonstrated, the warnings will and should continue. Let's not forget that modern evidence-based and science-based medicine is still very young. The term itself did not even exist when I went to med school. I.ow., we have a lot to learn. Let's not run before we can walk. What that does, was nicely demonstrated by Boeing and its crashing 737-MAX. Weight loss is good, it is desirable, but it comes with its own set of negative effects and dangers. It is best not to make those dangers even worse.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »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?
So, it would be better for me to learn about my protein needs from my individual personal general practice MD (for whom medical school was probably 40 years back) than to believe a 2013 report on the subject from a group formed for the purpose by the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society; authors of which include 10 MDs (among others); and that cites and discusses research that supports the study group's conclusions? Because such a report (together with its references) would not be evidence, and its authors would be quacks?
Interesting.
Sounds like you are of the opinion that your doctor doesn't keep up on new research and is less capable than you of accessing said research? What make you think that your doctor isn't aware of the 2013 report?
If my doctor hadn't updated their knowledge base in 40 years I think I would be tempted to change doctors.
I don't look to my individual doctor for detailed dietary recommendations. That's not his wheelhouse. He does keep up on recent research, and I have consulted with him about my weight goals, plus we've specifically done blood tests to ensure that I'm on track with specific nutritional issues (to the extent that can be determined) that could be relevant for me. You're welcome to differ, but I think an expert study-group formed by a major geriatric medical organization is worth paying attention to.
I'm more focused on getting my doctor's guidance in personal issues more central to his scope of practice. (That's also where I think it's most important for him to keep up with research. Doctors are humans with limited time budgets, like the rest of us.)
I don't know whether you're in the US, but in my case, we're talking about 15-20 minute appointments every 6 months (unless some symptoms develop). Those focus on things like my hypothyroidism, early COPD, status with vaccinations and screening tests, symptoms that may be relevant post-cancer, and that sort of thing.
I'm not arguing with your personal take, or anyone else's. I'm suggesting that there are alternatives to "ask your doctor" that may be relevant to others in the MFP community who may be interested in other sources of information, in addition to "ask your doctor". That's it.
ETA: While I consider some of the more recent recommendations (in research, or from such study groups) to be non-definitive, I do think it's odd to see the recommendation of more protein (than the USDA/WHO minimums) to be characterized as unfounded myth-making, quackery, or anything of that nature. I think there are enough hints of value to make it a good bet-hedge, especially for someone who's older, active, or losing weight. That's an individual choice.
Me either - but when I mentioned I was trying to lose weight and having a hard time hitting my protein goal she asked me why I was trying to eat so much protein and assured me that it wasn't necessary. Which is when I began to question what I was trying to do and looked into it further.
The RDA is the basement for protein consumption to prevent a negative nitrogen balance on a population level. Also the bioavailability of protein are not equal and some protein is barely absorbed and if the diet is high in fiber that will further block absorption, so when someone says higher protein intake than the RDA isn't necessary, I going to assume they have little understanding of nutrition in general and it's time to talk with someone else, which is especially true if someone is elderly. imo
Well firstly I am not elderly - don't know where that came from. And secondly you are putting words in my mouth - I didn't say anything about the RDA - I said that she told me the goal that I was trying to reach (which was about double the RDA) was not necessary.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »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?
So, it would be better for me to learn about my protein needs from my individual personal general practice MD (for whom medical school was probably 40 years back) than to believe a 2013 report on the subject from a group formed for the purpose by the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society; authors of which include 10 MDs (among others); and that cites and discusses research that supports the study group's conclusions? Because such a report (together with its references) would not be evidence, and its authors would be quacks?
Interesting.
Sounds like you are of the opinion that your doctor doesn't keep up on new research and is less capable than you of accessing said research? What make you think that your doctor isn't aware of the 2013 report?
If my doctor hadn't updated their knowledge base in 40 years I think I would be tempted to change doctors.
I don't look to my individual doctor for detailed dietary recommendations. That's not his wheelhouse. He does keep up on recent research, and I have consulted with him about my weight goals, plus we've specifically done blood tests to ensure that I'm on track with specific nutritional issues (to the extent that can be determined) that could be relevant for me. You're welcome to differ, but I think an expert study-group formed by a major geriatric medical organization is worth paying attention to.
I'm more focused on getting my doctor's guidance in personal issues more central to his scope of practice. (That's also where I think it's most important for him to keep up with research. Doctors are humans with limited time budgets, like the rest of us.)
I don't know whether you're in the US, but in my case, we're talking about 15-20 minute appointments every 6 months (unless some symptoms develop). Those focus on things like my hypothyroidism, early COPD, status with vaccinations and screening tests, symptoms that may be relevant post-cancer, and that sort of thing.
I'm not arguing with your personal take, or anyone else's. I'm suggesting that there are alternatives to "ask your doctor" that may be relevant to others in the MFP community who may be interested in other sources of information, in addition to "ask your doctor". That's it.
ETA: While I consider some of the more recent recommendations (in research, or from such study groups) to be non-definitive, I do think it's odd to see the recommendation of more protein (than the USDA/WHO minimums) to be characterized as unfounded myth-making, quackery, or anything of that nature. I think there are enough hints of value to make it a good bet-hedge, especially for someone who's older, active, or losing weight. That's an individual choice.
Me either - but when I mentioned I was trying to lose weight and having a hard time hitting my protein goal she asked me why I was trying to eat so much protein and assured me that it wasn't necessary. Which is when I began to question what I was trying to do and looked into it further.
The RDA is the basement for protein consumption to prevent a negative nitrogen balance on a population level. Also the bioavailability of protein are not equal and some protein is barely absorbed and if the diet is high in fiber that will further block absorption, so when someone says higher protein intake than the RDA isn't necessary, I going to assume they have little understanding of nutrition in general and it's time to talk with someone else, which is especially true if someone is elderly. imo
Well firstly I am not elderly - don't know where that came from. And secondly you are putting words in my mouth - I didn't say anything about the RDA - I said that she told me the goal that I was trying to reach (which was about double the RDA) was not necessary.
Yeah, the elderly comment was just a general comment about the need for additional amino acids as we age. Curious how did she determine that double the RDA wasn't necessary? Or what's it just her opinion? The reason I ask is because most scientists that study protein will say if most of the protein are coming from plant sources to at least double the RDA.0 -
The Recommended Dietary allowances are for amino acids not protein so we should think of protein as a vitamin pill and we don't have a requirement for a vitamin pill per se, but need what is inside that vitamin pill and in the case of protein, it's amino acids.
Protein is to protect against a negative nitrogen balance, as well as for protein turnover or building blocks for new protein, basically growth and maintenance. These amino acids have specific jobs and are needed in specific quantities to accomplish those goals and the simple fact that some AA's will not be sufficient for optimal health, maybe acceptable but not ideal when looking at the RDA and amino acid degradation is affected by age, big time.
One of the major missed opportunities with protein is understanding that it's not a macro like fat and carbs. Fat and carbs are fuel or energy and that can be manipulated any way a person feels comfortable with but their protein needs are etched in stone basically, and shouldn't be adjusted regardless of any adjustment in calorie intake. In other words, the more calorie deficit a person has the more protein should show up as an increase as a percentage of calories. In simple terms, the protein requirements for ideal health doesn't change regardless of which diet we're on or how many calories we're consuming. Cheers.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 912 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions