Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(August 12, 2014 at 2:43 am)bennyboy Wrote: Yeah, protein really depends on how much hurt you're putting your body through. I'm pretty sure weight-lifters need lots of protein, and I've heard that long-distance runners also need very large amounts due to the constant wear-and-tear.
Protein requirements are mostly overstated. The ADA make the following recommendations:
"Power athletes (strength or speed): 1.2 to 1.7 grams/kilogram a day
Endurance athletes: 1.2 to 1.4 grams/kilogram a day
For an adult male athlete, that’s about 84 to 119 grams of protein a day; for adult females about 66 to 94 grams.
By comparison, a sedentary adult male needs about 56 grams of protein a day; for females it’s about 46 grams."
So if we take the upper end of a 70kg power athlete's requirements, that means they require the avg. protein calorie density of their food to have around 16% of calories from protein (assuming 3000 calories Total daily req.(which is pretty damn conservative considering the amount of exercise they perform) and 119g protein at 4 calories per gram)
I could go on....
Of course many foods also have below 16% protein calorie denisty, fruits will be very low but most vegetables and whole grains are above 10% (which is all a norm needs anyhow). And this is of course without turning to soy products, which personally I quite enjoy eg tofu or vegan sausages etc or things that some people find difficult to find eg seitan, or vegan protein powders, all of which are way above 20%. The point is two fold, firstly we don't actually require that much protein, and secondly there are vegan sources that are more than ample.
August 12, 2014 at 6:06 pm (This post was last modified: August 12, 2014 at 6:53 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
What the authors have quantified (and their assumptions and methodology have been criticized to no end) is not a problem with animal protein vs plant protein, it's an issue of fossil-fuel-as-food, a flaw in production methodology. Since cattle don't need to eat oil, or grain, we're stretching their data a bit too far in calling "meat farming" less efficient than "plant farming".
If you want to talk resource efficiency, you're going to have to refer to more than just fossil fuels. I've been working on an integrated production system for 6 years now (slightly slowed down since I lost funding) that will use 0kcals of fossil energy in the production of either form of protein, zero, as in less-than-1 (that's beyond the initial investment in facilities and equipment and your general maintenance stuff, operations...of course - investments which any producer has to make). In my system, a (mostly) closed loop enables the production of agricultural crops -specifically by means of the production of livestock-. The byproducts of the one become the inputs of the other. Remove the livestock in my system - and you can't grow the crops. Remove the crops - and you can't grow the livestock. My system uses no heavy equipment, can be layed down in any existing parking lot, achieves season extension ( I built it with N. Central Florida in mind, where it can achieve year round production- but would be illegal to engage in without excessive permits and oversight...one of the reasons I moved to Kentucky, I suppose i could burn a little bit of fossil fuel and achieve year round production of -something- even here....but I'm a purist), reduces or eliminates the need for pesticides, requires no tillage, no heavy equipment, does not produce runoff, and stacks more available nutrition in a smaller space than any currently favored model of field production, feedlots, or grazing. It's modular, scalable - and can be built and operated by children (mine have done so.....and the oldest is 6). The best part, of course, is that it is not patentable. It actually produces usable energy as a byproduct........ the whole enchilada man. It's my opus, and every so often I've posted schematics and studies on this or that portion of it. A whole systems approach to producing food. Combined with things like selective breeding (another thing I'm deeply entrenched in, lol) or GMOs (which I wish I was deeply entrenched in)you can increase the efficiency even further still. It's as close to "something for nothing" in food production as anything I'm even vaguely aware of can get - and it doesn't rely on getting us to eat algea or bugs, or subsist on a diet of beans, potatos, and cereal grain. It can tie in with field production, it can tie in with grazing. Integration, is the keyword. I couldn't even begin to imagine anyone having a complaint about the living conditions of the livestock because I'm just providing them with their preferred habitat in the first place - and removing the majority of predation from the system. Biological controls are my favorites, so anyone who takes issue with my system is just taking issue with good ole mother nature.
All of that said, economic efficiency -has- to be factored in, yes. Growing food is work, not charity.
This really all that's left for me to figure out. There's really no reason for anyone to grow food the way I want to grow so long as you can buy a whole lot more roi by using a subsidized methodology, such as fossil-fuels-as-food, or grain based.grazing based livestock production. I have to charge what people are actually paying for their food through all of these subsidies without being able to hide that cost or pass it off onto some third party. My marketing has to be targeted like a laser - and my market share is fundamentally limited. I've gone the route of activism and eco-tourism, personally. I hope to do alot of value added stuff (liquor, wine, preserves, etc) at some point in the near future but that incurs a cost in licensing and insurance that, due to economies of scale and -again- subsidy, puts me at a disadvantage in those markets that I would like to gain complete and utter control of. I want my name to be as synonymous with food as heinz is with ketchup - but that's not going to happen so long as oil is cheap (and it's effects unconsidered or incalculable), and so long as people keep leaning on disinformation to reach uninformed conclusions. For a production area just 30x60 it will cost me 32k dollars at lowes prices......and I can get everything at lowes...I even have the skus listed...lol just to build the thing. A further 15k in operation costs, and an undefined amount in marketing. That'll buy me about 4 tons of veggies, and a little under a half ton of livestock yearly. For the same price (and with the same low equipment requirement) I could lease and farm somewhere around 20 acres under our dominant field models, farming 5 and then stuffing the other 15 filled to brimming with a calf/cow, hogs, and chickens - and not have to worry about marketing at all. since the roi on an acre can reasonably be 1.4kUSD, on 3k in...and then uncle sam will cut you a check, and obviously because free range livestock is valuable - you can see why no ones beating down my door to get my model. I'd have to sell the veggies and livestock for a combined price of somewhere around 90k to make it all work (and conveniently, this is exactly what my wife and I aim for through subscription based ag) - while accepting upon myself even greater financial risk than is generally associated with ag. Thats 45 csa members, at $500 a pop. A substantial savings if one were to check it all off, but no one does, they just see a big number...lol.
There's a point in ag, that we tell folks thinking about breaking in, where your idea isn't a good idea on it;s own merits anymore. That point is reached when a commensurate investment in ag would yield more placed in a series of low risk stocks or bonds. As such, I'm doing what I do not because it's a "good idea", or because it could be said to be efficient under current conditions - but because it could change those conditions.....and somebody has to pay for that sort of change. We could grow plant based proteins with oil (and other fossil fuels), until they run out, sure. But we won't really be reducing the vast majority of suffering incurred by that process in doing so - as the vast majority of the suffering incurred does -not- happen at the feedlot or the slaughterhouse. So, by all means, save a few cows in the short term - I won't begrudge you there, but I'm in it for the long game.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(August 12, 2014 at 5:40 pm)James2014 Wrote: I could go on....
Of course many foods also have below 16% protein calorie denisty, fruits will be very low but most vegetables and whole grains are above 10% (which is all a norm needs anyhow). And this is of course without turning to soy products, which personally I quite enjoy eg tofu or vegan sausages etc or things that some people find difficult to find eg seitan, or vegan protein powders, all of which are way above 20%. The point is two fold, firstly we don't actually require that much protein, and secondly there are vegan sources that are more than ample.
lol you're preaching to the choir, here. I work out in the gym every day, and I'm also vegan. However, I've done some work calculating macros, and your math looks a little bit loose to me. For example, I think any 70kg guy who thinks he needs 3000 calories a day is likely wrong. We're talking at least a 10k run or equivalent and another hour of weight training each day, and even at that I'm not sure you'd hit 3000. I'd say anything more than a couple nuts or a tablespoon of peanut butter, and you're likely going to overshoot.
August 13, 2014 at 5:04 pm (This post was last modified: August 13, 2014 at 5:12 pm by James2014.)
(August 13, 2014 at 9:40 am)bennyboy Wrote: lol you're preaching to the choir, here. I work out in the gym every day, and I'm also vegan. However, I've done some work calculating macros, and your math looks a little bit loose to me. For example, I think any 70kg guy who thinks he needs 3000 calories a day is likely wrong. We're talking at least a 10k run or equivalent and another hour of weight training each day, and even at that I'm not sure you'd hit 3000. I'd say anything more than a couple nuts or a tablespoon of peanut butter, and you're likely going to overshoot.
hmmm, I think part of the confusion about calorie requirements is around what BMR is.
Lets say we start with our 70 kg athlete. His BMR is around 1745 kcals. If we were just to add exercise kcals to this, say 750 for a 10K run, and 500 for an hour at the gym, he would as you say not even reach 3000. However BMR is a measure of energy expenditure at complete rest, eg sleeping. For all your daily activities this will add to your calorie requirements. Even for light leisure activities like watching tv, one burns 0.4 times on top of your BMR according to the FAO. That's why if, for example, you use the nutrition data calorie calculator, and enter in the the details of a 70 kg man who runs 10k but is otherwise sedentary, the calories it says the man requires is actually above 3000 kcals.
Athletes will burn way more than 3000 kcals, and thats why every now and then you get people like Michael Phelps saying he burns 12,000 kcals! (although perhaps its more like 6000) For athletes the normal rules about how many cals they even burn at rest don't apply because they have extremely low body fat, and high muscle. And of course muscle has a much higher RMR.
Not all complete protein is the same. Any athlete or bodybuilder will tell you that egg and milk protein is the most digestible; meat is second; and vegetable protein is the least digestible. And people also differ in how their bodies handle digesting different proteins too. It's best to eat from all food groups.
It's not immoral to eat meat, abort a fetus or love someone of the same sex...I think that about covers it
August 13, 2014 at 8:39 pm (This post was last modified: August 13, 2014 at 8:40 pm by bennyboy.)
(August 13, 2014 at 5:04 pm)James2014 Wrote:
(August 13, 2014 at 9:40 am)bennyboy Wrote: lol you're preaching to the choir, here. I work out in the gym every day, and I'm also vegan. However, I've done some work calculating macros, and your math looks a little bit loose to me. For example, I think any 70kg guy who thinks he needs 3000 calories a day is likely wrong. We're talking at least a 10k run or equivalent and another hour of weight training each day, and even at that I'm not sure you'd hit 3000. I'd say anything more than a couple nuts or a tablespoon of peanut butter, and you're likely going to overshoot.
hmmm, I think part of the confusion about calorie requirements is around what BMR is.
Lets say we start with our 70 kg athlete. His BMR is around 1745 kcals. If we were just to add exercise kcals to this, say 750 for a 10K run, and 500 for an hour at the gym, he would as you say not even reach 3000. However BMR is a measure of energy expenditure at complete rest, eg sleeping. For all your daily activities this will add to your calorie requirements. Even for light leisure activities like watching tv, one burns 0.4 times on top of your BMR according to the FAO. That's why if, for example, you use the nutrition data calorie calculator, and enter in the the details of a 70 kg man who runs 10k but is otherwise sedentary, the calories it says the man requires is actually above 3000 kcals.
Athletes will burn way more than 3000 kcals, and thats why every now and then you get people like Michael Phelps saying he burns 12,000 kcals! (although perhaps its more like 6000) For athletes the normal rules about how many cals they even burn at rest don't apply because they have extremely low body fat, and high muscle. And of course muscle has a much higher RMR.
Hmmmm. I've used other calorie calculators before, and they definitely would not have given this result-- but now that I think of it, I used http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/ , set for weight loss (I wasn't really overweight, was just going for that 6-pack)
It occurs to me that a person trying to lose weight while also doing intensive exercise is at some risk because getting a good macro balance with sufficient protein will be harder due to the calorie deficit you are setting up. But I doubt that many long-term vegans have that problem.
