Some numbers:
Comparison of the 8 amino acids between : a) daily requirements in grams for an adult of 60 kg; b) whole wheat content per 100g; c) whole rice per 100g
Lysine a) 0.22; b) 0.35; c) 0.40
Tryptophan: 0.15-0.15-0.16
Phenylalanine: 0.22-0.60-0.37
Methionine: 0.23-0.31-0.37
Threonine: 0.35-0.41-0.40
Leucine: 0.51-0.87-1.02
Isoleucine: 0.47-0.50-0.65
Valine: 0.54-0.54-0.77
NOTE: the reproaches made when the insufficiency of certain amino acids in food is probably justified when it is based on foods refined by industry. (or the meats which can be boosted with hormones, antibiotics, GMOs in their food) are not refined like the plants of which mainly the most constructors like cereals of all kinds.
Ratio between growth and percentage of proteins in whole milk:a) Individual; b)% of proteins in milk; c) weight doubled in days.
Female: 1.6% -180 days
Mare: 1.8-60
Cow: 3.3-47
Goat: 3.7-37
Ewe: 5.15-22
Sow: 5.2-14
Pussy: 7-9.5
Bitch: 7.4-9
Rabbit: 10.4-6
obamot hello
Honestly, I find that the stats of the LV stats (all trends combined) are very undervalued. It is only when you want to do studies that you notice it (proof that they existed before they were listed). There are two reasons for this:
- economic, not everyone can afford to eat meat and nothing that this segment of the population must represent a significant percentage.
Precisely, as I said earlier, we will count as VG people who do not regularly consume red meat, because too expensive for example, but consume other animal foods. So are not VG according to the very definition of this food mode: "
In common parlance, all food practices excluding animal flesh but including the consumption of other animal products are simply called vegetarianism and their practitioners, vegetarians
Other eating practices influenced by vegetarianism exist, such as pescetarianism, often qualified as "pesco-vegetarianism" which includes the consumption of fish, shellfish and aquatic flexitarianism often qualified as "semi-vegetarianism" which includes occasional meat consumption. The veganism meanwhile excludes all animal products "..wikipedia
Hello izentrop
This is where the difficulty lies in believing studies rather than others and as you say, "
and I prefer THIS version of health professionals. »It is a right to believe these rather than those of course as in political choices.
This article is particularly interesting because it rightly points out that a targeted scientific study can give everything and its opposite according to the criteria selected.
On the other hand, the end of this article is more interesting because it precisely emphasizes this subjectivity which is more of the order of self-justification than of scientific reasoning (this is valid for its opponents of course) such this argument:
«
3. No one has ever seen a species of mammal suckle or use the milk of another species. Reasoning that swallows up Man to the rank of superior monkeys, AND ESPECIALLY DENIES HUMAN SPECIFICITY. In fact, only the human race has learned to milk animals. Why then not accept that man is the only species that continues to drink milk after reaching adulthood? To accredit the thesis of milk contemptors, would humanity, in most latitudes, have gone astray, taking advantage of dairy products, and this for more than ten millennia? »
In reality, humanity has not gone astray, it has adopted an opportunistic behavior which wants that between risking death from food insufficiency and using a means of survival, the second prevails over the first, whether for dairy products or meats. But that supposes extreme conditions which are not of the order of permanence. On the other hand, when a substitute has any advantage, the individual (the group) will continue a use which is no longer justified. For example, drugs which replace deficient biological mechanisms and which the organism even demands at the cost of its destruction.
Or this in the conclusion:
«
Man must consume a wide variety of foods to ensure his physiology, since he is inherently omnivorous. »
This is contradictory with knowledge in anatomobiology which is not questioned on the scientific level. He should have written "
he is omnivorous by his culture "As for the consumption of milk which it goes back to more than ten millennia
only Clearly, during the thousands, millions according to the theory of evolution, of previous years, humans would not have consumed any even when they wrote: "
IT IS MUCH MORE DANGEROUS FOR YOUR HEALTH TO DELETE MILK PRODUCTS THAN TO CONSUME IT. And despite this supposed danger humanity has done without for a very, very long time.
However, the consumption of an unsuitable product may not be perceived in the short term since the body is so well made that it has filter organs which (like the filters in a car) purify the flow of blood which passes through the liver which retains, then eliminates by its excretory organs this waste and poisons of all kinds (if they are not directly fatal like certain mushrooms and some plants which, apart from its alkaloids, have valuable nutrients too (like other foods milk and meat included).
But the organism ages, the filters clog more and more and clog less and less (with pathologies associated with this progressive insufficiency) from where the preventive positions which seek to determine what will load the least possible these organs in order to preserve their function as long as possible while the individual lives. What obviously opposes the discourse "
you have to eat everything " or " "
Man must consume a wide variety of foods to ensure his physiology, since he is inherently omnivorous. »
This argument which seems full of common sense, hides above all a justification of behavior adopted by companies, but especially by the one who defends his own eating behavior. I have also noticed, and I am not the only one, that it is around the age of XNUMX that the machine begins to express its dissatisfaction with all that has been imposed on it (not only the food, but in large part) and where the overworked organs start to fail.
Like this : "
Or, conversely, the unjustified suppression of food classes, dairy products in this case, which deprives their specific intakes of nutrients, calcium and zinc in the first place, but also other vitamins and trace elements, quality protein. Each food class has its specificity and preferably provides one or more nutrients, none of which should be overlooked. IT IS MUCH MORE DANGEROUS FOR HEALTH TO DELETE DAIRY PRODUCTS THAN TO CONSUME. "This is the typical example of what he reproaches elsewhere in his article, that is to say a [
b] PROPAGANDE [/ b] unjustified, untrue, since all people who do not consume dairy products (such as meats) do not present more or even less health problems than those who consume them.
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré