Talk:Protein combining

Science speaks

The following sources were found to support the importance of combining at a meal:

The law of the minimum was tested at University of Southern California in 1947. "The formation of protein molecules is a coordinated tissue function and can be accomplished only when all amino acids which take part in the formation are present at the same time." It was further concluded, that "'incomplete' amino acid mixtures are not stored in the body, but are irreversibly further metabolized." Robert Bruce Merrifield was a laboratory assistant for the experiments. When he wrote his autobiography he recounted in 1993 the finding:

We showed that no net growth occurred when one essential amino acid was omitted from the diet, nor did it occur if that amino acid was fed several hours after the main feeding with the deficient diet.

References

Rgdboer (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Article is still biased in 2023

It's 2023, and this article is still biased against widely-recognized facts about protein combining. This despite many edits over more than 16 years.

The current structure is (simplifying, obviously):

• Protein combining is a discredited theory that says something about vegetarians having to eat both grains and beans.
• Here's a history of it and why it's discredited.
• Well, OK, vegetarians do have to eat both grains and beans, they just don't have to be in the same meal.

The structure should be (again, simplifying):

• Protein combining is the practice in which vegetarians eat both grains and beans.
• Here's evidence that that's the right thing to do.
• Originally, people said you should have grains and beans in the same meal, but that's not actually necessary.

The current article (June 4, 2023) drives home the general feeling of discreditedness by using words like "theory", "purports", "outdated", "dogmas", and "supposed". It buries the only aspect of the idea that has been discredited (that you have to combine proteins in the same meal) halfway through the second paragraph.

The fight over the idea that we need complementary proteins in every meal was ended in 1981, when Frances Moore Lappé withdrew her support for the idea in the second edition of Diet for a Small Planet. I don't know why people are still fighting this fight in 2023, but most of the articles that I find anywhere on the net (not just Wikipedia) have the same emphasis.

Wikipedia should be a countervailing force to shed light on the idea, not repeat biases found elsewhere. No further references and evidence are needed; we just have to structure it differently, to emphasize what's widely recognized to be true, and to put a 40-year-old resolved debate in its proper position (strictly historical). JamesHAndrews (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The bias is due to conflict of interest shown by "dieticians" that are not funded or trained in meal preparation for vegetarians. A cut of meat for protein is standard practice. Knowledge and effort of meal preparers does not meet requirements of those in care requesting vegetable meals. Essential means indispensable so the original analysis of protein needs stands, and was verified as shown above in §Science speaks. This knowledge portal is in fact a battleground of information warfare as shown by the edit history of this article. Rgdboer (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are referring to an important issue, but one that is different from the point that I was making.

I agree that, regardless of whether it's necessary to combine amino acid sources at a single meal, it's often by far the most convenient thing to do, because then you don't have to remember whether you got your unit of grain, legume, etc. today. This especially applies to the scenario where someone has to prepare meals for vegetarians who are in care.

I propose that we have a section on protein combining at a single meal. In that section, we could give your references to Geiger and Merrifield, and say that many experts no longer think it's necessary, but also point out that in some cases, like someone preparing a single meal for a vegetarian, it's the most convenient thing to do.

The only problem with such a section is that it might be construed as "original research" or opinion. It would be nice to find references. JamesHAndrews (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Still Biased

The vandalism of the "complete protein" page has stopped, but has moved over here. This has been going on for years.

The rice and chickpeas example is original research and should be deleted, or maybe the entire page should be deleted if editors cannot agree on a NPOV.

Spope3 (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Melina/Craig/Levin

The first reference cited by the trio Melina, Craig & Levin is interpreted to say that protein combining is "outdated". Actually that article states that protein combining may be "over-rated". Among the statements of their finding there is, "The prevalence of protein inadequacy was calculated during the EPIC-Oxford study using the EAR cut-off method, and the authors found figures of 10% in men and 6% in women (compared to 3% in male meat-eaters and 1% in female meat-eaters). Taken together, although there are some uncertainties regarding these estimates, they nevertheless suggest that a modestly higher proportion of lacto-ovo-vegetarians than meat-eaters could have protein intakes that do not meet their individual requirements." This reference admits that the challenge of adequate protein nutrition in vegetarians is real ! The discounting of protein combining in the article ought to be relegated to a § Reaction with a more accurate reading of this reference. — Rgdboer (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)