By Joel Fuhrman MD on February 2, 2012
Eat Fat or Don’t Eat Fat, That is the Question
The major determinant of your long term health is the nutritional quality of the calories you eat. It is the quality of the fat you eat, the quality of the protein and the quality of the carbohydrate that influences your health.
Ask yourself, is the food I am about to eat a whole, natural plant source of calories? Is it packaged with fiber, antioxidants and phytochemicals? Does it contain not just discovered nutrients, but plenty of undiscovered nutrients too? Or were most of those fragile, but beneficial nutrients lost in the way the food was processed or prepared? These are the questions, to ask yourself, not whether it is a low fat or high fat food.
You may have heard that nuts, seeds and avocados are fatty and fattening and are foods to be shunned. However, recent evidence from many different studies showing a wide variety of health benefits from eating these foods has finally buried this myth. It is important to emphasize that the health problems associated with high fat diets are from consuming animal fats, processed oils and trans fats, not from the consumption of avocados, and raw nuts and seeds. There has never been a study that showed any negative health outcomes from consuming these natural, high fat, whole plant foods. In fact, the studies that have been done only show positive health benefits, and conclude that these foods should be an important part of a well-rounded, healthy diet.
Macronutrients are the three sources of calories—fat, carbohydrate and protein. Americans eat too much of all three and we need to reduce all of them. I intentionally do not give a preferred percentage of each macronutrient in the diet and I do not recommend fat be significantly limited. Trying to micromanage the precise amount of each caloric source misses the most critical issue in human nutrition. The real critical issue in human nutrition is meeting your macronutrient needs without excess, for all three macronutrients, and getting sufficient micronutrients in the process (vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals—the parts of food that do not contain calories). There is a broad acceptable range in the macronutrient ratio as long as one is not overeating calories.
However, adhering to a diet that is less than 10 percent of calories from fat is not an appropriate recommendation for ideal health and often results in less than ideal health outcomes. One could be on a healthful diet that is 15 percent of calories from fat or a healthful diet that is 30 percent of calories from fat too. As long as the diet is rich in micronutrients and does not exceed our need for calories, the lower fat diet has no advantage in the prevention and treatment of disease. There is no evidence to suggest that a diet of equal calories that is much lower in fat is an advantage for prevention or treatment of heart disease or any other disease. Studies that compare dietary fat percentages suggest that it is not the fat level, but other more critical qualities that make the diet more or less beneficial.
To achieve an ideal level of phytonutrients and other micronutrients it necessitates eating a large amount of green vegetables each day. Any diet that does not recommend sufficient consumption of vegetables is lacking. When you eat lots of vegetables, especially green vegetables, you meet your body’s need for fiber and micronutrients with very little calories. Then to comprise the balance of the diet and fill our caloric needs we can choose an assortment of other foods, preferably ones that are of the highest nutrient quality. Unlike some other doctors and authors advocating a plant-based diet, I recommend more vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts and seeds and use less bread, potato, and rice. With the addition of nuts and seeds, which average about 175 calories an ounce, one or two ounces a day brings the diet up to the 15 – 30 percent of calories from fat range. My recommend diet is definitely not under 10 percent of calories from fat and because of the addition of seeds and nuts it is also considerably higher in protein too.
It might seem logical to restrict higher fat foods like nuts seeds and avocado because high fat foods are higher in calories and fat is 9 calories per gram compared to 4 calories a gram for carbohydrates and protein. Of course one should take care not to eat too many calories and adjust the level of these foods to maintain a slim body and not to overeat on them or any other food. However, there are lots of good reasons to include at least some of these higher fat foods in one’s diet.
Evidence is accumulating that a diet as low as 10 percent of calories from fat Is too low, even for the overweight, diabetic or heart disease patient and that the judicious use of these higher fat foods is beneficial for not just heart disease, but for weight loss and diabetes too. The scientific literature corroborates my clinical experience over the last 15 years caring for thousands of patients with obesity, diabetes and heart disease, and provides evidence to show that for every calorie removed from the diet from rice, potato, bread or animal products and substituted with raw seeds and nuts you get many health benefits, such as:
• Lower blood sugar
• Lower cholesterol
• Lower triglycerides
• Better LDL/HDL ratio
• Better antioxidant status
• Better absorption of phytochemicals from vegetables
• Better diabetic control
• Lower weight
• More effective reversal of heart disease
• Prevention of cardiac arrhythmias in heart patients
• More weight loss, not weight gain
• Better nutritional diversity and satisfaction with less calories
• Increased protection against cancer
• Better muscle and bone mass with aging
With the growing awareness of the health properties of nuts and seeds, we must also realize that they must be eaten in moderation. Should we all sit in front of our TV’s, eat the entire bag of nuts in an hour, and complain when we gain weight? Of course not. Healthy eaters avoid excessive calories and do not eat for recreation. Eat only an ounce a day if you are significantly overweight, but if thin, physically active, pregnant or nursing eat 2 – 4 ounces according to your caloric needs.
Originally published September 30, 2009.
Read More By Gabriel Cousens MD on October 19, 2010
Dear Dr. Mercola,
Thank you for your excellent, thoughtful, and sensitive discussion on vegetarianism and the China Study. I have been researching and exploring the benefits of a plant-source-only diet for over 38 years (since 1973). Given the length of my practice and the scope of my experience, I have come to some working conclusions on the interrelated topics of diet, health, and longevity. I am writing this for the people who have become confused by your subtle, but clear avocation for a meat-centered diet over a plant-source-only diet, as they are tentatively inspired to shift from one paradigm of health and consciousness to a new level. Although I appreciate most of your points, my main objection is that your implication that people with higher metabolic protein requirements need to eat meat. Based on my extensive, successful, clinical experience over the course of 38 years of helping people do exactly that, with a 99.99% success rate, your position is misleading and untrue. Even former U.S. President Bill Clinton, who used to eat McDonalds hamburgers in front of the press, has turned to a plant-based diet and now drinks almond milk smoothies!
In summary based on my extensive clinical experience in supporting thousands of people becoming successful on a plant source only diet, I have found:
1. We are unique individuals for whom a consistently successful plant-source-only approach requires a thoughtful application of a constitutional approach to organizing ones diet. This includes, contrary to your subtle implication, that if someone is a fast oxidizer (i.e., needs a higher protein diet) that they need to be a meat eater. There are plenty of high protein sources in a plant-source diet, (such as spirulina, chlorella, and Klamath Lake algae – which are 60-70% protein and 40% assimilable as compared to meat, chicken, and fish, which are 14-16% assimilable). In other words, it is no problem for a fast oxidizer (high protein ratio need) to be 100% successful on a plant-source-only, live-food diet. I have had only one person in 40 years who wanted to be a vegan, not be successful using this approach; and they grew up near the Arctic Circle.
2. General health, vitality, endurance increases on the physical plane and an increased spiritual desire on a spiritual plane on a plant-source-only, 80% live-food diet. That is not to say, it is not possible to evolve spiritually on a meat-centered diet, but intense spiritual practices, such as the Tibetan monks utilize, are needed to overcome the negative impact of eating meat. As of 2005, the Dalai Lama has asked all Buddhists to return to a vegetarian way of life. Based on my clinical experience with thousands of meditators, a meat-centered diet suppresses the flow of the spiritual energy.
3. A plant-source-only, organic, at least 80% live-food, moderate fat and either low protein or carbohydrate intake, depending on constitution; low-glycemic, high-mineral, well hydrated and low caloric diet is best for general health, longevity, and spiritual life. Using these understandings and approaches 99.99% of the population can be successful, healthfully and spiritually, on a plant-source-only, organic, live-food diet.
4. Both a meat-centered and plant-source-only diet require supplementation for optimal health. It is a subliminal myth that a meat-centered diet does not require supplementation and therefore is better than a plant source only diet.
5. Eating higher on the food chain (meat, poultry, fish, and dairy) exposes one to significantly more environmental carcinogenic and neurotoxic substances which may strongly suggest that not only meat, but these toxins, increase inflammation and chronic disease associated with a flesh centered diet such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s (now seen as significantly related to environmental toxin exposure), diabetes, and heart disease, thus decreasing general health, wellbeing, and longevity in modern times. Unfortunately, to prove this with absolute scientific certainty may take thirty years or longer, as it did to prove smoking causes lung cancer. I suggest that the risk/benefit ratio encourages us to move to a safer and healthier diet now, as many may not make it another 30 years on the typical American meat-centered diet. Just like 40 years ago, I advised people to stop smoking before it was proven. As far back as 1990, in my book Conscious Eating, I cite research suggesting that animal flesh (being at the top of the food chain) contained approximately 15 times more toxins than vegetables. Root vegetables had 4 times more than leafy vegetables. Milk had about 5-6 times more toxins than leafy vegetables. This information in our rapidly increasing polluted environment becomes particularly significant in choosing the best diet for health. For example when looking at the Chernobyl disaster of 1986, statistics showed a 900% increase in perinatal mortality in the Boston area for three months after the nuclear incident. This was traced to radioactive I-131 released from the Chernobyl accident. Breastfeeding mothers were drinking cow’s milk (organic or otherwise) tainted by the I-131 landing on the grass the cows grazed on throughout the Boston area, and were passing this on to their nursing infants. Unfortunately, there have been many such incidents, secretly impacting our health and wellbeing.
6. The “idyllic, pure, primal, feral, meat-centered, food dream” is an impossible reality except for an elite fraction of the population, and it still doesn’t solve the issue of concentrated environmental toxins and the environment destruction the meat industry reeks. (The 416-page report aptly titled Livestock’s Long Shadow published by the Livestock, Environment, and Development Initiative [LEAD] presents on this topic.) In short, a meat-centered diet is a certain threat to global ecology.
Thank you for your thoughtful work in general, and in the future may you be more sensitive to these deeper issues.
Blessings to your health and spirit,
Gabriel Cousens, M.D. M.D.(H), Diplomat Ayurveda , Diplomat Board of American Holistic Health
Read More By Kathy Freston on October 15, 2009
Neal Barnard, MD
I’ve been researching the most common and devastating diseases Americans are dealing with, with the aim of finding a common thread running throughout both cause and reversal. As it is now, one out of every two of us will get cancer or heart disease, and one out of every three children born after the year 2000 will be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. These are devastating diseases, certainly to those who are burdened by them, but also to a health care system that is struggling to keep up.
The extraordinary doctors and nutritional scientists I’ve talked with seem to be saying – and saying fervently – the same thing: a diet high in animal protein is disastrous to our health, while a plant-based (vegan) diet prevents disease and is restorative to our health. And they say this with peer-reviewed (the gold standard of studies) science to back them up. Even the very conservative ADA (American Dietetic Association) says: “Vegetarian diets are often associated with a number of health advantages, including lower blood cholesterol levels, lower risk of heart disease, lower blood pressure levels, and lower risk of hypertension and type 2 diabetes. Vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index (BMI) and lower overall cancer rates.”
Diabetes does not just mean you take a pill or injection every day. It means you can lose a decade of life. And you while you inch toward that uncomfortable end, you deal with an increased risk of heart attack, blindness, amputation, and loss of kidney function. It’s a very serious disease. The good news is that diabetes can be halted and reversed in a very short time through some diet modifications.
To understand diabetes better, and to learn how to reverse it, I’ve talked with Dr. Neal Barnard, president of The Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine. He is an adjunct associate professor of medicine at the George Washington University School of Medicine, and the author of numerous scientific articles in leading peer-reviewed journals, and a frequent lecturer at the American Diabetes Association’s scientific sessions. His diabetes research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Government’s research branch. He is also the author of Dr. Neal Barnard’s Program for Reversing Diabetes.
KF: Why is type 2 diabetes suddenly so prevalent?
NB: Diets are changing, not just in the U.S., but worldwide. Diabetes seems to follow the spread of meaty, high-fat, high-calorie diets. In Japan, for example, the traditional rice-based diet kept the population generally healthy and thin for many centuries. Up until 1980, only 1-5% of Japanese adults over age 40 had diabetes. Starting around that time, however, the rapid westernization of the diet meant that meat, milk, cheese, and sodas became fashionable. Waistlines expanded, and, by 1990, diabetes prevalence in Japan had climbed to 11-12%.
The same sort of trend has occurred in the U.S. Over the last century, per capita meat consumption increased from about 150 pounds per year (which was already very high, compared with other countries) in the early 1900s to over 200 pounds today. In other words, the average American now eats 50 pounds more meat every year, compared with a century ago. In the same interval, cheese intake soared from less than 4 pounds per person per year to about 32 pounds today. Sugar intake has gone up, too, by about 30 pounds per person per year. Where are we putting all that extra meat, cheese, and sugar? It contributes to body fat, of course, and diabetes follows. Today, about 13% of the U.S. adult population has type 2 diabetes, although many of them are not yet aware they have it.
KF: What causes diabetes?
NB: Normally, the cells of the body use the simple sugar glucose as fuel, the way a car uses gasoline. Glucose comes from starchy or sweet foods we eat, and the hormone insulin escorts it into the muscle cells to power our movements. Glucose also passes into our brain cells to power our thoughts. In type 2 diabetes, the cells resist insulin’s action, so glucose has trouble getting into the cells.
KF: What happens to the body when one develops diabetes? What’s the fallout?
NB: If glucose can’t get into the cells, it builds up in the blood. It is as if gasoline coming out of a gas pump somehow can’t get into your gas tank, and it ends up spilling over the side of your car, coming in through your car windows, and dribbling all over the pavement. It is a dangerous situation. The abnormally high levels of glucose circulating in the bloodstream are toxic to the blood vessels, especially the tiny blood vessels of the eyes, the kidneys, the extremities, and the heart.
KF: Is it really that serious, or can we just take a drug for it?
NB: A person with diabetes loses more than a decade of life, on average; about three-quarters will die prematurely of a heart attack. It is also a leading cause of blindness, amputations, and loss of kidney function. Many drugs are available, from insulin to oral medications and an ever-increasing variety of other medications. In order to protect the heart, many patients are also put on medications to lower cholesterol and blood pressure. A person with diabetes who walks into my office is typically using $3,000 to $5,000 worth of medications each year. And yet these medications only slow the progression of the disease; many people have serious complications despite being on medications.
Let me emphasize that this grim scenario does not have to occur. If an unhealthy diet is the cause, a better diet can provide the answer to this problem.
KF: How can we avoid it?
NB: The key is to help our body’s insulin to work normally. So long as your body’s insulin can escort glucose into the cells normally, diabetes will not occur. The resistance to insulin that leads to diabetes appears to be caused by a build-up of fat inside the muscle cells and also inside the liver. Let me draw an analogy: I arrive home from work one day, and put my key in my front door lock. But I notice the key does not turn properly, and the door does not open. Peering inside the lock, I see that someone has jammed chewing gum into the lock. Now, if the insulin “key” cannot open up the cell to glucose, there is something interfering with it. It’s not chewing gum, of course. The problem is fat. In the same way that chewing gum in a lock makes it hard to open your front door, fat particles inside muscle cells interfere with insulin’s efforts to open the cell to glucose. This fat comes from beef, chicken, fish, cooking oils, dairy products, etc. The answer is to avoid these fatty foods. People who avoid all animal products obviously get no animal fat at all, they appear to have much less fat build-up inside their cells, and their risk of diabetes is extremely low. Minimizing vegetable oils helps, too.
And we can go beyond prevention. When people who already have diabetes adopt a low-fat vegan diet, their condition often improves dramatically. In our research, funded by the U.S. Government, we found that a vegan diet is more effective than a traditional current diabetes diet, and is much safer than a low-carb diet.
KF: What about the claim that a vegetarian diet has too many starches, which raises blood sugar?
NB: Starchy foods, such as whole grains, beans, and vegetables, are healthful foods, and the body is designed to use the glucose that they hold. In type 2 diabetes, the body has lost some of this ability. But the answer is not to avoid starches, but to restore the body’s ability to use them. After all, cultures whose diets are traditionally high in carbohydrate–Japan, China, Latin America, etc.–have had very low diabetes rates until meat, cheese, and other fatty foods displace their healthy carbohydrate-rich diets; only then does diabetes becomes more common.
The Atkins fad unfortunately left many people imagining that carbohydrate (that is, starch) is somehow risky. That notion is as unscientific as suggesting that water or oxygen is dangerous. The body needs all these things for good health.
A similarly persistent but misguided idea is the blood-type diet approach. A popular book on this subject said that people with type A blood should follow a vegetarian diet but that people with type O blood should not. Unfortunately many readers with type O blood followed this advice, which turned out to be quite wrong. The fact is, people with type O blood do as well as everyone else on a plant-based diet. A vegan diet is helpful and effective, regardless of blood type.
KF: Can diabetes be reversed?
NB: Yes. When people begin a healthful diet, most see big improvements in weight, cholesterol, and their blood sugar. Their need for medications diminishes, and some may not need medications at all. In some cases, you would never know they had had diabetes. However, I caution people not to simply throw their medications away. They need to speak with their doctors so they can alter their medication regimens only when and if it is appropriate.
Let me describe a case: A man named Vance joined our study. His father was dead by age 30, and Vance was 31 when he was diagnosed with diabetes. As our study began, he started a low-fat, vegan diet and gradually lost about 60 pounds over a year’s time. His blood sugar control returned to normal, and his doctor discontinued his medications. Imagine what it feels like to see family members assaulted by this disease, but then to realize that you have effectively tackled it by making healthful adjustments to your diet.
Vance also encouraged me to mention that it is not only blood sugar that gets better, his erectile dysfunction also improved dramatically, too–in case anyone needs an extra motivator.
For more information, go to http://www.pcrm.org/health/
Originally posted at The Huffington Post.
Read More By Brendan Brazier on September 28, 2009It’s Meatless Monday! Learn why plant-based protein is just as great (if not better) than traditional protein sources used by many athletes. You don’t have to sacrifice results at the gym by going veg and Brendan Brazier is here to tell you why…
Having been a competitive endurance athlete since the age of 15, I found that – once I overcame the initial pitfalls –a plant-based whole food diet offered several advantages. Among them; I didn’t get sick as often, I was able to train harder, and I stayed light – yet became stronger. Clearly these are significant advantages when pursuing peak athletic performance. However, remaining light while having the ability to build muscular strength – and therefore functionality – was certainly one of the greatest attributes this novel way of eating bestowed upon me.
As endurance athletes, we don’t aspire to build muscular size (bulk), but rather to simply develop what muscle we do have to be strong, and thereby function efficiently. Building strength while not packing on bulk will raise strength-to-weight ratio. That’s good. And as a direct result, endurance will take a leap forward.
But what about strength athletes such as bodybuilders, can they benefit from a similar plant-based diet? Yes, in fact they can. While endurance athletes aim to develop efficient muscles, without increasing their size, bodybuilders are quite the opposite. In competition – since bodybuilders are judged by appearance alone – they train accordingly. Bulk, symmetry, and definition are the three visual points a bodybuilder will be assessed on. Since the way in which their muscles actually perform – their functionality – is not factored into scoring, time and effort will not be spent honing that aspect.
However, what builds efficient muscles in endurance athletes is the same thing that builds visually impressive muscles in bodybuilders: hard work.
Does More Protein Mean More Muscle?
Immediately following an intense workout, those serious about packing on lean muscles will down a high-protein shake. They know that to repair muscle tissue after breaking it down in the gym requires the rebuilding properties that protein is touted for. But what most don’t place credence in is the protein source. In the minds of many, quantity is the priority; the more protein, the better. But does more really equate to better results? Let’s take a look.
The way to add extra protein to the diet, while not increasing fat or carbohydrate content, is to mechanically or chemically remove the fat and carbohydrate component. What remains is called protein isolate. The protein has been isolated from the other macronutrients of the food and as such, its ratio has increased. Some manufactured isolates register protein content in excess of 90 percent. But once isolated, it is no longer a whole food and therefore harder for the body to digest, assimilate, and utilize. Plus protein isolates are inherently acid-forming. And with the onset of an acidic body, functionality declines.
It is true that when a traditional acid-forming post-workout smoothie that contains protein isolate is swapped out for a plant-based whole food option, muscular size loss is likely. Understandably, this will lead to concern for those athletes whose goal it is to pack on muscle mass. But, what is actually transpiring is a good thing. What they are loosing in size is simply inflammation.
Eat Plants, Work Hard, Build Muscle
Immediately following a weight training workout, the muscles will be broken down and thus inflamed. And as we know, acid-forming food creates inflammation. Therefore the consumption of a traditional post-workout smoothie that contains protein isolates will exacerbate the level and rate of inflammation. With inflammation comes size. But, with inflammation also come a reduction in functionality. As the muscles become less functional, their ability to lift weight declines. That’s a problem. Lifting heavy weight is what builds muscles strong – and big. Of course if the body delves into a less functional state, it simply won’t have the ability to work as intensely. And without the capacity to train hard, muscles cannot continue to grow. In addition to inflamed muscles not having the capacity to lift as much weight, more time will also need to be allocated between training sessions to allow inflammation to dissipate. That’s bad. Since intensity and frequency are the two prime components to a successful muscle-building program, inflammation can well become the greatest single inhibitor of progress.
Post Workout Plant-based Nutrition: Helping You Help Yourself
In place of isolates and acid-forming animal foods, there are host of plant-based options that will ensure inflammation be kept to a minimum. Post workout, excellent plant-based protein sources include: hemp, pea, and rice protein. And while protein is a crucial component for muscle repair and building, so too are essential fatty acids (omega-3 and omega-6), vitamins, minerals, enzymes, probiotics, antioxidants and a host of other nutritional components that can be found in a variety of plant-based whole foods. This being the case, the post workout smoothies will deliver greater results if it contains these components, not mearly protein. Additionally, chlorella – a form of freshwater algae – is an excellent edition to the post-workout smoothie. Due to its exceptionally high chlorophyll content, it’s among the most alkaline-forming foods available. Plus, its protein percentage is almost 70 percent, naturally.
So while plant-based nutrition won’t necessarily make you a better athlete, it will allow you to train harder, thereby making yourself a better athlete. And as all great athletes know, their success hinges on their ability to pursue it. With improved functionality and less rest required between workouts, success will be yours for the taking.
Read More By Brendan Brazier on March 5, 2009
Properly balanced plant-based protein can offer several advantages over more traditional animal-based options. I discovered this along the way when I was searching for a performance advantage. At the age of 15 I made the concerted decision that I wanted to race Ironman triathlons professionally. Aware that staking the odds of making this happen in my favor would rely heavily upon a sound nutritional strategy, I began to search for one. Going somewhat against the grain, I decided to experiment with a plant-based diet. As you might imagine, criticism flowed: where would I get my protein? Until it worked. I raced Ironman triathlons professionally for seven years, all on a plant-based diet. I honestly believe that the detail I applied to my nutrition program was a large reason for me even having a Pro Ironman career at all. The following is what I learned about protein and how you can apply it to boost your overall performance, improve muscle tone and increase your energy level.
It was once thought that only animal protein was complete and therefore a superior source to plant-based options. Complete protein is comprised of all ten essential amino acids. By definition, essential amino acids cannot be made by the body; they must be obtained through dietary sources. And, in fact, there are actually several complete plant protein sources. However, to obtain all amino acids in high quantities, it’s advantageous to consume several complementary sources of protein on a regular basis. For example, hemp, yellow pea and brown rice protein make up a superior amino acid profile that rivals any created in the animal kingdom.
Additionally, one of the big advantages of properly balance whole food, plant-based protein over animal protein is its only slightly acidic or neutral pH. In contrast, highly processed foods are acid forming, and even more so are animal based foods. Whey protein isolate, for example, is highly acid forming. Whey, strait from the cow, would be numeral and even slightly alkaline, but once the protein gets isolated (therefore rendering it no longer a whole food) and it is then pasteurized, these two steps of processing lower its pH, making it considerably more acid-forming. Meat, pork in particular, is also highly acid forming. Acid forming foods include all those that are cooked at a high temperature or highly processed. Among the most acid forming are meat, coffee, pasteurized milk and cheese, prescription drugs, margarine, artificial sweeteners, soft drinks and roast nuts as well as all refined flour-based foods. Refined flour-based foods include: most commercial breakfast cereal, white pasta, white bread, conventional baked goods.
As a basic rule, the more that has been done to the food, the more acid forming it will be. The less that has been done to alter its original state, the more alkaline forming it will be.
It’s advantageous to maintain a neutral pH. Eating too many acid forming foods will promote inflammation, reduce immune function and cause highly-alkaline calcium to be pulled from the bones to keep the blood in its neutral state of 7.35. This of course leads to lower bone density and in many cases, osteoporosis. In fact, the over consumption of highly refined foods is the reason that we as North Americans are contracting osteoporosis at a younger age than ever before in history.
The most alkaline forming foods are those with chlorophyll, the green pigment in many plants. Leafy greens for example. Hemp is an excellent example in that is contains complete protein, yet the fact that it is not isolated and that it contains chlorophyll helps maintain a more alkaline pH.
A large salad is also a good high-quality protein option. I realize that when many people think salad, protein is not usually what comes to mind. Although, dark types of lettuce are up to 40% protein and spinach registers at about 45% protein. Since leafy greens are light, of course, this doesn’t add up to astonishingly high numbers in term of grams of protein. However, since protein in leafy greens is already in amino acid form, the kind usable by the body, it doesn’t have to be converted; therefore it saves the consumer energy. The body can’t use protein as is, it must convert it to amino acids first. Therefore in my book Thrive: The Vegan Nutrition Guide to Optimal Performance in Sports and Life, I classify foods with this quality as “one-step nutrition” foods. They offer a significant advantage. Since the step of converting protein to amino acids is eliminated, the body will conserve energy through the assimilation process. And, because of this energy savings, you will have a greater amount. If you don’t spend it, you still have it; that’s the premise of another one of the core principals in Thrive called “energy through conservation as opposed to consumption.”
If a large enough salad is eaten, taking into consideration its “one-step nutrition” quality and therefore its ability to provide more energy than foods that don’t assimilate as efficiently, a substantial amount of usable protein will be ingested.
“Pseudo grain” is the term given to what is technically a seed, yet commonly referred to as a grain. Examples include: amaranth, buckwheat, quinoa and wild rice. Since they are all in fact seeds, their nutritional profile closely reflects that. They are gluten free, and higher in protein than grains. They can also be easily sprouted. The sprouting process converts the protein in pseudo grains into amino acids, putting them in the one-step nutrition category, thereby significantly improving their digestibility. Additionally, sprouting raises their pH making them an alkaline-forming food. And with greater than 20 percent protein in amino acid form and superior digestibility, pseudo grains are a sound protein source. Adding half a cup of sprouted buckwheat to a large salad will certainly yield a high-quality protein meal.
Brendan Brazier: Professional Ironman triathlete, two-time Canadian 50km ultra marathon champion , bestselling author on plant-based performance nutrition, and formulator of Vega whole food nutritional products. www.brendanbrazier.com
Read More 
