That’s a rather excessive amount unless you mean g protein/kg instead of g protein / lbs
People who exercise regularly also have higher needs, about 1.1-1.5 grams per kilogram. People who regularly lift weights or are training for a running or cycling event need 1.2-1.7 grams per kilogram. Excessive protein intake would be more than 2 grams per kilogram of body weight each day.
2g / kg = ~0.9g /lbs for reference
Sure, but they intentionally built in large margins to these reference. Of course zero lead is ideal, but it’s not what happens in practice. The metric consumer reports used has a 1000x safety factor vs the FDA’s 10x safety factor
The FDA’s studies of dietary lead exposure show that the average American adult consumes between 1.7 and 5.3 micrograms daily through their normal food intake
[…]
The FDA, as part of its “Closer to Zero” campaign and using a 10X safety factor, has set its reference levels at 2.2 micrograms per day for children and 8.8 for women of childbearing age (to protect against accidental fetal exposure). This means that regularly exceeding these might pose health risks.
[…]
California’s Prop 65, however, used a far higher 1,000X safety factor (1,000 times lower than minimal known unsafe levels) to arrive at 0.5 micrograms of lead per day as its reference level.
From the same article as above
I assume you are referring to the consumer reports headlines, they have been greatly misleading. They have been using an extremely low level as their bar for concern. Here’s a recent piece talking about that
This is an unachievable safety target, significantly below the lead you get from average daily food consumption
[…]
But compared to the FDA’s more realistic numbers, 6.3 micrograms is 71.6 percent of the reference level for women of childearing age, meaning it’s safe even for at-risk individuals. For adult males, who are more likely to glug protein shakes, the risk is negligible. Children, with some exceptions, shouldn’t be consuming protein powder at all
[…]
And it bears noting that Consumer Reports’s tests showed levels of lead that were higher than tests of Huel carried out by the National Sanitation Foundation, an independent testing body, which showed that a serving of Huel Black came in under 3.6 micrograms
(https://archive.is/y6ZHk for paywall)
So I say “consider how some people actually do have a single source of protein per day, they’re not combining it with other food sources, but they should be aware of this” and your reply is “oh but you see they’re combining it with other food sources so that’s not important” flawless logic.
My point is that it effectively happens anyway without even having to think about it in 99% of cases. It’s not really a large issue in the slightest. It just makes things sound scarier and more complex than it needs to be. People have finite ability to focus on various health things, and this just isn’t something 99% of people need to be worried about
If someone is eating the exact identical source exclusively, every single day with no variation in anything, they are likely going to end up deficient in other things way before this, regardless of which thing they are eating (unless it’s something like Huel or Soylent which is designed to include everything). This is not at the level of “someone has beans a lot”. This is at the level of “virtually all of your calories come from beans” to be some larger issue
Many people use it as a lever to attack plant-based diets in situation that it just doesn’t apply at all by making it sound like it’s something you’re needing some spreadsheet for. It’s really not the case. Plus things like soy, chia, hemp, and more are also already complete too
I never said that. You mentioned it, I said I agreed, and you mentioned it again to reinforce a point I never made. Trying to pad out the comment or something?
I was not saying that you said this. I should have worded that better. I was trying to add some more context for relevant statements from authors talking about both complete proteins and protein combining. I did a poor job of that though
because your body will absolutely not fully digest the 2g of protein in your 100g plate of white rice.
You don’t need to digest all of it, it’s just about a specific amino acid (Methionine in this case which beans already have some of). It’s just a little bit to make it complete. For instance, one of the studies you linked with rice + lentils found the two together rose the DIASS to overall be 100% (122% for infants and kids, 143% for older adults)
I should also note protein quality metrics are also often based on some faulty assumptions for plants in particular. For instance, the DIASS has some flaws that make it undervalue the quality of plant proteins
While multiple strengths characterize the DIAAS, substantial limitations remain, many of which are accentuated in the context of a plant-based dietary pattern. Some of these limitations include a failure to translate differences in nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors between plant- and animal-based foods, limited representation of commonly consumed plant-based foods within the scoring framework, inadequate recognition of the increased digestibility of commonly consumed heat-treated and processed plant-based foods, its formulation centered on fast-growing animal models rather than humans, and a focus on individual isolated foods vs the food matrix. The DIAAS is also increasingly being used out of context where its application could produce erroneous results such as exercise settings. When investigating protein quality, particularly in a plant-based dietary context, the DIAAS should ideally be avoided.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13668-020-00348-8.pdf
Many researchers argue the exact opposite - that it is way overemphasized. Especially because thing you might not think of as protein sources can add the missing other amino acids. Things like wheat, rice, etc. also have protein that can complement others. It’s extremely unlikely for a bean heavy diet to actually have beans as the sole source of all protein even if is the main source
Combining does not need to happen for every single meal: so long as the diet is varied and meets caloric needs, even vegans and vegetarians – people who tend to have more “incomplete protein” in their diet – can easily meet their amino acid needs. In other words, most people do not need to consider the completeness of proteins of single foods.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_protein
Especially the false idea that it has to be done at each meal
Protein combining has drawn criticism as an unnecessary complicating factor in nutrition.
In 1981, Frances Moore Lappé changed her position on protein combining from a decade prior in a revised edition of Diet for a Small Planet in which she wrote:
"In 1971 I stressed protein complementarity because I assumed that the only way to get enough protein … was to create a protein as usable by the body as animal protein. In combating the myth that meat is the only way to get high-quality protein, I reinforced another myth. I gave the impression that in order to get enough protein without meat, considerable care was needed in choosing foods. Actually, it is much easier than I thought.
“With three important exceptions, there is little danger of protein deficiency in a plant food diet. The exceptions are diets very heavily dependent on [1] fruit or on [2] some tubers, such as sweet potatoes or cassava, or on [3] junk food (refined flours, sugars, and fat). Fortunately, relatively few people in the world try to survive on diets in which these foods are virtually the sole source of calories. In all other diets, if people are getting enough calories, they are virtually certain of getting enough protein.”[13]: 162
The American Dietetic Association reversed itself in its 1988 position paper on vegetarianism. Suzanne Havala, the primary author of the paper, recalls the research process:
There was no basis for [protein combining] that I could see… I began calling around and talking to people and asking them what the justification was for saying that you had to complement proteins, and there was none. And what I got instead was some interesting insight from people who were knowledgeable and actually felt that there was probably no need to complement proteins. So we went ahead and made that change in the paper. [Note: The paper was approved by peer review and by a delegation vote before becoming official.]
Focusing on complete proteins is largely unhelpful 99.9% of cases. Unless you are eating a exclusively singular source of protein for all meals and snacks it’s going to be not practically relevant. You don’t need to get all the amino acids at the same meal - just at some point in the day. And even thing you don’t think of as protein sources can be enough to make something complete. For instance, just adding rice is enough to make beans complete
It’s also not the case that the beans don’t have all the amino acids, they do, it’s just less on certain ones. Which is why it can often take so little to make something complete protein. Complete is just a bar of “does it have this specific threshold of the amino acids”, not does it contain them at all
Incorrect, you can always have more beans
Source: I love beans
Very fitting username for this post. I wish I could be so clever. Alas, they are tricky to come up with
Not helpful for this exact scenario, but may can help if you’re trying to encourage someone to run for local / state office: Have you heard of the group Run for Something? They help young progressives run for office. They can help out in both general primaries and general elections
Not that useful in scenarios besides reading: if you curl your hands in front of your eye and leave a very tiny opening you can create a pinhole that’ll make a tiny bit of your view in focus
Photo from Minute Physics demonstrating what you need to do for that:
I mean this a state where their anti-bestiality law already have an explicit exception for “accepted animal husbandry practices”, so I’m going to take a wild guess that they’re not going to make any attempts to enforce it that way.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0344/BillText/er/HTML
(Though to be fair these kinds of exception exists in a surprisingly large number of states)
Linked article in the body suggests that likely wouldn’t have made a difference anyway
The scrapers ignored common web protocols that site owners use to block automated scraping, including “robots.txt” which is a text file placed on websites aimed at preventing the indexing of context
I interpreted the word “this” in the original comment to mean at “New York, specifically” since that was the original topic for the reply. Maybe that’s not what you intended, but I think that’s how most people in this chain read it and understood it
Yes, it should be banned, but it should be banned nationally. Why focus on the people responding to an egregious behavior? Stop Texas from doing it, then it won’t spread. If they go through and dems don’t respond in kind, the voters will has already been subverted. What are we protecting really but republican power?
Texas dems have left the state to block quorum (Texas requires 2/3 legislature present to operate) so that Texas legislature can’t put the bill through. Keep the pressure on Text first and foremost instead of focusing rage at the people actually trying to fight back. It’s not a given that any of the response will be needed, but if that is needed, we must do it. If Republicans maximize gerrymandering of every state and there is no counterbalance, our republic will struggle to hold on. There will be no saving of the voter will if a party that wants to destroy it is left to continue holding the reigns
This is in response to Texas trying to doing it abruptly 5 years before redistricting. They will do every damn other state with Republican trifectas if dems don’t response in kind
Taking the high road doesn’t work. Unilateral disarmament is not the move here. It’s either banned for all or none. Republicans have been chipping away at any federal requirements against it for decades and using that to their advantage
Saw someone do a rough estimate mapped out all states with current trifectas and found that neither side could lock in a majority if that went to the max and could make maps that went 100% one side or another. Republicans in that scenario have a slight edge, but still 84 seats that wouldn’t be decided by gerrymandering alone (how much of a swing district it actually is may vary). It was a rough estimate so take it with a grain of salt. That also assumed that the states with independent legislative committees all remove said committees and that the Voting Rights Act becomes 100% gutted
State and local elections are going to matter a lot even if it doesn’t go to that extreme scenario. Make sure to always vote in them. Virginia and New Jersey have important statewide elections coming up this off-year in November
Good news doesn’t break through half as much as bad news does. State dems have often (though not always) shown much more resolve to do stuff like this than the national party has
Earlier this year in Maine, the governor challenged Trump to his face on his illegal attempts to cut school lunch money funding over a single digit number of trans athletes in the state. She won in court and Trump folded and gave the money back
Earlier this year in Minnesota, a judge ruled a dem wasn’t able to go to office on a technicality (that Republicans only brought up after he won). That seat changed the house from tied to 1 seat GOP, and so Dems then did not show up to deny quorum until after a special election took place. The republicans tried to force operations and operated without a quorum. Dems sued and got a judge to rule every single one of the republican’s actions was invalid because it was without quorum. They then won the special election and only then started back up state legislative operations
There are people willing to do the work. Show up to every damn primary and vote to make sure they are the dominant force in the party
To clarify at the end, by “the case”, I mean the original article my comment is replying to. As in they posted an Ohio Supreme Court ruling from 2024
Free range in the US and many other countries just requires “access” to the outdoors. Access is not defined. That can be conveniently interpreted to be as little as “we had a door to a tiny screened area we open up sometimes.” Or just straight up not enforced. Free-range eggs don’t have a legal definition at all in the US from my understanding
And often for a number of the terms, they just have to submit documentation to the USDA, but not actually ever receive inspections on it. Even when clear cut labels like “no antibiotics ever” seems like it’d be hard to have a weak definition around right? Well silly, you can just ignore violations of it. Here’s one example of that for the beef industry
Federal Inspectors Found Antibiotics in Beef ‘Raised Without Antibiotics.’ They Took No Action
Can’t speak for this specific blend sourcing they used in this study, but soy protein is usually cheaper in much of the world. It’s why most protein bars use soy protein isolate