/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2799401]

I have a question that's been bugging me a bit lately. If protein as a nutrient is proteins constructed within the organism that is being consumed that can be broken down into their constituent amino acids, and proteins are universal among complex organisms that anyone could consume. Why is fleshy meat so much more protein rich than say, vegetation? I presume it's likely due to concentration of proteins, but what is the reason behind this difference in concentration of proteins in muscle mass, as opposed to any other tissue, be is plant or animal?

[Anonymous No.2799419]

more work done = more protein

plants do hardly any work

[Anonymous No.2799437]

>>2799419

What proteins specifically? Is Myosin solely responsible for the protein richness of muscle tissue?

[Anonymous No.2799445]

>>2799437
There could be several. Ask your university's prof in charge of cell systems biology. It's related to the density of mitochondria in muscle mass.

[Anonymous No.2799460]

two things

concentration, for various reasons. animals are motile, so have muscles. plants use only cellulose for structural strength, whereas animals use proteins as well as bone (also chitin in insects).

also amino acid ratios

plants often have less amounts of certain amino acids (typically lysine in grains, methionine in pulses). these limiting amino acids mean when we consume say grains, we have to throw away the excess of all the other amino acids when we synthesis proteins.

they aren't actually thrown away, just deaminated and used as carbs

[VP !JymFboxxyQ No.2799475]

"protein" is a term that is misunderstood. in cell biology, yes, it is an amino acid chain, but this does not give an indication of the size nor composition of the protein itself.

in nutrition, they should really be saying "amino acids" instead of proteins. some of the amino acids can be manufactures by the body, others cannot.

plants contain very little in the way of amino acids that are useful for the body, and even then, they do not contain much protein at all.

the majority of plant material is actually cellulose, a glucose chain that is not readily broken down in the human digestive track.

this is why meat is important. muscle contains vast amount of protein, in the same proportion (roughly) as what is needed by the body. this makes it perfect for a healthy diet.

[Anonymous No.2799506]

>>2799475
>plants contain very little in the way of amino acids that are useful for the body

if you ate nothing but rice to get your calorie requirement you would get enough of every essential amino acid needed, and enough non-essential amino acids for your body to convert into the amino acids your body can manufacture

http://www.ajcn.org/content/59/5/1203S.long

[VP !JymFboxxyQ No.2799792]

>>2799506
oh please, read their "table 11" at the end. it is so full of opinion.

on top of this, they even concede that animal protein is required to achieve a proper balance:

problem: "Plant proteins alone are not sufficient to achieve an adequate diet (protein intake)"

their answer: " The intakes and balance of intakes of indispensable amino acids and nitrogen are crucial and can be adequately met from plant or plant and animal source"

>or plant and animal
>plant and animal
>need meat to get the right amount of proteins.

heck, read through the fucking article. they have to invoke the use of genetically modified crops.

"we compare the amino acid composition of common hybrid and high-lysine maize and have calculated the PDCAAS for these different cultivars. The prediction is that the nutritional value of the high-lysine variety is superior to that of the hybrid maize and this has been confirmed in metabolic studies in children, as summarized by Bressani"

they then go on to admit that not only do you have to use highly regulated diets in order to get the right amount of nutritional intake, but that it requires a mixture of different plants that must be taken at specific ratios.

then comes the best part:

"The latter assay seriously underestimates the nutritional quality of the soy isolate for children and adults."

they literally ignored their own results. they just said "well, other people think that soy is good, therefore it is and we will ignore this data".

i have never seen a paper dripping with as much bias as that one is.

[Anonymous No.2799813]

Was this a clever "vegetarians are stupid" troll?

[Anonymous No.2799814]

soy is the worst protein source out there. its a half step above tendons and gelatin.

that said, combining whole vegetable protein sources, for instance brown rice and beans, or corn and peas, will provide complete protein, but to get the total amount of protein you actually need, you have to eat then at the same time and in rather large amounts, such that you end up with a good deal of extra calories if you aren't very active.

also, soy is quite healthy for woman, and in small amounts for men, but its not good for making new protein, it has two things, glycine, which is an inhibitory neurotransmitter(relaxing, lowers bp) and phytoestrogens, which are very healthy for women and even good for men in small amounts.