Vegetarian Guide
Home | Contact | Michael Blueja
thought-provoking articles
MOST POPULAR...
Most Popular
Why be vegetarian?
Vegetarian Myths
Veg. and the Environment
Is eating meat natural?
Why protein is a non-issue
Recipes
Books
Health
Nutrition for Vegetarians
Nutrition News
Medical schools don't teach
nutrition!
"More doctors smoke Camels" ad
Vegetarian doctors
Meat contains more pesticides
than veggies
Vegetarian breast milk is lower in
pesticides
Medicinal qualities of foods
Food
What do vegetarians eat?
Recipes
Vegan Ice Cream
Dangers of genetically-
engineered food (ext. site)
Culture
The Beatles and vegetarianism
Hitler was not a vegetarian
Vegetarian companies on the
stock market
History of vegetarianism
Interaction
VeggieDate (personals for
vegetarians; ext. site)
Vegetarian Societies in your area
Vegetarian Forums:
VeggieBoards, Vegan Forum, and
Dr. McDougall
Who's the one picking a fight?
(ext. site)
How to say you're vegetarian in
any language (ext. site)
Other
Vegetarian books
Vegetarian parenting
Lists of animal-derived
ingredients
Sources of non-leather shoes,
belts, etc.
Good vegetarian sites
Vegetarian Resource Group
North American Vegetarian
Society
VegDining (find restaurants around
the world)
Vegetarian Dating:
VeggieConnection
Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine
Stop Junk Food in Schools
VegSource
Why be Vegetarian? All about Protein Is meat-eating natural? Vegetarian Myths Veg. & the Environment
Setting the record straight
Vegetables have plenty of protein, and they're complete proteins as well
by Michael Bluejay • Last update: July 2017
Common vegetables have much more protein than you need,
Protein content of various foods
and contrary to popular myth, they're complete proteins as
well.1 The reason you've heard otherwise is that the people spouting protein 6.7% Fruit
myths haven't bothered to look up the actual numbers. So let's look at what
the science actually says — as well as some choice quotes from doctors and
11% Nuts & Seeds
dietitians.
13% Grains
We need only 2.5 to 11% of our calories as protein, according
to peer-reviewed research and the official recommendations.2,3,4 That
22% Vegetables
amount is easily supplied by common vegetables.4.1 Vegetables average
around 22% protein by calorie, beans 28%, and grains 13%.4.1 Have a look
28% Beans
at the chart at right.
The U.S. government's recommendation is 5-11%, based on various
Need (Low end)
factors.3 The World Health Organization recommends a similar amount.4 And 2.5% 11%
these recommendations are padded with generous safety margins, to cover Need (High end)
people who need more protein than average. WHO makes it clear that around
97% of people need less than their recommendations.4 Protein given as a percentage of calories. Food figures are averages for several foods
in each category4.1 and were taken from the bible of nutrient data, the USDA Food and
Nutrient Database. Human need is from peer-reviewed research2, US govt.
In any event, whether you think our needs are closer to 2.5% or 11%, recommendations3, and WHO4 Chart from MichaelBluejay.com, ©2009-12
you can see from the chart that it's nearly impossible to fail to get
enough protein, provided that you make sure to eat food. Every single
whole plant food has more than 2.5% protein, and every group averages at least 11% except for fruit. Protein is one of the easiest
nutrients to get.
The figures for food are from the bible of nutrition data, the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. (I
averaged the numbers for several foods in each category.4.1 To find the percentage of protein for a sample, multiply the protein grams by
4 and divide by the number of calories.4.2)
So plant foods easily supply our protein needs. The truth is that if you're eating food, you're eating protein—and almost certainly
more than enough.
It's meaningless to talk about a "source of protein", since all foods have plentiful protein. In other words, every whole food is a
"source of protein". You don't have to eat certain, special foods to get protein. You just have to eat any whole food. That's it.
Any well-educated health professional will tell you the same thing. Take Marion Nestle, Ph.D, chair of the Department of Nutrition
at New York University:
"We never talk about protein anymore, because it's absolutely not an issue, even among children. If anything, we talk about
the dangers of high-protein diets. Getting enough is simply a matter of getting enough calories."4.3
Anyone who says otherwise
simply hasn't bothered to look
up the actual numbers. The
Calorie & Protein Calculator
reason you've heard that plants are
protein-deficient is because Your body Daily Needs
everyone is simply repeating that Age 30 Energy (calories) Protein
misinformation without looking at
Gender Female Male Average: 37 grams
what the science actually says. The 1891 sedentary
(6% of calories)
science itself is clear and Height 5 ft. 4 in. use cm. 2132 low active
consistent, for anyone who cares to RDA: 45 grams
look. Weight 131 lbs. 2356 active (8% of calories)
It's true that meat has more Activity level Active 2666 very active
Athletes: 68 to 97 grams
protein than vegetables, but the Body fat % I don't know (12 to 16% of calories)
amount in vegetables is already
much more than you need. The Protein of vegetables: Spinach 50%, Cauliflower 33%, Mushrooms 31%, Zucchini 30%, Peas 29%, Broccoli 27%,
Lettuce (iceberg) 26%, Green Beans 22%, Bell Peppers 21%, Tomatoes 20%, Cucumber 17%, Celery 17%, Beets
extra protein in meat isn't better, 15%, Corn 13%, Onions 12%, Potatoes 11%, Eggplant 10%, Sweet Potatoes 9%, Carrots 9% (sources)
it's useless. If you're shopping for
a car and one goes 200 miles an
hour and the other goes 400, it
doesn't matter, since the maximum
speed limit in the U.S. is 80 mph.
Two hundred mph is more than
enough for a car, and 22% protein from vegetables is more than enough when your protein needs are only 2.5 to 10%.

Oh, but you've heard that plant protein is "incomplete", right? Well, that's not true either. Let's have a look....

Vegetables are complete proteins

We've all heard that plant protein is "incomplete" compared to meat protein, and that plant foods have to be carefully
combined to make a "complete" protein. Basically, it's an urban legend that was never based on science. The
American Dietetic Association abandoned that idea decades ago. Susan Havala Hobbs, Ph.D, R.D. describes how the ADA
discarded the protein combining myth:

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. [The
paper was approved by peer review and by a delegation vote before becoming official.] And it was a couple of
years after that that Vernon Young and Peter Pellet published their paper that became the definitive
contemporary guide to protein metabolism in humans. And it also confirmed that complementing proteins at
meals was totally unnecessary.8.5

There's a very easy way to see the completeness of plant proteins, that most nutrition writers haven't bothered
to do: Look at what's actually in the food! It's not like this is a secret; that data has been publicly available from the
USDA for decades, and now the USDA's database is even online.4.1 Below is what it looks like when you actually look up the
numbers.

Vegetables are complete proteins

Isoleu- Phenylalaline
Amino acid > Leucine Lysine Methionine Threonine Tryptophan Valine Histidine
cine +Tyrosine
Need
Brown Rice
Tomatoes
Potatoes
Green Peppers
Corn
Lettuce (iceberg)
Celery
Cucumbers
Oats
Carrots
Broccoli
Pinto Beans

Amino acid need from the World Health Organization4, food composition from the USDA nutrient database4.1.

Analysis is for each individual food all supplying calorie needs (closest to the "low active" category for a 5'11" 181lb. 25BMI male, as per the FDA).3

So when we compare the actual requirements to what plant foods actually contain, we find that basic plant foods
aren't incomplete at all. They have every essential amino acid, in excess of what we need. It might not surprise you that
beans are a complete protein by themselves, but even carrots are a complete protein. Tomatoes are a complete protein.
Celery is a complete protein. Even iceberg lettuce is a complete protein.

(Those who would object that we can't eat enough lettuce to satisfy our protein needs are wildly missing the point. The point
of using a day's worth of calories for a single food is simply to show mathematically how the food measures up, not to suggest
that anyone could or should eat only a single food. These plant foods are complete no matter how much or how little of them
you eat. That is, if only 1% of your diet is lettuce, then lettuce supplies more than 1% of your protein and amino acid
requirements.)

A 2015 study analyzed the dietary intake and blood amino acid levels of various groups, and found that vegans met
met the RDA for each and every amino acid. (Jack Norris)

Interestingly, the amounts for "Need" in the table are twice what they were until recently. The original
recommendations in the WHO's 1973 and 1985 reports were based on William Rose's pioneering work in the 1950's, and were
considerably lower.6 Rose determined the levels needed by his subjects by intentionally feeding them diets with a synthetic
mixture of declining levels of amino acids until they became deficient. After finding the highest amount needed by any
subject, he then doubled that figure to arrive at his recommendation.7 And the current WHO recommendations have doubled
their earlier figures again. And even with all these increases, individual plants still measure up as fully complete.

Experts confirm that plant proteins are complete

Besides the American Dietetic Association, other medical and nutrition professionals who have actually looked at
the science have come to the same conclusion that there is no need to carefully combine proteins. For example:

Dennis Gordon, M.Ed, R.D.:

[C]omplementing proteins is not necessary with vegetable proteins. The myth that vegetable source proteins
need to be complemented is similar to the myths that persist about sugar making one's blood glucose go up
faster than starch does. These myths have great staying power despite their being no evidence to support them
and plenty to refute them.8
 Jeff Novick, M.S., R.D.:

Recently, I was teaching a nutrition class and describing the adequacy of plant-based diets to meet human
nutritional needs. A woman raised her hand and stated, "I've read that because plant foods don't contain all the
essential amino acids that humans need, to be healthy we must either eat animal protein or combine certain
plant foods with others in order to ensure that we get complete proteins."

I was a little surprised to hear this, since this is one of the oldest myths related to vegetarianism and was
disproved long ago. When I pointed this out, the woman identified herself as a medical resident and stated that
her current textbook in human physiology states this and that in her classes, her professors have emphasized
this point.

I was shocked. If myths like this not only abound in the general population, but also in the medical community,
how can anyone ever learn how to eat healthfully? It is important to correct this misinformation because many
people are afraid to follow healthful, plant-based, and/or total vegetarian (vegan) diets because they worry
about "incomplete proteins" from plant sources. ...if you calculate the amount of each essential amino acid
provided by unprocessed plant foods ... you will find that any single one, or combination, of these whole natural
plant foods provides all of the essential amino acids. ...

Modern researchers know that it is virtually impossible to design a calorie-sufficient diet based on unprocessed
whole natural plant foods that is deficient in any of the amino acids. (The only possible exception could be a diet
based solely on fruit.)9

John A. McDougall, M.D.:

Many people believe than animal foods contain protein that is superior in quality to the protein found in plants.
This is a misconception dating back to 1914, when Osborn and Mendel studied the protein requirements of
laboratory rats.[11]... Based on these early rat experiments the amino acid pattern found in animal products was
declared to be the standard by which to compare the amino acid pattern of vegetable foods. According to this
concept, wheat and rice were declared deficient in lysine, and corn was deficient in tryptophan. It has since been
shown that the initial premise that animal products supplied the most ideal protein pattern for humans, as it did
for rats, was incorrect.... From the chart, it is clear that even single vegetable foods contain more than enough of
all amino acids essential for humans.... Furthermore, many investigators have found no improvement by mixing
plant foods or supplementing them with amino acid mixtures to make the combined amino acid pattern look
more like that of flesh, milk, or eggs.[35-44] ... People have actually lived for long periods of time in excellent
health by satisfying their entire nutritional needs with potatoes and water alone.[33] ... Nature has designed
vegetable foods to be complete. If people living before the age of modern dietetics had had to worry about
achieving the correct protein combinations in their diets, our species would not have survived for these millions
of years.10

Andrew Weil, M.D.:

You may have heard that vegetable sources of protein are "incomplete" and become "complete" only when
correctly combined. Research has discredited that notion so you don't have to worry that you won't get enough
usable protein if you don't put together some magical combination of foods at each meal.10.5

Charles Attwood, M.D.:

Beans, however, are rich sources of all essential amino acids. The old ideas about the necessity of carefully
combining vegetables at every meal to ensure the supply of essential amino acids has been totally refuted.11

The original source of the protein combining myth recants!

Interestingly, it's very easy to trace the protein combining myth to its original source: A bestselling book called
Diet for a Small Planet, in 1971. The author, Frances Moore-Lappé, wanted to promote meatless eating because meat
production wastes horrific amounts of resources. But she knew her readers would think you couldn't get enough protein on a
vegetarian diet, so she set out to reassure them, by telling them that if they carefully combined various plant foods, like rice
and beans, the inferior plant proteins would become just as "complete" as the ones in meat.

Lappé got her idea from studies that were done 100 years ago, on rats. The researchers found
that rats grew best when the proteins in their diets were in the same proportions as found in animal
foods. From this finding, animal proteins were arbitrarily labeled first-class while plant proteins were
deemed inferior. The problem with this conclusion is that rats are not simply smaller versions of people.
Baby rats actually need a higher percentage of protein than do baby humans, because they grow a lot
faster. People grow slowly. It takes a baby half a year to double its birth weight. A rat does it in only
four and a half days.4.8 So clearly rats are going to need more protein. In fact, rat milk is a whopping
49% protein4.9 — much higher than the mere 6% found in human mother's milk.

Lappé's idea of protein combining spread like wildfire. Soon the National Research Council and the American Dietetic
Association, without bothering to verify the hypothesis, joined in by saying that plant proteins were inferior and had to be
combined.4.6

But it wasn't long before Lappé realized her mistake, and owned up to it. In the 1981 edition of Diet for a Small
Planet, she recanted:

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 [emphasis in original]

Moore-Lappé has always been one of my heroes, and this is one reason why. Anyone can make a mistake, but it
takes someone of integrity to own up to it. Especially when that mistake was instrumental in the person's success in the
first place. And the mistake aside, Moore-Lappé pretty much single-handedly jump-started the vegetarian movement in the
U.S. in 1971, and deserves a place in history for that alone.

In any event, if you came to this page with the idea in your head that plant proteins have to be combined, I hope
it means something to you that the person responsible for that idea being in your head in the first place said that she was
wrong.

It's ironic, isn't it? Everyone who has the mistaken idea about protein combining got it from Moore-Lappé, directly or
indirectly, but she took it back.

What's really crazy is how many people cling to the myth even after learning that Moore-Lappé admitted she was
wrong. It would be akin to the news reporting that there was an earthquake in Japan, then correcting themselves and saying
that the earthquake was actually in China, but people insisting on believing the earthquake was in Japan simply because that's
what the news said first. Likewise, most people insist on believing that plants are incomplete even though the person
responsible for getting that thought into their heads in the first place now says it's not true.

Digestibility is not a problem

Some critics have screamed at me that plant protein isn't digested as well as animal protein. Once again, these
critics haven't bothered to look up the numbers.

The protein in beef and fish in 94% digestible. That's actually less than the digestibility than plant foods like white flour
(96%) and peanut butter (95%). Peas, rice, whole corn, soy flour, oatmeal, and whole wheat flour aren't far behind (86-
88%). Beans, despite their high protein content, are a bit further down on the digestibility scale (78%).3 (By the way, the
WHO report didn't list other vegetables, or I would have listed them here.)

This shows that digestibility isn't a problem at all, in practical terms. Plant foods still provide more than enough
protein, even after considering lower digestibility. From the numbers above, the protein in meat is digested 20.5% better
than that of beans. If we take someone with a higher than average need for protein (10% of calories), and add 20.5% to that
figure to account for lower digestibility, we now need 12.5% protein instead of 10%. And again, grains average 13% protein
and vegetables average 22%—more than enough.

Protein quality is not a problem

Some critics have pointed to various measures of protein quality, such as PDCAAS, which say that plant protein is inferior.
Such critics are missing the obvious: The quality measures are mostly based on the amounts of amino acids in foods, and
I've already explained in detail, with a nice chart, using numbers from official sources, that vegetables absolutely contain as
much or more than you need of each individual amino acid. That is, plant foods provide more than enough protein even after
you account for any differences in digestion or protein quality. Your body doesn't care whether the protein quality of what
you're eating is "very high" vs. simply "high". It's concerned only that you eat enough. As long as your body is getting as
much protein as it actually needs, it doesn't matter what form the protein comes in.

Critics are confusing more with better. Yes, animal foods have more protein, but that's not a benefit. There's absolutely no
advantage to eating way more protein than your body can use. If you need 2500 calories a day, would you be healthier with
3000 calories a day? No. In fact, eating that much more than you need would be detrimental to your health. The same is
true of eating too much protein. Excess protein intake has been linked to bone loss, osteoporosis, kidney damage, kidney
stones, immune dysfunction, arthritis, cancer promotion, low-energy, and overall poor health.13.3 The science on this is very
clear.

Vegan diets supply plenty of protein for building muscle

Plant foods supply plenty of protein even for athletes and those trying
to build muscle. In a recent study older adults doing either lower-body or
whole-body resistance training increased their muscle strength and mass on
the US RDA for protein of only 0.36 g per lb. of body weight.14.5 For a 120-lb.
person eating 2000 calories or a 180-lb. person eating 2500 calories, that's
8.6% to 10.4% of their diets as protein. And remember, vegetables average
22% protein and beans 28%.

Another study suggested that established bodybuilders need around

0.48 g of protein per pound of body weight per day (1.05 g/kg).15
(Incidentally, it also found that bodybuilders required 1.12 times and
endurance athletes required 1.67 times more daily protein than sedentary
controls.) For an 180-lb. athlete the 0.48 g/lb. figure is 90 grams (360 calories
from protein). For a 3000-calorie diet, that's 12% of calories from protein. And
again, vegetables average 22% and beans 28%.
 Those starting a muscle-building program may need more protein, 0.77 Vegan bodybuilders shatter the myth that
vegans are skinny and malnourished. (Pictured: Avi Lehyani,
g/lb. (1.7 g/kg).16 For a 180-lb. athlete that's 139 grams (556 calories). anonymous, Ryan Wilson, Robert Cheeke)
On a 3000-calorie diet, that's 18.5%, still less than supplied by common
vegetables.

If the athlete eats more than 3000 calories a day, or weighs less than 180 lbs., then the percentage of protein required goes
down even more.

In 2009 three major health organizations endorsed the 0.5 to 0.8 g/lb. (1.2-1.7 g/kg) figures above (American
Dietetic Association, Dietitians of Canada and the American College of Sports Medicine)17

More is not better. As one paper said, "Ingesting more protein than necessary to maintain protein balance during training
(e.g., >1.8 g/kg/d) does not promote greater gains in strength or fat-free mass."17.5.

Jack Norris, RD points out that nutrient recommendations are always "padded" with safety margins. That is,
most people need less:

Considering the information reviewed above...it seems reasonable to conclude that the protein needs of most
vegan bodybuilders are somewhere between 0.8 and 1.5 g/kg (0.36 and 0.68 g/lb) of body weight....

The Food and Nutrition Board, which sets the RDA, reviewed Lemon et al.'s study and others and concluded there
is no sufficient evidence to support that resistance training increases the protein RDA of 0.80 g/kg [0.36 g/lb] for
healthy adults.18

For more on protein and muscle-building, see my separate article on Protein & Strength.

Other objections
I get lots of misinformed objections to this article, but some of it is really wacky. One particular objection is that my
use of recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO) is wrong, because supposedly the WHO's
recommendations are designed only to prevent extreme malnourishment among impoverished third-world residents. Such
critics have apparently never actually read a WHO report, since such reports say the exact opposite. For example:

"The levels of energy intake recommended by this expert consultation are based on estimates of requirements of
healthy, well-nourished individuals."18.5 (emphasis in original)
"[T]he objective of this report is to make recommendations for healthy, well-nourished populations..."18.5
"The requirement...can be accepted as the best estimate of a population average requirement for healthy adults."3

It's really meat that's incomplete

When you think about it, it's kind of silly to single out protein, just one of the many nutrients, just so we can
declare plant proteins to be incomplete (although they're not). Why aren't we declaring meat to be an incomplete
vitamin? Because it is, you know. For example, beef is completely devoid of Vitamin C, an essential nutrient without which
you'd die. And beef doesn't just have a lower level of this essential nutrient, it has zero. So why didn't the authorities ever
caution us that we need to combine various foods to get a complete vitamin?

But actually, no combination of meat will make a complete vitamin, since every single kind of common meat has
zero Vitamin C. And it's deficient in other vitamins as well. So while plants aren't actually deficient in protein, meat is
definitely deficient in vitamins. But I'm sure you never heard about vitamin deficiency in animal foods. All you've heard about
is the supposed deficiency of protein in plants.

And speaking about biases, the whole protein-combining idea supposes that vegetarians are eating just one food,
which is allegedly incomplete. Okay, how many people do you know who eat one food? And since nobody eats just one
food, the whole idea of protein combining would be unnecessary anyway, even if it were true. So here again, what would be
the point of harping on protein combining when it doesn't matter?

Using some common sense

The largest land animals in the world, elephants, are exclusively vegetarian. They grow up to
10,000 pounds, by eating nothing but plant matter. They couldn't grow so big if plants weren't loaded
with protein.

Amazingly, many readers have protested this by saying "But we're not elephants!", as though
they've made some sort of point. If they mean to suggest that elephants don't need protein, they're
wrong: Every living creature on the planet does. Elephants don't have some magical superpower which
allows them to live and grow without eating protein. They need it, eat it, and use it, like everyone and
everything else.

Perhaps the point was supposed to be that elephants utilize protein differently? Not in any
meaningful way. All protein, whether plant or animal, is broken down into the individual amino acids
before the body uses it. And that goes for any body, elephant, human, or otherwise.

Maybe the idea was that elephants get enough protein from plants only because they eat so much? No, because
once you adjust for body weight, elephants eat less than we do. Per 100 lbs. of body weight, Americans eat about 3 lbs. of
food per day, while elephants eat only 1.9. 13.5
 And elephants aren't the only huge vegetarian animals roaming the planet. There are also horses, camels, giraffes,
elk, rhinos, cattle, and more. Clearly if these massive animals are eating only plants, then plants have more than sufficient
protein.

Ignoring common sense

We've seen what answers we get when we use credible resources and common sense. What happens if we just draw
ridiculous conclusions?

I studied nutrition at the University of Texas at Austin, one of the largest universities in the country. They taught
us that vegetarian or natural-foods diets were only for the stupid or naïve. I remember in particular one page from our
textbook, which had three pie charts, each showing the proportion of macronutrients in vegetables, meat, and a human being,
respectively. And by golly, the charts for the meat and for the human being were nearly identical! The implication was that
meat is an ideal food, because it matches our body type so well.

It was at that point I realized I paid too much for my college education. Of course the charts were the same, because
human beings are simply walking, talking meat. A body is a body, after all. By the logic presented in the textbook, if someone
is white then they should eat white food.

And what about all the other animals? Elephants, giraffes, and horses would all have a pie chart that looks exactly like the
one in the book. Shouldn't they be eating meat, too? Stupid elephants! You know, I really should go find a horse and try to
get her to eat some meat. If she's not interested, I should show her the textbook so she can see that beef has the same
makeup of her own body type. If that doesn't convince her, I should at least implore her to combine her proteins to make a
complete protein.

Changing our vocabulary

Now that we know the truth about protein, it's time to start changing the way we talk about it. Here are some common ways in
which the word protein is misused.

"Are beans a good source of protein?"

This question misses the point. When all whole foods have plentiful protein, it's meaningless to talk about a
"source" of it. Food is a good source of protein. We don't ask whether certain foods are good sources of
calories, because all foods have calories.

"I try not to eat a protein until lunchtime."

That's pretty much impossible, unless this person is not eating at all, since all whole foods contain protein, and
they generally contain more than what you need.

There is no food that is "a protein". Foods contain various nutrients, and protein is just one of them. It's
disparaging to food to identify it by just one of the nutrients it contains. Would you call peanut butter a protein?
Because it's actually mostly fat, much more fat than protein. Would you then call it a fat? Why so, since it has
more protein than you need? We have to stop equating foods with individual nutrients. Foods contain nutrients,
they contain a collection of nutrients (not just one), and in any event, all whole foods contain protein.

"Try to eat three servings of lean protein."

There is no such thing as "lean protein". There is only food, all of which contains protein.

We know that all food has protein, so something caled "lean protein" should at least be low in fat, right? Think
again. The National Institutes of Health says "lean protein" can have up to 3 grams of fat per 55 calories.14
That's up to 49% fat! Forty-nine percent is lean to these people?! Lean would be something like 10%. Half-fat
would not.

So "lean protein" is wrong on two counts. First it assumes that only certain foods have protein, or that a food can
be "a protein" (rather than being food), and second, "lean protein" isn't even lean.

Corrections

In an earlier version of this article, I mentioned that human breast milk is a mere 5.9%, supplying plenty of protein when
we're growing the fastest, which suggests that we wouldn't need more than that as adults when we're not growing so fast.
However, as The Vegan RD points out, a comparison to babies on a percentage-of-calories basis is problematic, because
babies consume lots more calories than adults. A six-month old baby needs 37-49 calories per lb. of body weight per day,
which would be like a whopping 5600-7400 calories/day for a 150-lb. person. Adjusting for a baby's voracious appetite, a
baby's protein intake would look more like 13% of calories.* So it's not right to conclude that since mother's milk for fast-
growing babies is only 5.9% protein, we therefore need less than 5.9% protein from our diets as adults. But we could
certainly conclude that we need less than 13% of calories as protein, and that's in fact what the official sources say. Even so,
common vegetables average more than 13% protein, even after adjusting for bioavailability.

*NIH says that a six-month-old weighs about 16.7 lbs. and needs 9.1g/d of protein. That would be 85.6g/d for a 150-lb.
person. For a 2650 calorie/day diet, that would be (85.6 x 4) ÷ 2650 = 12.9% of calories as protein.

Further reading:
 Dr. McDougall on protein
The Milk Letter: A message to my patients, by Robert M. Kradjian, M.D.

Vegetarian Vegetarianism and the

Why be
vegetarian? Save
animals, get healthy, lose
weight, help the planet --
take your pick!
Myths. From "plants Environment. Meat
All about Protein. Is meat-eating aren't a complete protein" production involves horrific
All vegetables have plenty natural? Our bodies to "Hitler was a amounts of water, land, energy,
of protein. Even carrots. are optimized for eating vegetarian", we run down and pollution, compared to plant
How do you think plants, not meat. Read all all the common foods. Going veg. is the easiest
elephants get so big? :) about it here. misconceptions here. way to lessen your impact.

This website is not medical advice. While the author has tried to ensure the accuracy of the information on this sit, and while he quotes many
medical doctors, he is not a medical doctor himself, and this website is not medical or nutritional advice. Anyone contemplating nutritional changes
should seek the counsel of a qualified health professional.

©1998-2017 Michael Bluejay | Contact

Note: Some footnote numbers have decimals because I inserted some new sources after the article was already written, and didn't want to have to painstakingly

renumber all the notes.

1
The McDougall Plan, John A. McDougall, M.D., (1983) pp. 98-100
2
Diet for a New America, John Robbins, 1987, p. 172, citing the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
3
Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids, Food and Drug
Administration, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2005. (Protein Estimated Average Requirement and RDA for adults is 0.66 and 0.8g per
kg of ideal body weight, respectively. These are married to the daily energy requirements listed in the same report for various genders, ages, heights, weights, and

activity levels, to get the range of percentage of calories from protein.)

4
Protein and Amino Acid Requirements in Human Nutrition (PDF), World Health Organization (2002). Recommendations on p. 126.
Recommendations are an "average requirement" of 0.66 g of protein per kg of ideal body weight, and a "safe level" of 0.86 g/kg.
4.1 USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (accessed August to December 2009)
FRUIT: Average of Apples, Pears, Grapes, Bananas, Plums, Oranges, Grapefruit, Watermelon, Strawberries, Peaches, Nectarines,
Cantaloupe.
VEGETABLES: Average of Broccoli 27.2%, Carrots 8.7%, Celery 17.3%, Corn 13.4%, Cucumber 17.3%, Green Beans 21.6%, Lettuce
icberg 25.7%, Mushrooms white 31%, Onions 12.4%, Peas 28.8%, Potato 10.8%, Spinach 49.7%, Tomato 19.6% (accessed December
2009)
4.2 Report on the Working Group on Obesity, Appendix B, US Food & Drug Administration website (accessed May 9, 2012)
4.3 Shattering the Protein Myth, Debra Blake Weisenthal, Vegetarian Times (March 1995)
4.6 Vegetarianism: Movement or Moment?, Donna Maurer (2002), p. 37
4.8 The McDougall Plan, p. 101
4.9 Diet for a New America, p. 175
5
World Health Organization, p. 150
6
World Health Organization, p. 135
7
The McDougall Plan, p. 97
8
Vegetable Proteins Can Stand Alone, Dennis Gordon, M.Ed,R.D., Journal of the American Dietetic Association (March 1996, Volume 96,
Issue 3), pp. 230-231
8.5 Vegetarianism: Movement or Moment?, p. 38.
9 Complementary Protein Myth Won't Go Away!, Jeff Novick, M.S., R.D., Healthy Times (May 2003)
10.5 Vegetarians: Pondering Protein?, Andrew Weil, M.D., DrWeil.com (Dec. 11, 2002)
11 "Complete" Proteins?, Charles R. Attwood, M.D., F.A.A.P., VegSource.com (accessed Sep. 4, 2009)
12 The Protein Myth, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (accessed Sep. 12, 2009)
13
Diet for a Small Planet, 10th Anniversary Ed., Frances Moore-Lappé (1982), p. 162
13.2
The Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), Gertjan Schaafsma, Journal of Nutrition, 2000; 130:1865S-1867S
13.3
Protein Overload, John A. McDougall, M.D., The McDougall Newsletter (January 2004)
13.5
For elephants, Smithsonian National Zoological Park. For people, average weight was calculated by comparing U.S. population by age
from the Center for Disease Control with U.S. weight by age from the U.S. Census, and then compared with food intake as per the USDA
Agriculture Fact Book 2001-2002.
14
National Institutes of Health website (accessed August 5, 2009)
14.5 Dietary protein adequacy and lower body versus whole body resistance training in older humans, Wayne W Campbell et al., J Physiol.
2002 July 15; 542(Pt 2): 631-642. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2002.020685
15
Influence of protein intake and training status on nitrogen balance and lean body mass. Tarnopolsky MA, MacDougall JD, Atkinson SA. J
Appl Physiol. 1988 Jan;64(1):187-93.
16 Protein requirements and muscle mass/strength changes during intensive training in novice bodybuilders. Lemon PW, Tarnopolsky MA,
MacDougall JD, Atkinson SA. J Appl Physiol. 1992 Aug;73(2):767-75

17
Nutrition and Athletic Performance, joint position of the American Dietetic Association, Dietitians of Canada and the American College of
Sports Medicine (March 2009)
17.5 Effects of protein and amino acid supplementation on athletic performance, Kreider RB, Sportscience 3(1), 1999
18Vegan Weightlifting: What does the science say?, Jack Norris, RD, Vegetarian Journal (2003, Issue 4)
18.5 Human Energy Requirements, Report of a Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation, Chapters 2 & 4, October 2001
19 When friends ask, "Where do you get your protein?", John A. McDougall, M.D., McDougall Newsletter (April 2007)
Some footnotes are decimalized to make it easier for me to insert footnotes without having to renumber all the footnotes on the whole
page.

While I didn't cite this in the article, in How Much Protein is Needed? (PDF), Professor T. Colin Campbell agrees (p. 18) that looking at the
percentage of calories from protein is preferable to looking at the number of grams, because grams will be different for different genders
while percentages will be the same. He also shows that the U.S. government recommendation for protein intake works out to about 9% of
calories.