Promoting a smarter human race, and a healthier planet Earth.

Here are two objections that, in some form, meat-eaters pose to the vegetarian or vegan. Many meat-eaters have (often, but not quite always) been culturally/corporately programmed to believe that the objections are more of a 'silver bullet' to the heart of the plant-based diet, than actual questions for which the thoughtful vegetarian (or vegan) has an entire battery of excellent answers. Let's consider this question first: "How are you going to get your protein? You need protein." There are two lines of answers to this question/objection— (1) the more 'intuitive' realities, which are are so directly understood that no scientific exposition is required, and (2) the quantified realities of biochemical science.

(1). Contained in the question, "[if you don't eat animals] how are you going to get your protein?", is the corporately indoctrinated myth that plant foods are deficient in protein. The scientific (biochemical) destruction of this myth will follow shortly, but for now picture an animal with large, strong bones and large, strong muscles. A mountain gorilla, a rhinoceros, a draft animal such as a powerful horse or ox, a bull elephant, or, reaching backward in time, a sauropod such as a seismasaurus, the largest and strongest terrestrial animals to ever walk our planet. None of these animals are meat-eaters. They're all plant-eaters. Be honest, do any of them strike you as being protein-deficient weaklings?! They derive plenty of dietary protein— from plants (which is chemically demonstrated below). Perhaps undeterred at this point, you're inclined to ask, "but can humans have strong bones and strong muscles without eating meat?" The answer is an unequivocal YES, as proven by many world-class athletes who do not eat meat. Here are just a few:

Shown [above and below] are 14 distinguished vegetarian and/or vegan athletes, champions and legends of competitive arenas variously emphasizing speed, strength, skill & precision, endurance, or combinations of these attributes. [Above, left to right]: Joe Namath, legendary quarterback, American football; Dave Scott, 6-time Ironman Champion, triathlon; Surya Bonaly, champion figure skater; Bill Pearl, 4-time Mr. Universe, bodybuilder; Robert Parish, legendary basketball 'ironman', holds record for most NBA games played; Bill Walton, NBA basketball legend; Tony Gonzales, holds several all-time NFL records for tight end, American football. [Below, left to righ]t: Andreas Cahling, champion bodybuilder, Carl Lewis, 9-time Olympic Champion and 8-time World Champion, track's most dominant athlete of the past several decades; Keith Holmes, World Champion Middleweight, boxing; Scott Jurek, World Champion, ultramarathon; Fred Dryer, legendary NFL pass rusher, American football; Jack Lalanne, famed fitness coach, perhaps healthier in his mid-nineties than are most people half that age; Edwin Moses, Olympic and World Champion, track.

Several vegetarian and vegan notables are absent from the present listing, but these and other champions demonstrate the reality that meat is superfluous to the human diet, extraneous even to the diet of a world-class athlete.

(2). Perhaps you're puzzled. Perhaps you're even a bit annoyed (this is information that deeply bothers many people). It probably doesn't fit very well with your dietary programming (what you believe you know about nutrition). What about that 'food pyramid' thing? What about the centrality of meat-eating to strong muscles? Elementary school charts and marketing messages may have long taught you that meat and dairy are necessary for strong bones and strong muscles, and that vegetables are good for, uhmmm_ better vision in low light (or something obscure like that). This is the programming upon which powerful agricultural and pharmaceutical interests have successfully arranged to affix an official US Government seal of approval.

At least for a moment, step back and critically evaluate this programming. Did you take any biology classes in high school or in college? Do you recall what biological structures (living cells), including those of the Plantae kingdom, ARE? Yes. Protein. Plants contain— plants are proteins. Despite animal protein's interesting 'dietary' label— "high quality protein" (care to guess which industry interests bring us this label?)— plant protein is more accessible (to many digestive systems, including those of humans), without the harmful chemicals concomitant to animal proteins (cholesterol). Contrary to the popular myth, per unit mass/energy, the total protein content of plant-based foods is very similar to that of animal-based foods.

The information reflected in the above chart, was published by the US Department of Agriculture, whose bias is to strongly promote animal-based foods, and the corporate interests who directly benefit from that promotion. Even so, the truth shines through. Examine the numbers. Note the similarity of protein content, when comparing plant-based to animal-based foods. And note how lopsided the comparison of every other nutrient!

Anyone who’s paid any attention to the nutritional language of the animal-foods industry—and of a happily cholesterol-indulgent culture that is not inclined to critically examine that language—has some acquaintance with the term “high quality protein.” “High quality protein” means animal protein (as opposed to plant protein). Animal proteins are more chemically similar to each other than to plant proteins. The amino acid ‘profile’ of ham (pig butt) is more similar to that of potato bugs than it is to potatoes, more similar to leeches than to leeks. Similarly, the amino acid profile of a pine nut is more chemically similar to that of a mango than it is to that of a moth, or a man. Linnaeus’s taxonomy predicted as much long before anyone knew what amino acids or proteins were.
“High quality protein” is a tautological coinage that persists in America’s casual discussions of nutrition, but is a misleading label that is rarely if ever used by most present day nutritional biochemists. Until the early 1990s it had been assumed that dietary animal protein must be more useful, that is, digestible, for humans than dietary plant proteins would be (here, in part, is the reasoning by which animal proteins came to be called “high quality”). It is now known that this isn’t necessarily the case. Scientists and governing bodies around the world (the World Health Organization, the FDA in the US, etc.) now use a standard measure called the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS). In this now standard biochemical measure, a “best” PDCAAS score is 1.0. A 1.0 score means the food has all the amino acids “essential” to the human diet and is also ‘accessible’ by the human digestive system. Whey powder (animal protein) and soy isolate (vegetable protein) each score a perfect 1.0, and are favorite protein suppliment sources for athletes competing in muscle ‘bulk’ sports like bodybuilding and weightlifting. While so-called “high quality protein” won’t be on the vegan weightlifter’s menu, highest quality protein certainly will be (although it won’t have a snappy little name like “high quality protein”).

In simple, traditional, and obvious combinations, many of the most common vegetarian and/or vegan foods have a 1.0 PDCAAS. These are combinations of legumes (beans) and grains [or nuts/seeds, more information below]. Convenience foods like veggie burgers "max out" the protein scale, as do combinations of ‘rice and beans’, traditional fare reaching back uncounted centuries in various cultural cuisines/diets around the world.

— Pick your protein: Note the PDCAAS (protein corrected 'score') of the foods shown here. —


beef PDCAAS = 0.92	ham PDCAAS = 1.0	rice & beans PDCAAS = 1.0	vegan [veggie] burger PDCAAS = 1.0

A humble but nutritious serving of rice and beans* has the same (human dietary) protein score as does a serving of ham, and a higher score than beef. We needn't suggest that beef is a poor source of protein—that would not be true, 0.92 is a high score—but it is surpassed by a vegan 'veggie' burger. The protein score should, however, be enlarged to include a consideration of what else comes with all meat, and animal-based foods generally. Meat is inescapably a cholesterol delivery system, and high blood cholesterol is the chemical factor more closely associated with certain diseases than any other single factor. Plant-based foods have no cholesterol, instead they have chemical compounds like beta-carotene and lycopene, which act as antioxidants and combat many diseases, even slow aging processes! Animal-based foods contain almost no antioxidants. So which are really the high quality proteins‡—the animal-based ones that come with disease causing compounds, or the plant-based ones that come with disease fighting compounds?
*The rice & beans shown are brown rice with black beans; many combinations of whole grains and legumes are PDCAAS 1.0.
‡"Lean cuts" of meat may contain less harmful fat, but provide no significant reprieve from cholesterol.


shellfish / fish PDCAAS = 0.77-1.0	pork sausage PDCAAS = 0.63	cheddar cheese PDCAAS = 1.0	edamame (soybean) PDCAAS = 0.91	hummus & bread PDCAAS = 1.0	vegan taco PDCAAS = 1.0

Returning now to the other objection to the plant-based diet— "But people have always eaten meat." We'll overlook the fact that this "always" is a presumptive colonization of history that deviates from history, especially in India for example (where as much as 40 percent of the population has been vegetarian for at least 2,500 years), and just proceed as if it were true. This kind of statement may contain either of the following related arguments (or both of them).
(a.) Correlations are implied that people have 'always' done a thing because it has been a self-evidently 'beneficial' thing to do. In this case, "people have always eaten meat because it is healthful to do so," for example. This is a non sequitur. It appeals to history, but history cannot offer a means by which the expected correlation can be empirically or rationally demonstrated. It cannot be shown that people would not have generally benefited from 'always' doing something else instead. Additionally, the kinds of histories to which this argument makes appeal, will, in at least some cases, suggest that "people have always eaten meat regardless of whether or not it was healthful." For example: historically, peoples of the far northern latitudes have had restricted access to plant-based foods, have therefore adopted the most meat-centered of human diets, have had many diet-related maladies, and have typically experienced relatively short life expectancy.
(b.) A second, and related, argument may be contained in the statement "people have always eaten meat." In this case, an ethical relationship, or even ethical imperative, is expected. What is then being argued is something like "because people have always done a thing, it is the right thing to do." Another non sequitur, the problem here is more obvious and more severe than what was discussed above. An argument identically formed could be that since people have 'always' deceived, or assaulted, or murdered other people, that it somehow follows that these are the right things to do.

Interestingly, Plato (a vegetarian) contemplated these kinds of statements and arguments two and a half millennia ago!

brute stupid
But can he count past "1"?
Or live past 65?

Impaired function above the musculus trapezius?

Many Internet sources, often bodybuilding sites, declare that obtaining suffient protein from plant-based foods is "difficult," "challenging," and requires one to "take care." Here's what makes it so difficult — one will face the challenge of eating as many as 2 foods!

The following food types may be paired in seemingly endless combinations to provide "complete protein" (all of the essential amino acids of the human diet): [1] grains, [2] legumes, [3] nuts/seeds.

¬ Grains with legumes (rice and beans, for example)
¬ Grains with nuts/seeds (eg, whole grain bread and nut butter)
¬ Legumes with nuts/seeds (eg, hummus w/ sesame or pine nuts)

Nut butter on bread: difficult!
Complicated. Challenging!

"Legumes in combination with cereal grains form the basis of human diets in large geographic/cultural regions of the world. These combinations are so well adapted that they give the appearance of having existed continuously since first domesticated. This appearance is borne out by archaeological evidence. . ." Lawrence Kaplan, Professor Emeritus of Biology, UMass

Grains, nuts and seeds, and legumes (beans), have been traditional food staples in many ancient and modern human societies, and for good reason. These protein rich foods are readily stored for consumption throughout the year. Each of these foods contain all of the essential amino acids, although the protein content of any one of them will have less than the optimal level of one or more amino acid. This supposed inadequacy is eliminated by simply including 2 or more of these food types in dietary intake. These "combinations" need not be consumed as actual combinations, that is, they need not be consumed together or even included in the same meal, although in many cultures they have been, and/or are. It is especially curious that so many bodybuilders and would-be experts seem to find combining plant-based proteins to be such a "challenge" —given that most preschoolers can readily master the feat!

Of course, not even the burliest simpleton can live healthfully on a single food, so it is quite a curious thing to see people apparently interested in nutrition willing to suggest that this is, in any sense, the case (at least when considering dietary protein in isolation from more holistic biochemical factors). This dully echoing suggestion that dietary protein is optimally obtained from a single animal-based food source, fundamentally disregards the breadth of nutritional biochemistry. The fact is, if your diet does not include many nutrients found almost exclusively in plant-based foods, you will literally disintegrate (due to scurvy, for example), and die.

A green salad that includes walnuts (or pine nuts, pecans, sunflower seeds, pepitas, whatever) and garbanzos (or red beans, edamame, peas, etc) will provide complete protein (all essential amino acids in required quantity), and it will also provide dietary fiber, plus vitamins, iron and other necessary minerals [take it easy on the dressing though]. If this salad includes tomatoes and/or beets, Mandarin segments, etc, it will also include disease-fighting anti-oxidant, free radical neutralizing, chemical compounds that promote general health and even longevity. By comparison to, say, a serving of pork sausage, this salad is not only a better source of protein (please notice this!), it contains zero cholesterol, and naturally belongs in the human diet in a fundamental biochemical sense that the sausage (or, say, a bacon-double-cheeseburger) simply cannot rival.

Iron and Omega-3 fatty acids—two more questions/ objections answered.

But how are you going to get your dietary iron? Meats are high in iron, right? Can you get enough iron from plant-based foods? And what about Omega-3 fatty acids? Don't you have to eat fish to get that?

IRON: Iron deficiency is positively associated with inadequate levels of healthy red blood cells, which carry oxygen to the body's tissues. Iron deficiency is a cause for anemia and general 'weakness' or 'tiredness' and for unhealthy skin. Some people believe that meats—and in particular liver—are dietary iron necessities. Are they wrong? Yes.

Clams have a lot of iron, sunflower seeds have more. Oysters have a lot of iron but cream of wheat has more than twice as much. Liver is famous for its iron content—but prune juice has more iron. Dried apricots have more dietary iron than beef. Baked potato (with skin) has more iron than beef steak. Lima beans have more than twice the iron of shrimp.

Considered in isolation, iron is less easily absorbed from plant sources than from meat, but this 'problem' is strongly mitigated by the fact that vitamin-C, significantly present in many plant-based foods but vitrually absent from animal-based foods, enhances iron absorbtion by as much as sixfold (!), and that many vegetable foods are rich in both iron and vitamin-C. While many [narrowly reductionistic] sources instruct that vegans and vegetarians should take extra care to make sure they are including enough iron in their diet, it is simply not a serious concern for someone embracing a diverse diet of vegetable-based foods (including fruits like papaya and others, in particular). Studies have demonstrated that vegans have comparable levels of blood iron to that of meat-eaters.

OMEGA-3 FATTY ACIDS: Omega-3s are unsaturated fatty acids that some studies have associated with heart, brain, and immune system health. Fish, most notably salmon, has been widely identified as providing high levels of omega-3 fatty acids. Can one include enough of this nutrient in his/her diet without eating fish? Fortunately, the answer is a definite 'yes' —salmon comes with an increasingly severe ecological and toxicological 'down side,' whether farmed or wild, as has been well documented. As is shown in the table above (statistics published by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition), there are plant-based foods that provide higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids than does seafood, including salmon.

Protein, Iron, and Omega-3 fatty acids: Concluding comments.

A 'trail mix' featuring seeds (pumpkin and/or sunflower), nuts (especially walnuts), and dried fruit (apricot, papaya, dates, raisins, etc), is an exceptionally outstanding source of dietary protein, and dietary iron, and omega-3 fatty acids.

Choose foods thoughtfully, and be well.

The HTML documents of this cite are consistently accurate when viewed in any semi-current browser except Microsoft's Explorer, which ineptly plays by it's own rules. If the formatting or performance of this page is funky, it's because you're using IE.