Do Vegans Get the Amino Acids They Need? | Game Changers Debate

So you said, what's a little disingenuous about the film, they said every plant has every amino acid. Well, yeah, nobody disagrees with that. But it does have, does it have enough of each of them? Well, first of all, people do disagree with that. Like if you want to search, does plants have missing amino acids? People think that it's missing some of the nine centimeter acid. So that's why we put that in the film. Okay. And we did, and I said, you left off part of my quote. I said, every plant has every amino acid. That's what you said. But you left off the end of my quote, which said, every plant has every amino acid in varying proportions. That is what I said. And you left out the invariant proportions, which again, I think is disingenuous. He did not complete my quote. You handpicked part of my quote to represent your view. So people, number one, do think that plants are completely, a lot of people think just like, you know that people, there's articles saying, well, no one thinks that protein gives them energy. I've got five studies here. The only five studies that I could find on the knowledge of collegiate athletes and around 50% in each of the studies think that protein is what gives you energy. So people were saying like, why did you put that in the film? That's a straw man. People don't think the protein gives you energy. About 50% of collegiate athletes think that protein gives you energy. That's why I addressed it in the film. Anyway, back to, you like the DIAAS, right? The digestible indispensable amino acid score. Or the PDCAAAS, which preceded it. Yeah, either of those, right? So can you just mention why you like it and what the benefits are and how it's determined? How is it determined? So the DIAAS takes into consideration amino acid profile and bioavailability. Okay, and how is it studied? The PDCAAAS did not take into consideration. Right, it looks at crude protein. It looks at the total amount of protein absorption, not the individual amino acids. Because different amino, different amino, different individual amino acids absorbed differently. So that was one of the benefits of the DIAAS scoring. We call it DIAAS and PDCAAS or whatever. So, but how is it determined? Chris, do you know how it's determined? The DIAAS? Yeah. I don't know the details. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, it's just like, it's almost like comedy. That someone is talking about these systems that does not know how, okay. So slide 27, and I'll tell you one of the benefits of the DIAAS. So, and I think you might have mentioned this, so I think you might know more than you're letting on. So one of the benefits is the auro-illial digestibility. So the PDCAAS, right, that took the whole digestive tract to what came out of the end. What are we looking at here? So look at this. So this is how the DIAAS is brought about. So basically past the ilium, you can't digest. Your body doesn't absorb the protein really. It's digested by the bacteria, right? So this is one of the benefits of the DIAAS versus the PDCAAS, right? The old system is that they saw how much protein went through the whole digestive tract, but that wasn't reasonable, right? Because past the ilium, you're not digesting the protein, the bacteria digesting it, and you're not getting it. Does that make sense? Yes. So basically they put a paw in the pig. Now PDCAAS was mostly in rats, and this is done in rats, and there's some in humans, but it's mostly done in pigs because it's a more similar digestibility to humans. And they're basically assessing how much of that protein was absorbed, right? And how much of the amino acids were absorbed. Now some people make the argument, even the FAO point out the flaws, some people make the argument, well pigs have a different digestibility rate, which is true, and they have a different amino acid profile requirement. Different. So some people would say, therefore DIAAS bunch of crap. Right, I'm not gonna make that argument. Even though it's testing animals primarily, not in humans, they've got a different amino acid requirement and different digestibility capability. Okay? So I mean, would you think that that score is the best one to use for humans? It doesn't make sense. Right, but I'm not gonna even make that argument. I'm gonna go with you and say, okay, DIAAS is the best thing out there. Okay. Okay? So even though you can question that. So you've said, this is a quote from last time when you were trying to bash the film. It's all about protein quality, and this, as you said, is an established science, a firmly established science, he was talking to you obviously, and you must have said it was established. They look at this, especially in like third world countries where protein deficiency is common. So they try to figure out how to address this. Okay? Now the FAO, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, what is their purpose? Chris. To prevent nutrient deficiency in developing countries. Yeah, so hunger, I've got a slide if you wanna prove, but it's basically defeating hunger, providing food security, not for America or for England, but for like the nation, you know, like 130, more than 130 countries, right? Where people are starving, malnutrition. That is their purpose. So you've got to look at it through the lens of that. So if you can just put up slide 29, cause I just wanna really back these claims up. I know the slides are getting kind of boring, and I'm gonna apologize for people just listening. But I really- Research focusing on protein malnutrition was largely conducted after the identification of- Cauchy or core. Cauchy or core. Cauchy or core. I don't know how you pronounce it. Cauchy or core. And the realization that many children globally are suffering from subclinical protein malnutrition to address protein malnutrition, the composition and digestibility of proteins must be determined. Okay, so we go to the next slide. And this is by the way, that was looking at the DS score, you know, you can see at the top, can the DS score decrease protein malnutrition? Then we go on to say, Joe, do you wanna do it? The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations has developed methods to evaluate the protein quality of food items. And in 2011, the digestible, indispensable amino acid score, DIAAS, was recommended as a successor to their previous method. Okay, so we're not in a disagreement right now. I'm even gonna forego, like I'm not gonna argue about the animal, having different amino acid requirements, or even though that's like, that's pretty funny, right? Like why are you assessing? Anyway, so I'm not gonna have that argument. What I'm gonna have is I'm gonna go with everything so far, FAO, they're endorsing it over the PDS, lot of experts endorsing it over the DIAAS, over the PD test, right? So now in slide 31, it's made for starving children, okay? This is what it's made for. So I would agree, if you're in a caloric deficit and you're in a country with very little protein, and you've only getting 30 grams of protein a day, let's just say that the animal, like take the animal stuff out of it and like the way that the method is flawed, which the FAO points out. So let's just say it's legit. I would agree. I would say eat, get your protein from meat. I would agree, because that's what it was designed for. As you can see in looking at post-exercise skeletal muscle, the DIAAS does not attempt to consider how scores translate into optimizing more downstream physiological targets of interest to a physically active personal athlete. So it wasn't designed for that system. It was designed for starving people in countries where they were not getting enough protein, and they weren't getting enough protein, as you would call high quality, okay? So would you recognize that it wasn't developed for that system? Yes. Based on the scientific literature. But you're inferring it now for the amount that- I still think it's a relevant measure of protein quality because it- It is. It's an amino acid profile and ileal digestibility. Yeah, it is. It is in starving countries when people are starving. I agree. But as you can see, it's not just- It's still looking at amino acid profile, right? Do you concede that? It's looking at the relative content of amino acids in a particular food. Yes. And it's looking at the ileal digestibility. Which I think is an improvement. I think it's got elements, even though the FAA has pointed out its flaws, and 10 years from now we'll have a better system, right? But, right, would you agree? Probably 10 years from now, probably have a better system. I don't even imagine. Okay, but it's the best that it can kind of go off, but again, it looks at- And it's not just my opinion that it's not used for that. This is like in sports medicine, 2019, and I agree. You're busy with other stuff. You probably haven't seen this article that came out in February. Right, have you seen this article before? I have not seen this particular article. So basically, can you look at the- Now, in the 2018 Journal of International Sports, of Sports Nutrition, slide 32, Society of Sports Nutrition, because you like to say it's all about muscle protein synthesis, right? That's an important factor. Okay. It has been proposed that muscle protein synthesis is maximizing young adults with an intake of 20 to 25 grams of high quality protein. About, the square root of about? About 20, 25 grams of a high quality protein. High quality protein, okay. Do you disagree that eating four or five times a day at 20 to 25 grams of high quality protein or whatever you want to take, high score, whatever, under the scoring system you agree with, do you agree that that is the amount to maximize personal protein? When it shows that that does for a four hour window, acute muscle protein synthesis? Yeah, most of the sports organizations suggest that for acute protein intake. Right, but if you, now again, I'm going with the consensus. So if you take that 20 to 25 grams four or five times a day, multiply that, what is that? That's 80 to 100, about 120 grams of protein a day. Is that enough for a big athlete? For an athlete protein synthesis. Is that enough for like a 250 pound athlete? I would say no, so I'm not saying that it is. I think you need more protein than that. Right? So acute- Because muscle protein synthesis is only one factor. Right, can you tell me what the other factors are? Tissue regeneration and repair, recovery. Right. Yeah. Yeah, okay, so I think we're on the same page that 20 to 25 grams has basically been shown in a single sitting over a four hour window in what we call acute, short term, that's been shown to maximize muscle protein synthesis. And that is because 20 grams, and it's been shown actually you can get less with like egg, you could get like 17 grams or something. But it's basically you're hitting two things. You're hitting leucine, you're getting 1.8 to two grams of leucine, which is basically like a foreman, right? It's like telling the others like, hey, you should build protein. If you don't have any leucine, even if you had all the essential amino acids you want except for leucine, you wouldn't have the foreman telling all the workers to like build the muscle, basically. That's what leucine is. So you're getting enough leucine and you're getting eight to 10 grams of essential amino acids. That is what is important in the acute stage of muscle protein synthesis. You're getting eight to 10 grams of, and we can get more granular, like it's 0.0 grams per pound of body weight. But this is basically accepted. And in fact, they've shown that like, even if you're 400 pounds, you probably don't need even more than 20, 25 grams. For some reason, there's something in that number about getting the leucine amount. It doesn't really matter how big you are. There's a small percentage of people that say you might need a bit more, 2.5 or whatever, but consensus is this 20, 25 grams. And I'm sorry this is like long, but it's important to like break down. By the way, just going back to your DS scoring, you're basically looking at like a rules for a jiu-jitsu tournament, like a gi-jitsu tournament, and you're trying to apply them to MMA. So just because jiu-jitsu is involved in MMA, it doesn't mean that a scoring system for like IBJJF or whatever, that doesn't mean that that's the best scoring system for MMA, right? Is that a fair joke? Yeah, you could get points for like, whatever, okay. So essentially, and this isn't just my opinion, okay? This is scientific literature, not an article that you just pulled on on examine.com. That's not how science works. You don't just pull up an article. So slide 33, and it's very clear, this is just very obvious. It's not, it can't, it cannot just be about short-term acute muscle protein synthesis, right? It can't be, because you wouldn't be hitting the 1.6 to 2.2. So this states, acute anabolic responses are not necessarily associated with long-term muscular gains. The topic can only be answered by assessing the results of longitudinal studies that directly measure changes in lean mass with the provision of varying protein dosages. Okay, so you agree that it's not just about short-term muscle protein synthesis. Okay, so what it is, Joe, it doesn't matter. At a certain point, it doesn't matter, because yeah, let's say you're gonna have four times a day, and let's say you're gonna have 160 grams of protein, and you have 40 grams, right, of protein four times a day. That's 160 grams. So if you're gonna optimize muscle mass, and by the way, like how much muscle have you put on in the last 15 years? Not much, huh? No, me, I put on none, basically. I'm about the same. But anyway, let's just say that you're a bodybuilder, and you're talking about like- You're trying to stack on one. You're trying to stack on as much muscle as possible, because that's like, when I get like, I'm like 190, 193 maybe, sometimes. If I go over 200, I just feel slow. I feel slow with the handgun, I feel slow. Like I just feel slow at punching, like whatever. So it's not everyone's goal is to optimize muscle mass as quickly as possible, right? But let's say that your goal is, right? Clearly, it's not enough to do that. You have to hit the 1.6 to 2.2 grams, right? Once you hit that amount, you have to do two things. You have to hit the muscle, the short term leucine threshold and amino acid in the short term, right? And then you have to hit the- What are you doing, Jim? It was an honest, okay. So you have to do two things. You have to maximize the muscle poses in the short term, and you have to get enough protein during the day, right? Of 1.6 to 2.2. Is that fair? Okay, so once you hit the 1.6 to 2.2, let's say you have 40 grams, it doesn't matter. You follow me? You even quoted- So it doesn't matter the amino acid profile of the food? Is that what you're saying? No, because as long as you hit the essential amino acid amount and the leucine amount in the four term- And you can hit the leucine amount and the amino acid amount in virtually all of these vegan forms of protein? Is that what you're saying? No, no, if you're having, like first of all, you could do it with like, if you do beans, rice and vegetables, yeah, you'd hit two grams of protein for like 570 calories. Now, again, you could, you know that most athletes supplement, right? Yes. Like, I can have got slides if you want scientific proof, but you would accept that like, an elite athlete's even more. So it's like over percent- So people are supplementing with protein powder anyway. They're supplementing with branched-chain amino acids because it contains leucine, and ice and leucine. Elite athletes are, yes. Well, no, over 50% are supplementing with protein powder and a higher percentage of elite. Just athletes, period. Yeah. And high elite athletes are supplementing even more. It's probably more like 90. So like, if your goal is to like do something and like take creatine or, you know, protein, or like, you know, these athletic endeavors, like you pointed out the thing that Patrick does, and we can get into, by the way, the misrepresentation of from Robert O'Hirst, O'Hirst into his, you know, Patrick's records if you want, because there was a lot of claims that were made that were completely false again. So basically, if you get enough protein, if you hit one of the windows, if you hit the 1.6 to 2.2 with plant protein, you can hit the muscle proteins into this. And like, all of a sudden he's like, oh, you got it. So you're saying there's no benefit in animal protein for an amino acid profile versus plant protein. No, I'm not, I'm not, not if you're getting enough protein. So you're saying if you're getting enough protein, there's no benefit. I'm even talking about the- But if athletes, you're assuming- And you're getting the right ratio of, as you have acknowledged, of the right ratio of plant proteins. No, no, no, it's very, it's very, it's not difficult at all. Like I'm talking about leucine, if you were like, if you were really messing up and eating like people just don't eat healthy, you might not get enough leucine. But like, if you're planning to become as big and as strong as possible, and you're dedicated, do you need a specific workout plan? But this is only assuming that you're taking supplements so we're assuming everyone's taking supplements to achieve. No, I'm saying- No, not at all. No, you can do it with supplements. And I'm not like- But you're not assuming that people are taking supplements. No, you can do it. But are you assuming that people are taking supplements with all these guidelines? You can do it on a whole food diet, plant based diet, with- Just food. With B12. Just supplement B12, nothing else. You can achieve the same amino acid profile as meat. Yeah, I mean, I want to touch on that. I'm not saying that the only thing- But that is the argument, right? That was what he said. But I just want to throw people off, like depending on where you live, you might want to supplement vitamin D based on not getting enough sun. I just want to like, don't want to like throw out- Everybody should do that anyway. Particularly D3. Okay, so what I'm saying is, as long as you get that amount of protein, and again, if you're eating, if you're exercising to optimally build muscle, you're exercising a fair bit, right? Yes. You're burning more calories, right? Right. So you eat more calories. And I don't think, I don't know where my slide is. We're deep into the woods here, and this is getting really confusing. No, I know, but- The question was, and this is what his assertion was, that the amino acid profile of meat is superior- Yeah, it is. It is in context. In context. That is why it's important. It's important when you look at the FAO and the goals that they're doing to try and stop world hunger. It is not important in the Western world, number one, and not important if you're an athlete and hitting the, you're getting between 1.6 to 2. grams per kilogram. So what you're saying is that as long as you're getting this 1.6 to 2.2 grams per kilogram of protein, whether it's lentils or peanut butter, that you have enough amino acids to achieve the desired results. Yeah. And it's essentially the exact same as if you're hitting that 2.2 grams at stake. If you're getting 2.2 grams, it doesn't matter. Is that, do you think that's true? If you're getting 2.2 grams of protein, and you're doing it, and you're not doing it in the way that you said, where you're not planning it, and not getting, making sure you're getting enough leucine, which is lower- Well, you wouldn't have to try, but it's like, it's really- It's low, leucine you're saying is low. I would say leucine is lower in, I agree. But there's a certain quantity that you will achieve. There's a plateau. So there's a plateau, so it doesn't matter once you've got that amount. The other point that you had about protein quality is digestibility. So that's the last point that I want to address. How am I doing? Good. Okay, so slide 34, because you basically claim that, okay, even if there were enough amino acids, you can't digest it as well. The more precise data collected, the more precise data collected so far in humans, assessing real specific oral ileal nitrogen digestibility has shown that the differences in the digestibility between plant and animal protein sources are only a few percent contrary to historical findings in rats or determinations using less precise methods in humans. And just so you know, I understand that you haven't seen this, probably, because it just came out last month published by Stanford. So I get that you haven't seen it. Now, I'll take this one step further. There's only at most like two or 3% different in digestible of plant protein. And you know how it's assessed in the pigs? They give them raw food. So they give raw beans, raw grains. And you have said one of the reasons that it's less digestible is because of trypsin inhibitors. Yeah, I agree with it. And what happens when you cook? You would definitely break them down. Are you getting it? So when you heat food, the likelihood is, even though it hasn't been tested, we know that the digestibility is less in plants by a few percent, only a few percent, not the 40% versus 100% that he was claiming last time. That's old science. I'm talking about current science, right? And there's only a few percent difference. And they imagine that not only if you heated it, that you would get equivalent, you might even get more because you're killing the trypsin inhibitors by heating it. So that whole nonsense about the quantity you were wrong, the quality, the DI score was not designed for that. It doesn't matter when you get enough protein. So as long as you get enough protein, you're using measures for an organization that is looking at hunger. We're talking about if people have got enough, I agree. If you're in a developing country and you have very little diversity of plant foods and maybe not enough and there's animals, you should be eating the animals. I agree. But that is not what it is designed for. And it doesn't matter. The amino acid profile doesn't matter. And the digestive doesn't matter when you get enough protein.