Talk:Complete protein

}} }}

Protein quality

How do these sentences: Higher quality proteins have a higher Biological Value (BV) such as whey protein at 100 BV compared to soy protein at 74 BV.[4] A higher BV is more usable than a lower BV for essential protein necessary to meet nutritional human requirements and muscle growth.[4][5][6][7][8] have anything to do with this article? I've removed them until an adequate explanation is offered. Yankees76 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is about complete protein. Explaining about protein quality adds to the article. --Firstocean 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How does quoting a couple of random facts about BV and whey protein have anything to do with Complete proteins? Yankees76 18:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This explains about complete proteins differ in protein value. The information is a detailed explanantion of the difference in complete protein. You believe they are facts. I will add it back to the article. You can add as you wish. --Firstocean 01:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the text you added:

Proteins differ in there Biological Value.[4] Higher quality proteins have a higher Biological Value (BV) such as whey protein at 100 BV compared to soy protein at 74 BV.[4][5][6][7]

Please point out where in this text there is sourced material that connects complete proteins with anything written here? How does Biological value even relate to this? It's an outdated method of measuring protein quality. The article is on complete proteins - not protein quality when measured using the biological value method. Yankees76 05:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

First Sentence

Older versions of this page were more correct: a complete protein need not contain "all amino acids", but it must contain the essential amino acids. Steve P. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.128.198 (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

animal proteins are not all complete proteins

the article states that "All animal proteins are complete, including meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, and dairy". i don`t believe this is true. i don`t know how many other examples there are, but gelatine is an incomplete animal protein.

http://www.bodyforlife2.com/incompletprotein.htm http://www.answers.com/topic/gelatin?cat=health

original research

To the extent editors are taking amino acid prevelance from nutrition tables, doing some arithmetic and then stating various substances either are or aren't complete protiens, that is original research and should be deleted.

Spope3 (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

both these sources back this up. i`m not going to edit the page as i don`t know how to add quotes

---

Also - Essential amino acids seems to suggest that beef is an incomplete animal protein. Thoughts? 98.160.124.227 (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Quantity of amino acids needed to earn the "complete protein" label?

A quick check of nutritiondata.com will show the reader that almost any edible plant you search for will have all eight to ten essential amino acids. From navy beans, to brown rice, to tomatoes, to raw celery, they all have all of the EAAs in some amount, however small (for celery at least). So a complete protein clearly isn't "a protein that contains all of the essential amino acids" but rather (if most plants are to be excluded as they currently are), "a protein that contains all of the essential amino acids in a quantity sufficient to gain the label of 'complete protein.'" Where this label comes/came from, and what the milligram amounts are, I cannot discover. If anyone knows, please help this article out. 69.254.162.18 (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You raise a good question. Judging from nutritiondata.com, it appears that it's determined "complete" if all the amino acids (9 according to nutritiondata.com) have above the "minimum amount...that should be supplied per gram of protein consumed", as determined by the Institute of Medicine. I think this means over "100" according to their protein quality scale. Interestingly, according to that website, certain animal sources are well below "100" like ground beef and yogurt, and certain plant sources are above "100", like spirulina and amaranth. Although, they don't factor in digestibility, but that doesn't have to do with the completeness of the protein, only the protein quality. -kotra (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two possible incompatible ways to define an "incomplete protein": either as one in which one or more essential amino acids is absent, or as one that simply has a suboptimal amino acid composition — following some criterion of optimality.

This article first states the first definition. Later on it seems to switch to the second definition, in attempt to declare that "many plant sources" are incomplete.

The ambiguity around the definition of a complete protein encourages the absurd but widespread misconception that many in many forms of plant protein certain essential amino acids are absent. That is simply untrue, as can be seen from any table of composition. All forms of life on this planet use the same set of 20 amino acids, and almost all forms of protein contain substantial amounts of each and every one of them.

To state as this article does that only a short list of plants and "microbial sources" contain complete proteins is deeply misleading, by the first definition of an incomplete protein — the only plant source that is completely lacking in an essential amino acid is zein. It is also highly contentions by the second definition — see the article on protein combining. This article is in need of a complete rewrite.

David Olivier (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Protein combining article in dispute

This article uses the Protein combining article to prove a point, although that article is currently in dispute. The neutrality of it and the factual accuracy of the research are disputed. See the talk section Talk:Protein_combining. These articles indicate eating a single source of protein in sufficient quantity would be give all the amino acids required, which seems a bit irresponsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TempestSA (talk • contribs) 12:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by irresponsible? Either the facts stated there are true or are not true. The assertions in that article are based on the figures from recognized sources.

Note that that article does not advocate eating only brown rice; if you read it that way, you have simply missed the point (you're not alone in that, so perhaps it should be explained better).

David Olivier (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Numerical Definition of complete protein

A gram of protein is complete if it contains the following minumums:

   Tryptophan    11 mg 
   Histidine     19 mg 
   Methionine    25 mg (Cysteine can replace some of this) 
   Isoleucine    28 mg 
   Threonine     34 mg 
   Valine        35 mg 
   Lysine        58 mg 
   Phenylalanine 63 mg (Tyrosine can replace some of this) 
   Leucine       66 mg 

This is from Davis & Melina, _Becoming Vegan_ Table 3.2, but is based on data adopted by both WHO and FDA, using a model called PDCAAS (Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score).

Since the above only totals .34 grams there is quite a bit of margin.

The statements about "8-10 essential amino acids" are incorrect/misleading, as there are by convention 9 essential amino acids and two that may be used in substitution.

Spope3 (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning "8-10", various sources put the number of amino acids at either 8, 9, or 10. I used "8-10" in this article to accommodate all three views. 9 seems to be actually more potentially misleading than 8-10, since 8 and 10 are also sometimes used by sources. For example, in the first page of Google search results for "essential amino acids", all three numbers are found. But on closer examination, the most recent and credible sources, like Merck Manual and the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine, and the Food and Nutrition Board all say 9 are essential (or "indispensable"), with up to 6 conditionally essential or indispensable amino acids in addition to the 9. So while using "9" may be not as safe as "8-10", it might be more accurate. So I have no strong opinion either way. -kotra (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Proportions? Or amounts?

The lead repeatedly refers to the proportions of the essential amino acids. I would expect that it is more important that they be present in sufficient amounts than that the proportions are "adequate" or "correct". The MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia entry given as source does not provide a definition of the concept; instead, it states, without further explanation: Protein foods are no longer described as being "complete proteins" or "incomplete proteins."  --Lambiam 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

They should be in specific ratio to each other - "proportions" is a bit clumsy. I'm not sure when the lead was updated, but it definitely could probably be improved. --Yankees76 ^Talk 21:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for the statement that it is the specific ratios to each other, rather than the amounts, that is important? The PDCAAS formula does not take these ratios into account, but only amounts.  --Lambiam 11:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The article uses this source [3] for the "proportions" statement. Forgive me if I missed something, but are you saying that in order for a protein to be considered a complete protein it requires baseline mg amounts of the 9 essential amino acids? --Yankees76 ^Talk 12:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A specific problem with the table (labelled S-8) from that source is that the values given are "Based on Estimated Average Requirements for 1- to 3-year-old children", something not reflected in our article. The source does not relate the term "complete protein" to the table, which is supposed to determine (in an unspecified way) "the quality of the dietary protein". As to "complete protein", this source states that "[p]rotein from animal sources", which "provide [sic] all nine indispensable amino acids, ... are [sic] referred to as 'complete proteins' [sic]", whereas proteins from plant sources are "incomplete proteins". Lacking a good definition from a reliable source, I don't know what the precise meaning of the deprecated term "complete protein" is. But, as for as dietary recommendations are involved, if, for some person, the RDA of lysine is 2100 mg and of isoleucine 1400 mg, then (I think) an actual intake of 2000 mg lysine and 2200 mg isoleucine is indeed to be preferred over 1000 mg lysine and 500 mg isoleucine, even though the latter is a much better approximation of the 51 : 25 ratio of the table.  --Lambiam 16:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference marked as supporting the claim that vegetable protein is incomplete says the exact opposite

Table 11 of http://www.ajcn.org/content/59/5/1203S.long (reference 6 as of this writing) has a summary of the conclusions of the paper. The gist of it is that the general claim that vegetable protein is incomplete is a myth, which contradicts what is said in that bullet point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joakimlundborg (talk • contribs) 16:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Joakim. Here's a quote from the abstract of that paper: "Mixtures of plant proteins can serve as a complete and well-balanced source of amino acids for meeting human physiological requirements." Note the word 'mixtures' which implies individual plant proteins are incomplete or not well-balanced. 71.178.133.64 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Source for the amino acid contents of potatoes?

The table near the top that shows if you get enough calories from potatoes, you get enough of all the essential amino acids, is great. But where did the numbers for the amino acid contents of potatoes come from? I checked the three references in the paragraph before the table, and I don't see them. I'd love to find data like this on more foods, so I can check them for myself. —Darxus (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

9 large baked potatoes

It would be nice to know what a large baked potato is.

a) Is it measured in inches, kilos, pounds or some other unit?

b) The actual measurement of each of the potatoes, or a range within which the label large can be considered to apply should be specified.

c) The total number of kilo-calories used to prepare the chart can be achieved by using a combination of small, medium and/or huge potatoes. If one has access to a calorimeter, that figure might be realized, but at the expense of one's potato supply. So, there should be some other means to determine whether one has an appropriate number of potatoes of the right size to obtain results close to those shown in the chart.

- It appears that some of the links specified as related to this item are broken and the ones that aren't broken do not seem to shed any significant light on a measurement that applies.

Note: It would be of interest to know what kind of potatoes are used, as it is possible that different varieties may offer differing results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raccoonnookkeeper (talk • contribs) 01:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The reference has been changed to grams to reflect the current USDA Nutrient Database.--SaletteAndrews (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Nine Large Baked Potatoes Relevance?

What is the relevance of nine large baked potatoes, and their amino acid profile, to this article? I don't really see it. This article is about complete protein, and potatoes are not a source of complete protein. I do find it interesting that nine potatoes can provide one's daily protein and amino acid allowance, but I don't think it has anything to do with this particular article. Perhaps I'm missing something, and someone can explain the relevance? Otherwise this material should be deleted from this article. I think it would be better suited to the protein combining article, since it shows that combining proteins is not necessary to get a full day's allowance of amino acids. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you explained the relevance, actually. If complete protein means a protein that contains all essential amino acids in the required proportions, and potatoes (which are rarely considered a source of protein) meet that requirement, then potatoes contain complete protein. And if potatoes contain complete protein, what whole plant food doesn't?--SaletteAndrews (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Complete protein list needs updating

Nutritiondata has some made-up criteria of protein ranking which obviously tricked the editors to add plenty of plant sources that are incomplete (they do not have the essential amino acids per gram needed for them to be complete - they do have all of the essential amino acids but that doesn't make them complete).

Cauliflower, beans, they aren't complete by the definition given in the article. Crustytoy (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The definition in the article is as follows:

A complete protein (or whole protein) is a source of protein that contains an adequate proportion of all nine of the essential amino acids necessary for the dietary needs of humans or other animals.

Why would cauliflower and beans not be complete?--SaletteAndrews (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is the amino acid chart using 2,000 kcal of cauliflower instead of potatoes:

Essential Amino Acid	Requirement /day/62 kg adult	8700 grams cooked cauliflower (2001 kcal)
	mg	mg
Tryptophan	248	2008
Threonine	930	5829
Isoleucine	1240	6090
Leucine	2418	9309
Lysine	1860	8613
Methionine+Cystine	930	4089
Phenylalanine+Tyrosine	1550	9222
Valine	1612	8004
Histidine	620	3219

So, even if you ate nothing but cauliflower all day long, you would have many times the amount you need of every single amino acid.--SaletteAndrews (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. This article is nonsense. Great floors (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, you mean I only need to eat 16 pounds(!) of cauliflower?? Roricka (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to add that soybeans meal is a complete protein with the smallest food sample to provide all EAAsalso beans are good.

Guniarz (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Plant Foods Have a Complete Amino Acid Composition

It's a myth that plant proteins lack one of more essential amino acids http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/105/25/e197

For exmaple, a search in https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4970?fgcd=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=&sort=&qlookup=&offset=&format=Full&new=&measureby= show that kidney bean has all the amino acids — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.146.165 (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not just the existence of amino acids, it's their relative proportions as well. Roricka (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Here are proportions: soybenas meal has the smallest food sample to provide right amount all EAAsalso beans are good.Guniarz (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Questionable Math

In the article it claims "For example, to obtain 25 grams of complete protein from canned pinto beans requires consuming 492 grams (423 kcal); however, only 364 g of pinto beans (391 kcal) are required if they are combined with 12 grams of Brazil nuts (79 kcal)."

However, it seems that the caloric content of the pinto beans is not consistent- it's listed as 423 kcal/492 g = .86 kcal/g in the first half of the sentence, but 391 kcal/364 g = 1.07 kcal/g in the second half. I'm unsure if the Brazil nuts are included in the second measurement of calories, but it's odd and unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.186.129 (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't get the figures to work out at all with the current version of the USDA Nutrition Database. And I really don't understand the point. Most people aren't concerned about eating a smaller volume of food. And have you checked the cost of Brazil nuts? Maybe they're inexpensive in some parts of the world, but I just checked at my local Whole Foods, and they're $12.99 per pound. Wouldn't it be cheaper and more filling to just finish the can of beans?

Another concern is that 12 grams of Brazil nuts contain approximately 329% of the DV for selenuim, and more than half the toxic level for adults. Again, I think people are better off just eating the beans.--SaletteAndrews (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Plant vs Animal protein history and politics

Rather than have this article get politicized, we should have a section that simply states that concept of complete proteins has been used to discredit vegan and vegetarian diets as unhealthy with proper references and citations. We can still find on internet examples of nutrition cites stating plant protein not a complete protein:

Plant foods are considered incomplete proteins because they are low or lacking in one or more of the amino acids we need to build cells.

— University of Massachusetts Amherst Nibble Directory

Another example on medlineplus.gov site:

Proteins from meat and other animal products are complete proteins. This means they supply all of the amino acids the body can't make on its own. Most plant proteins are incomplete.

— MedlinePlus

Also we should add a section on protein deficit illnesses: Kwashiorkor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murmullo (talk • contribs) 00:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

But concepts that have been used to discredit veganism is something that can be documented in the article(s) on veganism, and protein deficit illnesses have their own article at Protein–energy malnutrition. I can't see any way to save this article. I'm starting to think it should be merged into protein quality. Great floors (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Badly sourced

Can no one find better sources than live strong? I'm pretty sure these are the same people who say you can cure thrush with vinegar.

This article isn't about "complete protein"

Paragraphs 1 and 2 explain the topic with four references, and the references say:

1. Animals have different requirements to humans
2. The quality of some plant proteins is lower than that of soy, meat and eggs
3. Plant proteins being "incomplete" is a myth
4. Adding soy to other plant proteins makes up for animo acids that are low

So how is this article titled "complete protein"?

There is nothing there about complete and incomplete. The fact is that all plants contain all the essential amino acids. Gelatin (from animals) is the only food item I've heard of that is missing in any of the essential aminos.

Now, one difference is that some foods (eg. meat, dairy, and soy) have better ratios of the aminos, so most of this info would be useful in an article about protein quality.

(Also worth noting is that "protein combining" is only necessary over long periods. Our livers store the essential aminos and release them as needed. So failing to get useful protein from a food that doesn't have much of some essential amino acid would require first having a liver that's depleted of that amino acid.)

Anyone interested in this article? Should the title be changed? The content? Great floors (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah fixed it. I think the title should remain because it shows where and when the instances of plant protein incorrectly interpreted as incomplete are mentioned. This article certainly needs more changes. Thanks. --14.139.196.4 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Original Research

Do all the editors here agree that performing calculations based on values from nutrition tables constitutes original research and should not be in the article?

Spope3 (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Academy

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is cited to claim protein combining is unnecessary. Referring to the article for the Academy one finds a link to Livestrong.com which says:

Because vegetables have relatively few calories, children who eat primarily vegetables often struggle to eat enough food that provides sufficient calories for energy and growth. Additionally, a vegan diet can lack sufficient protein and healthy fats, which a child also needs for physical development and activity.

Vegetables have few calories? What kind of biochemistry informs this writer? Further, the article on the Academy confirms that it is compromised by commercial interests. In terms of reliable sources, the Academy is suspect. — Rgdboer (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Many vegetarians/vegans coming to this article seem to be getting confused and unnecessarily offended. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics paper is fine, people coming here are just misunderstanding it. This article is about the concept of "complete protein" and not about the lack of calories in a vegetarian diet, which is another matter entirely. Potato chips are vegetarian, and have calories aplenty. The article is simply trying to say many vegetarian parent often choose diets for their kids which lack enough calories (i.e. vegetables such as carrots or cucumbers), not that all vegetarian diets lack enough calories.

And yes, because plant-based sources probably always have a protein profile slightly different from that of the composition of human meat, a certain essential amino acid will be proportionally less than needed in a diet (i.e. limiting). Think of it like a bar chart, meat has a certain shape of bar chart -the protein profile, humans need a certain shape bar chart, different animals need different shapes bar chart, and different plant-based food have different shapes of bar chart. This is easily rectified in the case of soy beans, for example, by combining them with rice. The shape of the bar chart from the resulting combination is good enough. Problem solved. However, by definition, soy is not "complete", because it lacks enough of the sulphur-containing amino acids (methionine & cysteine). Were we, for example, going to lock up a bunch of kids in cages and feed them slop composed of nothing more than mashed soy for months or years, they would eventually develop nutrient deficiencies, and we'd have an even bigger human rights violation on our hands. This concept is primarily used in agriculture, in designing fodder for animals: one can calculate the correct combination needed for cows for instance, or figure out what needs to be supplemented to the diet to achieve a "complete protein" say you have a ton of cucumbers you want to feed your cows and want to make sure they are not wanting in a specific amino acid. But if you're a human and going to space, living in a submarine or Antarctica then you might want to think about this as well when securing your provisions.

Of course the story is slightly more complicated than this. Soy, like most legumes, is partially deficient in amino acids because it also contains anti-nutrients, these can be industrially removed to some degree. Products made from pure soy through fermentation with fungal yeasts changes the amino acid profile considerably (fungi generally have a more complete protein profile for humans than plants do, and yeasts can synthesize their own essential amino acids from scratch). Fortification is also possible in retail products. One of the reasons plant-based foods have such skewed protein profiles is that we only eat specific parts of the plant; only the leaves or seeds or whatnot.

Nutrition, however, is more than just the proportions of specific amino acids, as the report mentioned above says, it is also about the vitamins, the number of calories one eats, and if one eats enough protein per day, irrespective of how complete it is. Some vegetables, for example, contain some protein or starches, but also much water, and in order to get enough nutrition, one would need to eat vast amounts. Look at our close relatives, gorillas: because their diet of leaves contains so little protein, they spend most of the day eating huge amounts. If you ate 20kg of cucumbers a day, you could probably get around the cucumbers limitations in amount of calories and protein, and the deficiencies its in amino acid profile, but yeah, you'd be eating 20kg of cucumber a day, and that's doubtfully healthy. But that is beyond the scope of this article. Leo Breman (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove this article

I have seen this article edited with removal of accurate information several times. The misleading information is that plants lack some amino acids and some plant sources such as quinoa and soy are complete protein this is incorrect. The term complete or incomplete protein is misleading. All plants and there proteins thereof contain all essential amino acids, yes there exist a polymer which can have a same monomer but large proteins generally contain all amino acids, except gelatin all proteins derived from plants and animal sources contain all amino acids and in dietary terms they do contain all essential amino acids, there is no single amino acids lacking, a more accurate term would be that plant proteins have low amino acid profile than animal protein. I would ask the readers or reviewer/editor to review this with FAO and USDA databases to check amino acid content of plant before making the claim that plant lack certain amino acids. Wikipedia should be unbiased and remove this myth, so I suggest to remove this article or let the information be accurate. Also I would suggest people to not remove peer-reviewed literature sources. 111.125.209.233 (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Vegetarian protein sources, etc.

Look, the main reason this topic even has an article is because complete proteins are common in some diets but not all. Otherwise there would be no study of complete proteins, because animal proteins are considered to be complete. The information I added is not telling vegetarians and vegans what they should eat, but informing readers of the aspects that need to be considered in a plant-based diet. These are produced by valid sources; without them, the article is severely lacking in useful content. If they should be backed up by more specific sources chosen by Wikipedia consensus, either add them, or allow somebody else to add them later; if they are contradicted by other research, provide it. It's obvious that if you do a google search for "complete protein", the vast majority of results make some reference to its importance in plant-based diets. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter so much what, but there has to be some discussion about animal sources being more complete proteins than plant sources. This was in the article until an IP editor removed it. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Cysteine vs cystine confusion

The first table uses cystine, while the second table uses cysteine. The table at Essential_amino_acid#Recommended_daily_intake uses cysteine, while the next one in the same article, Essential_amino_acid#Amino_acid_requirements_and_the_amino_acid_content_of_food, uses cystine. Protein_digestibility_corrected_amino_acid_score uses only cysteine. Approximation of Protein Quality (DIAAS) of Vegetarian Dishes Served in Restaurants uses cysteine, and FAO Dietary protein quality evaluation in human nutrition uses both in different places.

Is the use of cystine in the first table of this article a typo? If not, an explanation should be added why one table uses cystine, and the other cysteine. What is the relationship between them? I'm not an expert in this, and was unable to find clear sources, so would appreciate someone more knowledgeable weighing in - it's currently very confusing. —NePasUnIP (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)