On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:53:14 -0600, Jo Yoshida <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Guten Tag Amadeus - wasn't this complementary protein theory
>retracted by Francis Moore Lappe, the writer of Diet For a Small
>Planet? Didn't he alter his view so that it wasn't necessary to
>combine the different groups of foodstuff to attain adequate protein
>levels?

Jo, I haven't read this Lappe book.
The test I quoted I've taken from a publication of Dr Ernst Kofrany of the
"Max-Planck Institut fuer Ernaehrungsphysiologie, Dortmund".
They tested a variety of combinations over a couple of weeks with a couple
of test persons, "contracted for 6 or 12 months."

Personally i do think that it's *not* necessary to combine proteins.
Except when on a low protein diet for sake of kidney protection.
Any diet of any natural foodstuff lies way above the requirements of the
ideal amino acids.
So why combine a ideal protein, if you eat more as you need anyway.
It will just burn away more "ideal" amino acids....

>
>On a related note, former natural hygienists like me followed the
>amino acid pool theory to rationalize the procurement of necessary
>proteins through an all plant-based diet.

... if you examine any plant based diet, you see that at 2600 kcal the
amino acids are way above the computed minimum requirements.
I just find it annoying that plant proteins are sometime dequalified as
beeing "incomplete", that's the reason why i posted the opposite evidence.

> By experience, I wasn't
>overly successful with this over the long term.

I imagine, that if you let amino acid combination rule over your food
selection choices, you tend to disregard other important aspects of food
combination.
Like not mixing too many different protein sources in one meal.

Cheers, Amadeus
(hope they'll finish counting votes some time, to encourage stocks again)