(Part 2) Are you a Dietist / Lebensmittelwissenschaftler / Ernährungsberater?

Weiter jetzt mit der Wissenschaft (jetzt nicht in Details und eher bzgl. Proteinaufnahme).

Eine weitere 🇨🇭 Review "more research on nutrient status in vegan children and the health effects of potential deficiencies are needed"

Die VeChi Studie hat 6-18J betrachtet, jedoch dann ø Werte bewertet! Die Proteinaufnahme ist anders beim 6J als bei 18J! Zudem schon zu sehen, dass eine Review diese Studie zitiert hat, indem gesagt wird "2.3x als Referenz", wenn eigentlich die Aufnahme war 1.14g (vs. 0.8-0.9 als Empfehlung "für nicht Veganer" = 1.27x, und nicht 2.3x!) Schon das zu zeigen wie Wissenschaftler bullshit über andere zitierten papers schreiben.

Eine andere Review "There was also a case of a father and mother who lost custody of their child due to malnutrition because the child was fed with poor vegan diet." (wobei hier Nestlé Nutrition Buch über Mangelernährung zitiert wird) "Without knowing the reason for choosing a vegan diet, eating disorders like anorexia nervosa can easily be hidden by a vegan diet" (aus einer Review über Anorexie).

A high-protein exclusively plant-based diet (= NOT 0.8 g!) may adequately support muscle anabolism as long as an optimal protein ingestion is achieved —> first we need to archive at least 0.8 g, then 0.8 + 10/20% and after that we can talk about the optimal protein intake with good protein quality ...

Another Meta Analysis "We observed that vegans had a lower intake of energy, total fat and a higher intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids. A lower intake of proteins was also found"

Another guideline "Compared to a vegetarian diet, a vegan diet is not recommended in hospital food"

"Until the potential negative consequences of a vegan diet on muscle-related outcomes later in life are ruled out, we infer that it may not be preferred to consume a vegan diet for adults aged 65 y and older."

Diese Proteinaufnahme kann je nach Patient / Krankheit / Situation "ungenügend / genügend oder viel sein"

He is citing / Was zitiert er mit "Vegane Ernährung bei Kindern:"

https://www.keiner-fliege.de/wp-content/quellen/ADA_Position_Paper_Vegetarian_Diets.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6356233/

Schauen wir jetzt "Vegan Nutrition for Mothers and Children: Practical Tools for Healthcare Providers" an

Vegan diets restricting energy intake, excluding one or more food groups, not paying attention to critical nutrients or to vitamin D status, and not supplementing vitamin B12 cannot be considered well-balanced, and may have dangerous health consequences.

Es ist ja wie die Empfehlung 5x am Tag Obst und Gemüse. Jeder kennt das, niemand oder fast niemand tut es aber wirklich ...

"the recommendations made by the Scientific Society for Vegetarian Nutrition (SSNV)" ... "Since there are not enough studies to give evidence-based recommendations, the evidence level of such statements is to be considered as expert opinion" —> Ja, Perfekt!

"Protein requirements can be easily met on a vegan diet that includes a variety of plant foods and meets calorie requirements" indem sie wieder das erste bullshit Statement zitieren ... und Position Papers, die einzelne Studie vor 1990 über spezifische Proteine (also nicht eine vegane Diät) zitieren .... z.B. https://perma.cc/N4KJ-DK5B bzw. wieder Bücher ... (2011)

Liest man diese Bücher, sieht man sofort "but 30-40% of teenagers don't meet RDA for protein!!!!!" Danach zitieren etwas anderes mit ø56 g (+/-14 g = also auch 42 g!) Proteine (k.A. bzgl. Alter, eher bis 18J) —> Schade, dass in der anderen vorigen Paper 66 - 73 g geschrieben wurde ...

Also betrachtet man nur was vor dem ", aber" steht? WTF...

Teil 1,2
https://t.me/VeganFactsTelegram/218
https://t.me/VeganFactsTelegram/219

He is citing / Was zitiert er mit "Vegane Ernährung bei Kindern:" (Teil 2, bzw. 4)

Let we check

Und "Vegetarian diets in children and adolescents"

Others have suggested that protein intake may need to be increased by 30% to 35% for infants up to two years of age, 20% to 30% for two- to six-year-olds and 15% to 20% for those older than six years of age (22). Therefore, recommended protein intakes are adjusted upward for children in the range of 10% to 15% compared with nonvegetarian = was sagen wir immer ....
Protein requirements in strict vegans will need to be increased to account for the lower digestibility of plant protein (CIII) = wie vorher, zuerst muss man die 0.8 g erreichen, danach können wir von anderen Sachen reden. In diesem Statement (2010) wird überhaupt nicht über die aktuelle Proteinaufnahme geredet.

Zudem wird auch nie betrachtet "isst man jetzt nur 1x pro Tag, oder 2x, 3x, 5x?" Das macht einen grossen Unterschied, und JA, ES GIBT LEUTE DIE NUR 1X PRO TAG ESSEN!!!! (auch wenn die Veganer solche Sachen ignorieren ...)

In der zitierten Paper der wiederum zitierten Publikation (2001) wird von 0.9 - 1.2g geredet, was deutlicher höher ist als DACH Empfehlung und was wir im Teil 1,2 geschrieben haben ...

Teil 1,2,3
https://t.me/NatureFreaksDeutsch/297
https://t.me/NatureFreaksDeutsch/298
https://t.me/NatureFreaksDeutsch/299

Zusammenfassung: man kann einfach nicht eine Studie teilweise lesen und dann sagen "Jetzt ist es so" wenn man überhaupt nicht alle Themen betrachtet, die Sachen verifiziert, konfrontiert, usw.

Conclusion: you cannot just read partially a paper and say "this is why you need to eat vegan" ignoring facts, other topics, the fact that even researchers write bullshit! or change infos, like tv and newspapers are doing too.

There is much more that need to be said about vegan nutrition ...
Teil 1,2
https://t.me/VeganFactsTelegram/218
https://t.me/VeganFactsTelegram/219
https://t.me/VeganFactsTelegram/220

Other Reviews, even about CO2

Eine französische Review "Les protéines d’origine végétale sont connues, en général, pour avoir des scores de qualité protéique inférieurs à ceux des protéines d’origine animale. Cela peut avoir des implications importantes, notamment pour ceux qui cherchent à augmenter leur masse musculaire squelettique par l’exercice physique. ... Les suppléments de protéines végétales les plus étudiés sont le soja, les haricots, les pois, le riz et la pomme de terre, qui semblent être aussi efficaces que les suppléments de protéines animales dans les résultats de MPS et de gain de force, tant que la quantité de protéines est augmentée ... il existe encore un large éventail de sources alimentaires de protéines végétales qui doivent être étudiées"

Weitere Reviews schreiben über die Thematik CO2:
"Producing the same amount of protein from tofu (soybeans) in comparison to beef protein requires 74 times less land and eight times less water, while the GHG emissions are 25 times lower and the eutrophication potential is reduced by 39 times. Even if compared to egg protein, tofu protein requires almost three times less land and six times less water, while the GHG emissions are only half of that from egg protein, and the eutrophication potential is five times lower."

Bzgl. der Thematik CO2 wurde auch hier schon viel gesagt z.B.
https://t.me/VeganNutritionTelegram/12
https://t.me/VeganFactsTelegram/12
https://t.me/VeganFactsTelegram/48
https://t.me/NatureFreaksDeutsch/284
https://t.me/NatureFreaksDeutsch/151
https://t.me/AnimalFreaks/1413
https://t.me/VeganFactsTelegram/194
https://t.me/VeganFactsTelegram/208
https://t.me/VeganFactsTelegram/54
https://t.me/NatureFreaksDeutsch/107

For those maybe coming here by citing this study where is written "A total of 141 studies were included, mostly from Europe, South/East Asia, and North America. Protein intake was lower in people following plant-based diets compared to meat-eaters, but well within recommended intake levels"

1) yes we know that, they write "Average protein intakes were above the lower limit of the acceptable macronutrient distribution range (AMDR) (i.e., 10%E). None of the studies reported protein intakes below the AMDR for any dietary pattern"
2) now the topic is no find if ø are covering that or whatever, but more the fact that we cannot say "all people cover protein intake" since there are many different situations / diseases, etc., protein intake change by person and person, is related to tradition / religious / countries related aspects, etc. SO THERE IS HUGE DIFFERENCE!
Even this study is saying "for older adults it can be difficult to obtain sufficient protein", like many other researchers are saying too. So saying "all people from 0J to 120J can follow a vegan diet by getting enough protein" is just bullshit.
3) Protein != Protein. So ok protein intake, but we need to talk about much more behind that...
4) Even here they put focus on "it has been suggested that dietary protein requirements of vegetarians and vegans should be increased by about 20%"
5) How such data is collected is even important
6) Supplementary Materials (not available in the PDF directly) is saying that many studies not cited the point 5, or FFQ or 3 days record or 24 Recall. Exact data of protein intake is not published


Another study (NuEva) writes "Still, the average intake of total protein, PUFA, particularly n-3 PUFA, pantothenic acid, vitamin B2, vitamin B12, vitamin A, vitamin D, calcium, potassium, iron (women), and zinc was markedly lower than recommended by the DGE" and "supplementation of calcium and vitamin D and ensuring an adequate intake of high-quality protein to avoid an elevated fracture risk or the development of osteoporosis"

"Dietary intakes and lifestyle factors of a vegan population in Germany: results from the German Vegan Study" is reporting average 0.95, but this doesn't mean all people are getting 0.95! This study was cited, but again read point 6, 2, 3. Other SR/MA are proving better data compared to this study. Yes, few people are covering protein, but this doesn't mean directly all people.


Even the bullshit study with the missing data for kids (= just 1 male) said at the end "protein intake is enough in all people" ... just based on 1 person! with missing data ...

Why other dietitians are worse (not all)?
Because they believe what they want by commenting before reading anything! and answering with such bullshit by deleting the post, without even reading the full paper probably, without checking who wrote that, which studies got cited, what such cited studies really say, what other studies are saying, who (and why) is writing that to go against such position paper. Again now it's just about the protein intake, there is much that could be said about that and about Protein. By even writing "you’re an Eastern European Adsense farmer", means they checked anything of what we are doing to keep our planet save! Again commenting before checking things.

We already saw that in 90% of the other dietitian students during the bachelor (and probably they continue to do now too), using wikipedia and similar things as sources for their homeworks and believing every shit ...

Again this has nothing to do with to be pro vegan or no pro vegan or follow a ⅔ vegan or whatever, but answering about facts that are not really facts (if you verify that) and if you invested MANY hours to read all such papers like we did ... this is how science works (but even other things work), verify all informations ... and don't just follow things like sheeps #StopDieWelle @DieWelleTelegram

This is for example how the Popeye Spinach Iron myth got discovered from some people that verify things. True facts are
https://www.dge.de/wissenschaft/referenzwerte/eisen/
https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/science/monitoringnutrients/afcd/Pages/fooddetails.aspx?PFKID=F008749
https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/science/monitoringnutrients/afcd/Pages/fooddetails.aspx?PFKID=F008761
https://valeursnutritives.ch/it/search/#/food/341031
about such topic, without considering now the topic absorption of the iron ..

PS: about the social, it's just because their subreddit is just shit, where no photos or whatever can be posted ... so we wrote that they need to check the posts somewhere other, since we wrote maybe 6 posts ...

This is a good example how people are acting like sheeps, even if in such case the goal is to save our planet. Related to the previous posts. Such things happens even with many professionals!!!!

Again:
1) don't believe all shit you hear / read / see
2) consider multiple point of views (sheeps are even people that just look from one point by ignoring all other things)
3) verify almost all important informations
4) don't act just because someone other is doing that. Not just because a celebrity etc. is doing something, means it's correct too!

Don't be ignorant about climate change like this dude. So don't act like a sheep without knowing why? #StopDieWelle @DieWelleTelegram

Be informed properly
https://t.me/AnimalFreaks/1391
https://t.me/AnimalFreaks/1395
https://t.me/AnimalFreaks/1405

https://t.me/ClimateChangeTelegram
https://t.me/MeteoTelegram

Backup by @VeganNutritionTelegram
A @grttme project - Other backups: https://swiy.co/tgme

Let we check now source 7 for this statement. Ops sorry, we already did before, when we checked some other studies ... it's a book (= not a real valid scientific source!!!)

Check previous post https://t.me/VeganFactsTelegram/220 (in few words "30-40% of teenage girls and older women and men don’t meet the RDA for protein")

But let we check a bit more the "The Dietitian's Guide to Vegetarian Diets: Issues and Applications":

They write "Intake decreased to 91 to 66+/- 17 g pro day in elderly. 8.6% were below requirement" The requirement without vegan nutrition is at least 1.2 g in elderly (increased). Means that they should weight 55kg to meet such requirement, without considering those who consumed 49 g protein pro day. Then we need to consider 10-20% more need due to protein quality, more need for clinical nutrition. So how the hell can we call it "typically exceeed". Plus what you mean with "typically". Each word can be interpreted in so many ways! and "typically for which country? which culture? which age? which patient? which ...?"

But let we check the cited paper (2003-2004): men 73.4 +/- 18 women 58.6 +/- 14.7 = 61 kg and 48 kg. Later they write 1 g/kg +/- 0.3.
Let we check the whole pdf, not just the 4 pages summary: "Weight Comment: Missing in 9264 and Clothing in 338 ..."
Let we check a 🇨🇭 paper by University of Zurich published about the NHANES, where data is showed much easier and faster: 73% had BMI over 25 kg/m2 = they weight more, so if this 1 g (which is not enough for elderly....) is correct, it's still a question ...

Back to the book:
They even write "Diets in different geographic regions differ markedly in their percentage of protein derived from plant and animal sources"! This is important to not forget = we cannot use USA data with other countries, it's like saying animal physiology is = to human physiology ...

Let we check now source 7 for this statement. Ops sorry, we already did before, when we checked some other studies ... it's a book (= not a real valid scientific source!!!) Part 2

"The median intake of protein on a percentage of calories basis ranged from 13.4% in children age 4 to 8 years to 16.0% in men age 51 to 70 years." 1) % of energy is saying anything! 2) what about 71+?

"It has been noted by others that the expected estimate of the protein intake in the MyPyramid food patterns ranges from 44 to 126 g protein/d, depending on calorie levels ...." Here we go again! Huge difference between people and situation ...

Conclusion: they just considered old data, from a book published 12 years ago!! using data published in 2004!

In the last 20 years there was an huge difference between availability of vegan products (various contain less or almost zero protein, like we reported previously https://t.me/VeganFactsTelegram/181). It's ridiculous that a 2016 statement still use incomplete data published 20-30+ years ago!

That elderly need more than 1.2 g/kg was already know in 2016 too, but they just ignored that. Again, this is not just about elderly, check all previous posts.

Part 1 here https://t.me/VeganFactsTelegram/236
Other https://t.me/s/VeganNutritionTelegram/47