This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Protein quality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
}} }}
What about fish and other sources of protein? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.37.60.50 ( talk) 13:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Margalob, I have to slightly disagree with you rewriting the lead here, because protein quality isn't only determined by digestibility and EAA minimum requirements. It's true that PDCAAS and DIAAS focus mainly on those two aspects, but the other and older methods focus on other aspects. And for example, Biological Value and Nitrogen Balance (I haven't included it yet) are the methods (especially BV) that are still promoted by various bodybuilding supplement manufacturers. HempFan ( talk) 15:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
How is the value in the Complete Protein column determined? For example, Soy has a PDCAAS of 0.91, and Beef is 0.92, and they are both listed as complete proteins, while Mycoprotein is listed as having a PDCAAS of 0.996, yet it is listed as not a complete protein. Why is that? Also, how are you defining Complete Protein? It doesn't seem to match up with the Complete Protein article.-- SaletteAndrews ( talk) 15:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I added a new section, please have a look at it and correct me where I did something wrong with the formatting and such. Also, USDA.gov while a reliable source, isn't the most accurate information on amino acid profile from what I've noticed, because I don't know how they've calculated it, but the numbers aren't always adding up properly. HempFan ( talk) 15:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I made some fairly simple changes (even if it did take more than a half hour of work), and they've been reverted without giving any reason. I was just told to go discuss it here. I find this very unfriendly. I'm not saying that putting time into editing means that the edits have an automatic right to stand, but I do think it should be common courtesy to explain a revert after someone puts in more than 30 minutes of work.
Below are my reverted edits. I explained each in the edit summaries, but I'll explain them further here:
Wikipedia lives on contributors. Reverting is a very aggressive move and does the opposite of what we need for community-building.
So firstly, I'd like to reinstate these edits. Anyone have a problem with the above edits?
Secondly, and more importantly, can we stop the aggressiveness and insta-reverting? It's really offputting. Great floors ( talk) 09:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I've been reverted again. Again, no reason has been given.
I got reverted with no explanation.
I reinstated my edits, and got reverted again, with no explanation again.
How long do I have to wait for your comments/blessing Hempfan? Great floors ( talk) 09:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I can see that no one is going to remove the "complete protein" section even though recently it is criticized a lot, but at least it should depict the correct verdicts about plant-based proteins. The table says that limiting amino acids for soy and pea proteins are meth+cyst, which is not true. Soy protein has 2.6% of meth+cyst of total protein that is more than required - 2.5% to qualify as a complete protein (see Complete protein#Optimal amino acid profile for the guidelines and [1] for amino acid profile of soy protein). Same is for a pea protein, which has about 2.54% of meth+cyst of total protein which just fits in the required amount. So I am changing the complete protein status of these two proteins. If anyone doubts about the numbers I say, please go to the above-mentioned resources and calculate it yourself. If there is another reason for why changes should not be made, I am open to it. Please do not revert the changes without explanation, since I truly want to know why soy and pea proteins are not regarded as "complete" :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzaocom ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
In the complete protein section, none of the other protein sources are referenced there either in the yes/no field; the references are found throughout the article, mainly in amino acid score and the amino acid quantity from the USDA. There's plenty of references for soy not being a complete protein, for example, that soy only reaches 0.91 on the PDCAAS scale, and PDCAAS might even be superseded by DIAAS eventually, and soy is definitely not a complete protein source on the DIAAS scale either (also referenced). In any case, the source you provided, says that soy is a complete protein because it has all the essential amino acids. Well with the exception of gelatin, all protein sources contain the essential amino acids, so if we were to go by this, gelatin would be the only incomplete protein source. Obviously, a protein is complete if it contains the essential amino acids in sufficient quantities, as determined by amino acid score. And soy is slightly deficient in the sulfur amino acids. And then there's the digestibility factor to keep in mind, which makes all protein sources less complete. Keep in mind, that I really like soy protein and that I eat soy almost every day in one form or another. But it's just not a complete protein source. Most beans (if not all) are slightly deficient in methionine/cysteine, so it's not a soy thing, and that's not necessarily a bad thing either, because it's good for protein combining with other protein sources such as rice and so on. Anyway, soy's limiting amino acids, methionine and cysteine, are very much well referenced in the article from multiple studies and USDA. HempFan ( talk) 12:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Zefr, please explain why you removed WHO/FAO as a source, in this edit. Thanks. HempFan ( talk) 18:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Protein quality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
}} }}
What about fish and other sources of protein? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.37.60.50 ( talk) 13:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Margalob, I have to slightly disagree with you rewriting the lead here, because protein quality isn't only determined by digestibility and EAA minimum requirements. It's true that PDCAAS and DIAAS focus mainly on those two aspects, but the other and older methods focus on other aspects. And for example, Biological Value and Nitrogen Balance (I haven't included it yet) are the methods (especially BV) that are still promoted by various bodybuilding supplement manufacturers. HempFan ( talk) 15:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
How is the value in the Complete Protein column determined? For example, Soy has a PDCAAS of 0.91, and Beef is 0.92, and they are both listed as complete proteins, while Mycoprotein is listed as having a PDCAAS of 0.996, yet it is listed as not a complete protein. Why is that? Also, how are you defining Complete Protein? It doesn't seem to match up with the Complete Protein article.-- SaletteAndrews ( talk) 15:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I added a new section, please have a look at it and correct me where I did something wrong with the formatting and such. Also, USDA.gov while a reliable source, isn't the most accurate information on amino acid profile from what I've noticed, because I don't know how they've calculated it, but the numbers aren't always adding up properly. HempFan ( talk) 15:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I made some fairly simple changes (even if it did take more than a half hour of work), and they've been reverted without giving any reason. I was just told to go discuss it here. I find this very unfriendly. I'm not saying that putting time into editing means that the edits have an automatic right to stand, but I do think it should be common courtesy to explain a revert after someone puts in more than 30 minutes of work.
Below are my reverted edits. I explained each in the edit summaries, but I'll explain them further here:
Wikipedia lives on contributors. Reverting is a very aggressive move and does the opposite of what we need for community-building.
So firstly, I'd like to reinstate these edits. Anyone have a problem with the above edits?
Secondly, and more importantly, can we stop the aggressiveness and insta-reverting? It's really offputting. Great floors ( talk) 09:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I've been reverted again. Again, no reason has been given.
I got reverted with no explanation.
I reinstated my edits, and got reverted again, with no explanation again.
How long do I have to wait for your comments/blessing Hempfan? Great floors ( talk) 09:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I can see that no one is going to remove the "complete protein" section even though recently it is criticized a lot, but at least it should depict the correct verdicts about plant-based proteins. The table says that limiting amino acids for soy and pea proteins are meth+cyst, which is not true. Soy protein has 2.6% of meth+cyst of total protein that is more than required - 2.5% to qualify as a complete protein (see Complete protein#Optimal amino acid profile for the guidelines and [1] for amino acid profile of soy protein). Same is for a pea protein, which has about 2.54% of meth+cyst of total protein which just fits in the required amount. So I am changing the complete protein status of these two proteins. If anyone doubts about the numbers I say, please go to the above-mentioned resources and calculate it yourself. If there is another reason for why changes should not be made, I am open to it. Please do not revert the changes without explanation, since I truly want to know why soy and pea proteins are not regarded as "complete" :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzaocom ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
In the complete protein section, none of the other protein sources are referenced there either in the yes/no field; the references are found throughout the article, mainly in amino acid score and the amino acid quantity from the USDA. There's plenty of references for soy not being a complete protein, for example, that soy only reaches 0.91 on the PDCAAS scale, and PDCAAS might even be superseded by DIAAS eventually, and soy is definitely not a complete protein source on the DIAAS scale either (also referenced). In any case, the source you provided, says that soy is a complete protein because it has all the essential amino acids. Well with the exception of gelatin, all protein sources contain the essential amino acids, so if we were to go by this, gelatin would be the only incomplete protein source. Obviously, a protein is complete if it contains the essential amino acids in sufficient quantities, as determined by amino acid score. And soy is slightly deficient in the sulfur amino acids. And then there's the digestibility factor to keep in mind, which makes all protein sources less complete. Keep in mind, that I really like soy protein and that I eat soy almost every day in one form or another. But it's just not a complete protein source. Most beans (if not all) are slightly deficient in methionine/cysteine, so it's not a soy thing, and that's not necessarily a bad thing either, because it's good for protein combining with other protein sources such as rice and so on. Anyway, soy's limiting amino acids, methionine and cysteine, are very much well referenced in the article from multiple studies and USDA. HempFan ( talk) 12:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Zefr, please explain why you removed WHO/FAO as a source, in this edit. Thanks. HempFan ( talk) 18:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)