this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
359 points (85.0% liked)
Perry Bible Fellowship
645 readers
224 users here now
This is a community dedicated to the webcomic known as the Perry Bible Fellowship, created by Nicholas Gurewitch.
https://www.patreon.com/perryfellow
New comics posted whenever they're posted to the site (rarer nowadays but still ongoing). Old comics posted every day until we're caught up
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think you read the study you linked. It shows I was wrong, it's LOWER than 40-50 grams per serving according to the study.
According to their study, the optimal amount seems to be closer to 20g per meal, eating in intervals of 3 hours.
And why are you picking broccoli? Instead of something that contains more protein such as green lentils or oats. Probably because it wouldn't fit your argument.
And no. I don't mean my opinion when I say science. I mean the results coming from peer reviewed, repeatable experiments, that we use to conclude results based on our hypothesis.
At this point, this is just your rhetoric, I know you haven't had time to read the whole paper since you responded.
You will notice that in the IF section, and the OMAD section, groups of women (both young and old) they maintained their muscle mass despite exceeding the single meal limit.
Optimal for whom, and in what context? The point of the survey was that there are MANY variables at place, and focusing on a single group and a single metric (young body builders, anabolism) is being too simplistic.
If you care to look at the DIAAS calculator for oats you will see they are not a complete source of amino acids. Potatoes would be a better choice. In your original comment you mentioned buckets of leafy greens, so I was restricting myself to green material.
You have a tendency to over simplify, and not provide references.
You're not eating oats for the amino acids. You eat them for their protein and carbonhydrate content. Which is the topic here.
If you read just a little bit of it. You would know whom it was optimal for and in what context.
There is a big difference between protein used for rebuilding muscle tissue, and just providing fuel for the body as a whole. At a certain point. The excess protein you put in, isn't going to be used for rebuilding tissue. It's going to be stored as energy to be used.
I'm not gonna go into a big argument with someone that thinks a vegan diet is impossible for maintaining your body. There are many well known elite athletes that are vegan. If they can perform on an elite level on a strictly vegan diet. Normal people can sure as hell live on it as well.
It's not a debate. We already know the answer. Your notion that veganiam is a "death cult" is just ridiculous. I have no doubt, you'll be able to drag me down to your stupidity and beat me with experience.
Good luck.
Hey, remember all the insults you have been throwing around about other people being bad at reading, and bad at science?
Guess what proteins are made of?
You are just a rhetoric machine. Clearly as demonstrated in the survey paper people can utilize more then 50g of protein in a single bolus.
This is a mechanistic assumption, it has not been empirically mapped (science literacy again). If you have a reference where it has been demonstrated, I'd genuinely love to read it.
That's funny, I'm not the one who said that, it was the doktor.
Again not me, I worry about your demonstrated poor reading comprehension
@Sunshine@lemmy.ca
Please explain this to me, I'm here just talking about protein absorption and I get a downvote. I'm not the person who said anything bad about veganism.
The person who called veganism bad words doesn't get a downvote?
What did you find objectionable here? The protein absorption rate discussion. Normally I understand why you downvote something, here I'm a bit lost.
I don't have to guess. But since you seemed confused about it I wanted to make it crystal clear.
You can utilize unlimited amounts of protein. But it's not going to rebuild tissue that doesn't need rebuilding. That's the whole point. You CAN eat 5kg of beef in a single day. That doesn't mean your body will be able to put all of the protein to their primary use.
Yet here you are, spouting the same rethoric.
I asked you for a citation or a reference on the >50g of protein sink.
You never apologize for being incorrect or insulting people, do you?
I never claimed a >50g of protein sink. What I said, was that we typically can not utilize more than 40-50g for repairing muscle tissue (per meal). That is the number I recall from biology in college roughly 13 years ago. It would seem that we've since concluded that optimal intake for the purpose of repairing muscle tissue is much lower per meal. While I was wrong about the number, I was far closer to the modern number than what was claimed by mr "Vegan Death Cult"-guy, and parroted by you for his defense.
The study you linked, and this one both claim a much lower "limit" per meal, so while my information was outdated, it's outdated in the opposite direction of what is being argued. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5828430/
If you feel insulted, that's on you. And why you feel like people have to apologize for being mistaken when they change their mind when presented with new, more accurate information is beyond me. I'm not going to apologize for learning. And what a wonderful thing to learn, we need even less protein per meal for muscle tissue regeneration than I initially thought. That's great news.
I haven't concluded this.
It really doesn't. It says given the current literature we cannot map a direct MPS benefit for greater consumption in 20 something men doing body building.
Thanks for the paper, I'll put it on the read queue.
Because your insulting everyone you speak with in conversations, your the one creating offense. I'm not opposed to you onboarding new information but the shear hubris you demonstrate "You didn't read this", "you dont understand science", etc is really insulting to everyone.
While you may not have concluded that. It would seem that the authors of the study you, yourself linked. Have. And the authors of the study I linked have as well.
Yes, MPS is the goal here. That's mainly what you want Protein for.
I just find it hard to believe you would read a study that disproves your claim, and then link it as some kind of "gotcha-moment". It doesn't support your argument. It does the exact opposite. So, the logical conclusion of why someone would do that. Is that they did not read it. But if you did read it, and understood that it does in fact not support your argument. Feel free to indulge me in why you would link it.
If you take offense to being told that I don't think you read the study you linked since it literally disproves your own argument. Then so be it. And I don't know what else to say about the guy who doesn't think human beings can survive and thrive on a non meat diet. We're talking elementary school level of education that is desperately lacking. Now that is slightly insulting. To the parents and teachers who failed him.
Perhaps it is my illiterate nature, but I would say they made the more nuanced and validated statement "the current literature we cannot map a direct MPS benefit for greater consumption in 20 something men doing body building."
That is a very limited context, which the authors are very careful about speaking to its limited implications in overall health and health goals.
It doesn't, the paper has depth and nuance and a careful review of it makes it clear the simplistic sound bite take away is too simplistic, which was my entire point, and still is my entire point.
I didn't say this.
Yet another insult.