Hypothetically, it said specifically vegan men instead of being broader

So is that like a yea or a nay? :P

Hey now, soyboy doesn’t have to be applied to just boys. The meme was, hypothetically speaking, edited to not say “vegan men”

Or in other words: I’m listening…

There’s always a chance to upgrade. Don’t sleep on the opportunity!

Thank you for your important service 🫡

It’s not bad! I liked it at least. It has a hint of banana but not super strong like I was worried it might be

It didn’t unseat oat milk from its place in my heart, but it was good

Another cool fun fact is that plants are not bugs

Can you elaborate?

Fair enough that the guy has been able to do a lot of other problematic others things

Was more so intended as hyperbole given a lot of the stuff he’s done lately with the bizarre inverted food pyramid, taking part of dairy promotion campaigns, promoting of raw milk (which has a ton more health risks, but is cheaper for the industry to produce), attempts to paint beef tallow as somehow healthy, claiming to “end the war on saturate fat”, etc.

Uh the UK supreme court also prohibited Oatly from even using “post-milk generation” as a slogan. It’s 100% dairy industry pressure because they hate competition rather than because they actually care about labeling

There’s so much interesting history with plant-milks! For the west, almond milk has an especially long history. Here’s an article about how there was a whole sensation around it in medieval Europe

Outside the west, soy milk has a very long history too.

A tofu broth (doufujiang) c. 1365 was used during the Mongol Yuan.[1][2] As doujiang, this drink remains a common watery form of soy milk in China, usually prepared from fresh soybeans. The compendium of Materia Medica, which was completed in 1578, also has an evaluation of soymilk. Its use increased during the Qing dynasty, apparently due to the discovery that gently heating doujiang for at least 90 minutes hydrolyzed or helped to break down its undesirable raffinose and stachyose, oligosaccharides, which can cause flatulence and digestive pain among lactose-intolerant adults.[14][15] By the 18th century, it was common enough that street vendors were hawking it;[16] in the 19th, it was also common to take a cup to tofu shops to get hot, fresh doujiang for breakfast. It was already often paired with youtiao, which was dipped into it.[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soy_milk#History

Yep! It grew popular in medieval Europe periods during lent, but it ended up going far beyond that

But the sheer number of recipes from the Middle Ages that use almond milk, particularly those that combine it with (decidedly un-Lenten) meat, makes it clear that chefs came to regard it as a staple instead of just an alternative ingredient. Almonds turn up everywhere; in the first extant German cookbook, Das Buch von Guter Spise, dating to around 1350, almost a quarter of the recipes call for it.

[…]

Almond milk appeared in more overtly sweet dishes, too. A strawberry pudding could be made by soaking strawberries in wine, then grinding the mixture together with almond milk, sugar, and an assortment of spices, before boiling it all to thicken it.

[…]

Describing the diet of a pair of priests in 15th century Dorset in her book Food in Medieval Times, Professor Melitta Weiss Adamson, of the University of Western Ontario, writes that “almond milk must have played a significant role in their diet judging from the quantities of almonds bought.” She calls the late Medieval world’s appetite for almond milk not just a “love,” but an “addiction.”

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/almond-milk-obsession-origins-middle-ages

Not only that, but even in 1755, plant milks were already in the dictionary

2. Emulsion made by contusion of seeds. Pistachoes, so they be good and not musty, joined with almonds in almond milk, or made into a milk of themselves, like unto almond milk, are an excellent nourisher.

Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary, 1775

Next thing I know you’re going to tell me peanut butter comes from peanuts!?

So I say “consider how some people actually do have a single source of protein per day, they’re not combining it with other food sources, but they should be aware of this” and your reply is “oh but you see they’re combining it with other food sources so that’s not important” flawless logic.

My point is that it effectively happens anyway without even having to think about it in 99% of cases. It’s not really a large issue in the slightest. It just makes things sound scarier and more complex than it needs to be. People have finite ability to focus on various health things, and this just isn’t something 99% of people need to be worried about

If someone is eating the exact identical source exclusively, every single day with no variation in anything, they are likely going to end up deficient in other things way before this, regardless of which thing they are eating (unless it’s something like Huel or Soylent which is designed to include everything). This is not at the level of “someone has beans a lot”. This is at the level of “virtually all of your calories come from beans” to be some larger issue

Many people use it as a lever to attack plant-based diets in situation that it just doesn’t apply at all by making it sound like it’s something you’re needing some spreadsheet for. It’s really not the case. Plus things like soy, chia, hemp, and more are also already complete too

I never said that. You mentioned it, I said I agreed, and you mentioned it again to reinforce a point I never made. Trying to pad out the comment or something?

I was not saying that you said this. I should have worded that better. I was trying to add some more context for relevant statements from authors talking about both complete proteins and protein combining. I did a poor job of that though

because your body will absolutely not fully digest the 2g of protein in your 100g plate of white rice.

You don’t need to digest all of it, it’s just about a specific amino acid (Methionine in this case which beans already have some of). It’s just a little bit to make it complete. For instance, one of the studies you linked with rice + lentils found the two together rose the DIASS to overall be 100% (122% for infants and kids, 143% for older adults)

I should also note protein quality metrics are also often based on some faulty assumptions for plants in particular. For instance, the DIASS has some flaws that make it undervalue the quality of plant proteins

While multiple strengths characterize the DIAAS, substantial limitations remain, many of which are accentuated in the context of a plant-based dietary pattern. Some of these limitations include a failure to translate differences in nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors between plant- and animal-based foods, limited representation of commonly consumed plant-based foods within the scoring framework, inadequate recognition of the increased digestibility of commonly consumed heat-treated and processed plant-based foods, its formulation centered on fast-growing animal models rather than humans, and a focus on individual isolated foods vs the food matrix. The DIAAS is also increasingly being used out of context where its application could produce erroneous results such as exercise settings. When investigating protein quality, particularly in a plant-based dietary context, the DIAAS should ideally be avoided.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13668-020-00348-8.pdf

Many researchers argue the exact opposite - that it is way overemphasized. Especially because thing you might not think of as protein sources can add the missing other amino acids. Things like wheat, rice, etc. also have protein that can complement others. It’s extremely unlikely for a bean heavy diet to actually have beans as the sole source of all protein even if is the main source

Combining does not need to happen for every single meal: so long as the diet is varied and meets caloric needs, even vegans and vegetarians – people who tend to have more “incomplete protein” in their diet – can easily meet their amino acid needs. In other words, most people do not need to consider the completeness of proteins of single foods.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_protein

Especially the false idea that it has to be done at each meal

Protein combining has drawn criticism as an unnecessary complicating factor in nutrition.

In 1981, Frances Moore Lappé changed her position on protein combining from a decade prior in a revised edition of Diet for a Small Planet in which she wrote:

"In 1971 I stressed protein complementarity because I assumed that the only way to get enough protein … was to create a protein as usable by the body as animal protein. In combating the myth that meat is the only way to get high-quality protein, I reinforced another myth. I gave the impression that in order to get enough protein without meat, considerable care was needed in choosing foods. Actually, it is much easier than I thought.

“With three important exceptions, there is little danger of protein deficiency in a plant food diet. The exceptions are diets very heavily dependent on [1] fruit or on [2] some tubers, such as sweet potatoes or cassava, or on [3] junk food (refined flours, sugars, and fat). Fortunately, relatively few people in the world try to survive on diets in which these foods are virtually the sole source of calories. In all other diets, if people are getting enough calories, they are virtually certain of getting enough protein.”[13]: 162

The American Dietetic Association reversed itself in its 1988 position paper on vegetarianism. Suzanne Havala, the primary author of the paper, recalls the research process:

There was no basis for [protein combining] that I could see… I began calling around and talking to people and asking them what the justification was for saying that you had to complement proteins, and there was none. And what I got instead was some interesting insight from people who were knowledgeable and actually felt that there was probably no need to complement proteins. So we went ahead and made that change in the paper. [Note: The paper was approved by peer review and by a delegation vote before becoming official.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_combining#Criticism

Focusing on complete proteins is largely unhelpful 99.9% of cases. Unless you are eating a exclusively singular source of protein for all meals and snacks it’s going to be not practically relevant. You don’t need to get all the amino acids at the same meal - just at some point in the day. And even thing you don’t think of as protein sources can be enough to make something complete. For instance, just adding rice is enough to make beans complete

It’s also not the case that the beans don’t have all the amino acids, they do, it’s just less on certain ones. Which is why it can often take so little to make something complete protein. Complete is just a bar of “does it have this specific threshold of the amino acids”, not does it contain them at all

Incorrect, you can always have more beans

Source: I love beans

Very fitting username for this post. I wish I could be so clever. Alas, they are tricky to come up with

That is ignoring the vast majority of usage. Read about what professors, teachers, etc. are saying about its use and you will not hear it being used as tool as the major use. Everyone claims they are using it as a tool, but most people are using them to outsource thinking, unfortunately. Which is highly problematic when the outputs of LLMs are highly wrong much of the time. You need to use the same skills to evaluate the output that people are outsourcing away. Tools like calculators at least do their tasks correctly as long as your inputs are correct. The same is not true of LLMs. Moreover, people are blindly trusting the LLMs to a point where they are completely stuck whenever the LLM can’t do something or are wrong

Tools like calculators do not take away your ability to think logically, just to do route computation. Research is still emerging, but suggests long term negative effects on cognitive abilities from high LLM use

Also: Regardless of if this graph is caused by schools getting out or not, it’s still very highly used in schools.