Easily Digestible Vegetarian Protein Sources

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

Have a question or a request? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!

In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

So, no question/request too big or small

❝What could be easily digestible plant sources of protein for a vegetarian. My son is a gym holic and always looking for ways to get his protein from lentils other than eggs. He says to reach his protein requirement for the day, the amount of lentils he has to eat is sometimes heavy on the gut. Would really appreciate if you throw some light on this ❞

Unless one has IBS or similar (or is otherwise unaccustomed to consuming healthy amounts of fiber), lentils shouldn’t be at all problematic for the digestion.

However, the digestive process can still be eased by (speaking specifically for lentils here) blending them (in the water they were cooked in). This thick tasty liquid can then be used as the base of a soup, for example.

Soy is an excellent source of complete protein too. Your son probably knows this because it’s in a lot of body-building supplements as soy protein isolate, but can also be enjoyed as textured soy protein (as in many plant-based meats), or even just soy beans (edamame). Tofu (also made from soy) is very versatile, and again can be blended to form the basis of a creamy sauce.

Mycoproteins (as found in “Quorn” brand products and other meat substitutes) also perform comparably to meat from animals:

Meatless Muscle Growth: Building Muscle Size and Strength on a Mycoprotein-Rich Vegan Diet

See also, for interest:

Vegan and Omnivorous High Protein Diets Support Comparable Daily Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis Rates and Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy in Young Adults

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

    • Improve Your Insulin Sensitivity!
      Manage blood sugar, master your health! From the perils of diabetes to monitoring blood sugars, and taking control of insulin levels—ensure your health doesn’t “fall like dominoes.”

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

    • Can We Drink To Good Health?

      10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

      Can we drink to good health?

      We asked you for your thoughts on alcohol and heart health, and we got quite an even spread of results!

      If perchance that’s too tiny to read, the figures were:

      • 32% voted for “Alcohol is a relaxant, reduces stress, and can contain resveratrol too. It’s good for the heart!”
      • 32% voted for: “Moderate alcohol consumption can be at least neutral for the health, if not positive ⚖️”
      • 36% voted for: “Alcohol is bad for pretty much everything, including heart health ✋”

      One subscriber who voted for “Alcohol is a relaxant, reduces stress, and can contain resveratrol too. It’s good for the heart!” added the following thoughts:

      ❝While it isn’t necessary to consume alcohol, moderate amounts can be beneficial and contribute to well-being through social activity, celebrations, etc.❞

      That’s an interesting point, and definitely many people do see alcohol that way! Of course, that does not mean that one will find no social activities, celebrations, etc, in parts of the world where alcohol consumption is uncommon. Indeed, in India, wedding parties where no alcohol is consumed can go on for days!

      But, “we live in a society” and all that, and while we’re a health newsletter not a social issues newsletter, it’d be remiss of us to not acknowledge the importance of socialization for good mental health—and thus the rest of our health too.

      So, if indeed all our friends and family drink alcohol, it can certainly make abstaining more of a challenge.

      On that note, let’s take a moment to considerThe French Paradox” (an observation of a low prevalence of ischemic heart disease despite high intakes of saturated fat, a phenomenon accredited to the consumption of red wine).

      As it happens, a comprehensive review in “Circulation”, a cardiovascular health journal, has suggested the French Paradox may not be so paradoxical after all.

      Research suggests it has more to do with other lifestyle factors (and historic under-reporting of cardiovascular disease by French doctors), which would explain why Japan has lower rates of heart disease, despite drinking little wine, and more beer and spirits.

      So, our subscriber’s note may not be completely without reason! It’s just about the party, not the alcohol.

      One subscriber who voted for “Moderate alcohol consumption can be at least neutral for the health, if not positive ⚖️” wrote:

      ❝Keeping in mind, moderate means one glass of wine for women a day and two for men. Hard alcohol doesn’t have the same heart benefits as wine❞

      That is indeed the guideline according to some health bodies!

      In other places with different guiding advisory bodies, that’s been dropped down to one a day for everyone (the science may be universal, but how government institutions interpret that is not).

      About that wine… Specifically, red wine, for its resveratrol content:

      While there are polyphenols such as resveratrol in red wine that could boost heart health, there’s so little per glass that you may need 100–1000 glasses to get the dosage that provides benefits in mouse studies. If you’re not a mouse, you might even need more.

      To this end, many people prefer resveratrol supplementation. ← link is to an example product, but there are plenty more so feel free to shop around

      A subscriber who voted for “Alcohol is bad for pretty much everything, including heart health ✋” says:

      ❝New guidelines suggest 1 to 2 drinks a week are okay but the less the better.❞

      If you haven’t heard these new guidelines, we’ll mention again: every government has its own official bodies and guidelines so perhaps your local guidelines differ, but for example here’s what that World Health Organization has to say (as of January this year):

      WHO: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

      So, whom to believe? The governments who hopefully consider the welfare of their citizenry more important than the tax dollars from alcohol sales, or the World Health Organization?

      It’s a tough one, but we’ll always err on the side of the science.

      Share This Post

    • Cottage Cheese vs Ricotta – Which is Healthier?

      10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

      Our Verdict

      When comparing cottage cheese to ricotta, we picked the ricotta.

      Why?

      Cottage cheese is a famous health food, mostly for being a low-fat, low-carb, source of protein. And yet, ricotta beats it in most respects.

      Looking at the macros first, cottage cheese has more carbs, while ricotta has more protein and fat. The fat profile is pretty much the same, and in both cases it’s two thirds saturated fat, which isn’t good in either case, but cottage cheese has less overall fat which means less saturated fat in total even if the percentage is the same. Because the difference in carbs and protein is not large, while ricotta has considerably more fat, we’ll call this category a win for cottage cheese.

      In terms of vitamins, cottage cheese has more of vitamins B1, B5, and B12, while ricotta has more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B9, D, E, and K, so this one’s a win for ricotta.

      In the category of minerals, cottage cheese has slightly more copper, while ricotta has much more calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, selenium, and zinc. In particular, 2.5x more calcium, and 5x more iron! An easy and clear win for ricotta here.

      Taking everything into account: yes, cottage cheese has less fat (and thus, in total, less saturated fat, although the percentage is the same), but that doesn’t make up for ricotta winning in pretty much every other respect. Still, enjoy either or both (in moderation!) if you be so inclined.

      Want to learn more?

      You might like to read:

      Is Dairy Scary?

      Take care!

      Share This Post

    • What will aged care look like for the next generation? More of the same but higher out-of-pocket costs

      10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

      Aged care financing is a vexed problem for the Australian government. It is already underfunded for the quality the community expects, and costs will increase dramatically. There are also significant concerns about the complexity of the system.

      In 2021–22 the federal government spent A$25 billion on aged services for around 1.2 million people aged 65 and over. Around 60% went to residential care (190,000 people) and one-third to home care (one million people).

      The final report from the government’s Aged Care Taskforce, which has been reviewing funding options, estimates the number of people who will need services is likely to grow to more than two million over the next 20 years. Costs are therefore likely to more than double.

      The taskforce has considered what aged care services are reasonable and necessary and made recommendations to the government about how they can be paid for. This includes getting aged care users to pay for more of their care.

      But rather than recommending an alternative financing arrangement that will safeguard Australians’ aged care services into the future, the taskforce largely recommends tidying up existing arrangements and keeping the status quo.

      No Medicare-style levy

      The taskforce rejected the aged care royal commission’s recommendation to introduce a levy to meet aged care cost increases. A 1% levy, similar to the Medicare levy, could have raised around $8 billion a year.

      The taskforce failed to consider the mix of taxation, personal contributions and social insurance which are commonly used to fund aged care systems internationally. The Japanese system, for example, is financed by long-term insurance paid by those aged 40 and over, plus general taxation and a small copayment.

      Instead, the taskforce puts forward a simple, pragmatic argument that older people are becoming wealthier through superannuation, there is a cost of living crisis for younger people and therefore older people should be required to pay more of their aged care costs.

      Separating care from other services

      In deciding what older people should pay more for, the taskforce divided services into care, everyday living and accommodation.

      The taskforce thought the most important services were clinical services (including nursing and allied health) and these should be the main responsibility of government funding. Personal care, including showering and dressing were seen as a middle tier that is likely to attract some co-payment, despite these services often being necessary to maintain independence.

      The task force recommended the costs for everyday living (such as food and utilities) and accommodation expenses (such as rent) should increasingly be a personal responsibility.

      Aged care resident eats dinner from a tray
      Aged care users will pay more of their share for cooking and cleaning.
      Lizelle Lotter/Shutterstock

      Making the system fairer

      The taskforce thought it was unfair people in residential care were making substantial contributions for their everyday living expenses (about 25%) and those receiving home care weren’t (about 5%). This is, in part, because home care has always had a muddled set of rules about user co-payments.

      But the taskforce provided no analysis of accommodation costs (such as utilities and maintenance) people meet at home compared with residential care.

      To address the inefficiencies of upfront daily fees for packages, the taskforce recommends means testing co-payments for home care packages and basing them on the actual level of service users receive for everyday support (for food, cleaning, and so on) and to a lesser extent for support to maintain independence.

      It is unclear whether clinical and personal care costs and user contributions will be treated the same for residential and home care.

      Making residential aged care sustainable

      The taskforce was concerned residential care operators were losing $4 per resident day on “hotel” (accommodation services) and everyday living costs.

      The taskforce recommends means tested user contributions for room services and everyday living costs be increased.

      It also recommends that wealthier older people be given more choice by allowing them to pay more (per resident day) for better amenities. This would allow providers to fully meet the cost of these services.

      Effectively, this means daily living charges for residents are too low and inflexible and that fees would go up, although the taskforce was clear that low-income residents should be protected.

      Moving from buying to renting rooms

      Currently older people who need residential care have a choice of making a refundable up-front payment for their room or to pay rent to offset the loans providers take out to build facilities. Providers raise capital to build aged care facilities through equity or loan financing.

      However, the taskforce did not consider the overall efficiency of the private capital market for financing aged care or alternative solutions.

      Instead, it recommended capital contributions be streamlined and simplified by phasing out up-front payments and focusing on rental contributions. This echoes the royal commission, which found rent to be a more efficient and less risky method of financing capital for aged care in private capital markets.

      It’s likely that in a decade or so, once the new home care arrangements are in place, there will be proportionally fewer older people in residential aged care. Those who do go are likely to be more disabled and have greater care needs. And those with more money will pay more for their accommodation and everyday living arrangements. But they may have more choice too.

      Although the federal government has ruled out an aged care levy and changes to assets test on the family home, it has yet to respond to the majority of the recommendations. But given the aged care minister chaired the taskforce, it’s likely to provide a good indication of current thinking.The Conversation

      Hal Swerissen, Emeritus Professor, La Trobe University

      This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

      Share This Post

    Related Posts

      • The Epigenetics Revolution – by Dr. Nessa Carey

        10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

        If you enjoyed the book “Inheritance” that we reviewed a couple of days ago, you might love this as a “next read” book. But you can also just dive straight in here, if you like!

        This one, as the title suggests, focuses entirely on epigenetics—how our life events can shape our genetic expression, and that of our descendants. Or to look at it in the other direction, how our genetic expression can be shaped by the life experiences of, for example, our grandparents.

        The style of this book is very much pop-science, but contains a lot of information from hard science throughout. We learn not just about longitudinal population studies as one might expect, but also about the intricacies of DNA methylation and histone modifications, for example.

        Depending on your outlook, you may find some of this very bleak (“great, I am shackled by what my grandparents did”) or very optimism-inducing (“oh wow, I’m not nearly so constrained by genetics as I thought; this stuff is so malleable!”). This is also the same author who wrote “Hacking The Code of Life“, by the way, but we’ll review that another day.

        Bottom line: this book is the best one-shot primer on epigenetics that this reviewer has read (you may be wondering how many that is, and the answer is… about seven or so? I’m not good at counting).

        Click here to check out The Epigenetics Revolution, and learn how dynamic you really are!

        Don’t Forget…

        Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

        Learn to Age Gracefully

        Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

      • Red Cabbage vs Brussels Sprouts – Which is Healthier?

        10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

        Our Verdict

        When comparing red cabbage to Brussels sprouts, we picked the sprouts.

        Why?

        First let’s note that we have an interesting comparison today, because these two plants are the exact same species (and indeed, also the exact same species as broccoli, cauliflower. and kale)—just a different cultivar. All of these plants and more are simply cultivars of Brassica oleracea.

        Them being the same species notwithstanding, there are nutritional differences:

        In terms of macros, the sprouts have more than 2x the protein, slightly more carbs, and nearly 2x the fiber. An easy win for sprouts here.

        Looking at vitamins next, red cabbage has more vitamin A (whence the color), while Brussels sprouts have more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, C, E, K, and choline. Another easy win for sprouts.

        In the category of minerals, red cabbage has a tiny bit more calcium, while Brussels sprouts have more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc—while being literally just a few mg/100g behind red cabbage on calcium anyway. So, once again, sprouts are sweeping the victory.

        Both vegetables are a rich source of assorted polyphenols; for most polyphenols, Brussels sprouts scores higher—an exception being that red cabbage is very slightly higher in quercetin. So, we’ll call this category a win for Brussels sprouts, too.

        In short: enjoy both; diversity is great and so is pretty much any iteration of Brassica oleracea. Standing next to Brussels sprouts made red cabbage look bad, but we assure you that cabbage in general is a nutritional powerhouse, and in this case it was hot the heels of sprouts in most of those micronutrients. If you’re going to pick one though, the Brussels sprouts are indeed the more nutritionally dense.

        Want to learn more?

        You might like to read:

        Sprout Your Seeds, Grains, Beans, Etc ← sprout your Brassica oleracea, too!

        Take care!

        Don’t Forget…

        Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

        Learn to Age Gracefully

        Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

      • Do we need animal products to be healthy?

        10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

        Do we need animal products to be healthy?

        We asked you for your (health-related) perspective on plant-based vs anima-based foods, and got the above-pictured spread of answers.

        “Some or all of us may need small amounts of animal products” came out on top with more votes than the two more meat-eatery options combined, and the second most popular option was the hard-line “We can all live healthily and happily on just plants”.

        Based on these answers, it seems our readership has quite a lot of vegans, vegetarians, and perhaps “flexitarians” who just have a little of animal products here and there.

        Perhaps we should have seen this coming; the newsletter is “10almonds”, not “10 rashers of bacon”, after all.

        But what does the science say?

        We are carnivores and are best eating plenty of meat: True or False?

        False. Let’s just rip the band-aid off for this one.

        In terms of our anatomy and physiology, we are neither carnivores nor herbivores:

        • We have a mid-length digestive tract (unlike carnivores and herbivores who have short and long ones, respectively)
        • We have a mouthful of an assortment of teeth; molars and premolars for getting through plants from hard nuts to tough fibrous tubers, and we have incisors for cutting into flesh and (vestigial, but they’re there) canines that really serve us no purpose now but would have been a vicious bite when they were bigger, like some other modern-day primates.
        • If we look at our closest living relatives, the other great apes, they are mostly frugivores (fruit-eaters) who supplement their fruity diet with a small quantity of insects and sometimes other small animals—of which they’ll often eat only the fatty organ meat and discard the rest.

        And then, there’s the health risks associated with meat. We’ll not linger on this as we’ve talked about it before, but for example:

        If we avoid processed and/or red meat, that’s good enough: True or False?

        True… Ish.

        Really this one depends on one’s criteria for “good enough”. The above-linked studies, and plenty more like them, give the following broad picture:

        • Red and/or processed meats are unequivocally terrible for the health in general
        • Other mammalian meats, such as from pigs, are really not much better
        • Poultry, on the other hand, the science is less clear on; the results are mixed, and thus so are the conclusions. The results are often barely statistically significant. In other words, when it comes to poultry, in the matter of health, the general consensus is that you can take it or leave it and will be fine. Some studies have found firmly for or against it, but the consensus is a collective scientific shrug.
        • Fish, meanwhile, has almost universally been found to be healthful in moderation. You may have other reasons for wanting to avoid it (ethics, environmentalism, personal taste) but those things are beyond the scope of this article.

        Some or all of us may need small amounts of animal products: True or False?

        True! With nuances.

        Let’s divide this into “some” and “all”. Firstly, some people may have health conditions and/or other mitigating circumstances that make an entirely plant-based diet untenable.

        We’re going light on quotations from subscriber comments today because otherwise this article will get a bit long, but here’s a great example that’s worth quoting, from a subscriber who voted for this option:

        ❝I have a rare genetic disease called hereditary fructose intolerance. It means I lack the enzyme, Aldolase B, to process fructose. Eating fruits and veggies thus gives me severe hypoglycemia. I also have anemia caused by two autoimmune diseases, so I have to eat meat for the iron it supplies. I also supplement with iron pills but the pills alone can’t fix the problem entirely.❞

        And, there’s the thing. Popular vegan talking-points are very good at saying “if you have this problem, this will address it; if you have that problem, that will address it”, etc. For every health-related objection to a fully plant-based diet there’s a refutation… Individually.

        But actual real-world health doesn’t work like that; co-morbidities are very common, and in some cases, like our subscriber above, one problem undermines the solution to another. Add a third problem and by now you really just have to do what you need to do to survive.

        For this reason, even the Vegan Society’s definition of veganism includes the clause “so far as is possible and practicable”.

        Now, as for the rest of us “all”.

        What if we’re really healthy and are living in optimal circumstances (easy access to a wide variety of choice of food), can we live healthily and happily just on plants?

        No—on a technicality.

        Vegans famously need to supplement vitamin B12, which is not found in plants. Ironically, much of the B12 in animal products comes from the animals themselves being given supplements, but that’s another matter. However, B12 can also be enjoyed from yeast. Popular options include the use of yeast extract (e.g. Marmite) and/or nutritional yeast in cooking.

        Yeast is a single-celled microorganism that’s taxonomically classified as a fungus, even though in many ways it behaves like an animal (which series of words may conjure an amusing image, but we mean, biologically speaking).

        However, it’s also not technically a plant, hence the “No—on a technicality”

        Bottom line:

        By nature, humans are quite versatile generalists when it comes to diet:

        • Most of us can live healthily and happily on just plants if we so choose.
        • Some people cannot, and will require varying kinds (and quantities) of animal products.
        • As for red and/or processed meats, we’re not the boss of you, but from a health perspective, the science is clear: unless you have a circumstance that really necessitates it, just don’t.
          • Same goes for pork, which isn’t red and may not be processed, but metabolically it’s associated with the same problems.
        • The jury is out on poultry, but it strongly appears to be optional, healthwise, without making much of a difference either way
        • Fish is roundly considered healthful in moderation. Enjoy it if you want, don’t if you don’t.

        Don’t Forget…

        Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

        Learn to Age Gracefully

        Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: