Die Übersicht habe ich mit waistline erstellt und auch die Lebensmittel hinzugefügt. Mein Ziel sind grob 2200kcal. Unten zeige ich einen standard Tag auf, andere Tage weichen im Inhalt ein wenig davon ab, aber das Grundgerüst bleibt das gleiche. Ich nehme zusätzlich Eisen weil ich regelmäßig Blut spende, Vitamin D weil...
Ich würde persönlich noch ein paar mehr unterschiedliche Gemüse und Obst mit einbauen - damit das einen schönen “Regenbogen” ergibt. Vor allem “buntes” Gemüse fehlt mit etwas, aber mir ist schon klar, dass das jetzt nur ein isoliertet Tag ist. Aber so ab und zu ne Karotte ist schon wegen dem (Pro)Vitamin A sehr sinnvoll und wichtig. Und anderes buntes Gemüse und Obst bringen auch viele Vitamine und sekundäre Pflanzenstoffe die gesundheitsfördernd sind.
Ansonsten:
Du musst nicht so zwingend “Proteine tanken” - außer du bist sportlich wirklich sehr aktiv und willst Muskeln aufbauen. 300 Gramm Tofu klingen schon nach nem ganzen Brocken ^.^ Aber wenn du das gerne isst: Nur zu!
Allgemein sagt man, dass 1 Gramm Eiweiß pro Kilo Körpergewicht (bei einem Menschen mit Normalgewicht) als guter Richtwert genommen werden kann, wenn man eher einen “ruhigen” Lebensstil hat. Also Bürojob, mal Spazieren, kein Leistungssport… Und da ich jetzt nicht glaube, dass du 123 kg wiegst, ist dein Eiweißkonsum zwar nicht ungesund, aber der muss nicht so hoch sein.
Wenn du jetzt Muskeln aufbauen willst und richtig Trainieren gehst, dann solltest du das auch mal auf 1,5 oder 2 Gramm Protein / kg hochschrauben. Da wär der Proteinwert aus deinem “Modelltag” schon richtig gut.
Aber generell schließe ich mich dem Vorredner an: Vergiss die App, bleib einfach bei den “vollwertigen” Nahrungsmitteln, iss ausgewogen und mit Freude und mach dir keinen Kopf! Du bist auf nem guten Weg.
PS:
Referenzwerte für Proteinzufuhr kann man bei der DGE nachlesen: www.dge.de/wissenschaft/referenzwerte/protein/Dort wird für Erwachsene von 0,8 Gramm / kg Körpergewicht gesprochen. Ich habe das wegen der einfacheren Rechenbarkeit und wegen der leicht geringeren biologischen Wertigkeit bei veganer Ernährung auf 1 g/kg aufgerundet. Aber generell muss man da nicht zu pedantisch sein.
Wenn man Karotten snackt (oder generell anderes Gemüse), und die ProVitamin A (Beta Carotin) Aufnahme optimieren will, sollte man auch immer minimal etwas Fetthaltiges dazu essen. Das BetaC. (oder auch manch andere Vitamine) sind fettlöslich und können besser Verwertet werden, wenn die bei der Verdauung an Fette andocken können. Das muss auch nicht wirklich viel Fett sein! Ein paar Samen/Nüsse oder etwas Getreidehaltiges sind da oft schon eine gute Basis. Ist jetzt auch kein “must have” und muss man jetzt auch nicht zur Religion werden lassen, aber ich dachte so als generelle Information vielleicht interessant für dich oder Andere. Nur so als kleine “Hack”. 😉
Mit der DGE hab ich mittlerweile meinen Frieden geschlossen. Sind hald kein Veganer Verein (leider). Aber wenn man sich die Empfehlungen wirklich genau ansieht, dann sind die garnicht so “Veganerfeindlich” wie man das so oft liest. 😅 Ich würd sogar sagen die Empfehlungen sind 95% veganer als die Landesbevölkerung - nur an die DGE Empfehlungen hält sich hald fast niemand. Wenn sich die Durchschnittsmenschen wirklich nahe an der DGE ernähren würden, hätten wir gesammelt viel viel weniger Tierausbeutung. Der Verein bleibt zwar immer noch nicht vertretbar und weiter kritisch zu betrachten, aber ich finde wir haben da echt schlimmere Akteure. 🤷♂️
Du machst das mit dem Essen und deinem Proteinanteil so wie du magst und das sieht wie gesagt ja auch gut aus. Wollte dir (und evtl. anderen Mitlesenden) nur verdeutlichen, dass man entgegen der oft verbreiteten Meinung als Veganer nicht so krass Proteine tanken -muss- , aber man darf natürlich. 😇 Hilft sicher auch bei der Recovery. Aber auch für sportlich Aktive - sofern nicht aktiv in de Muskelaufbau gegangen wird - hat man bei einer vollwertigen Ernährung eigentlich selten ein Proteinproblem.
Und mal echt RESPEKT das du dich da so lange mit deinem Ernährungsplan auseinander gesetzt hast. Wirklich mustergültig und richtig gutes Ergebnis! ❤️
Wenn du nur 4 mcg pro Tag einmal als Supplement zu dir nimmst, bist du im Risiko hart unterversorgt zu sein.
Der Körper hat 2 Transportwege für B12. Allg. wird B12 in der Magensäure gebunden und dann aufgenommen. Die Aufnahme über diesen “intrinsischen Faktor” ist aber begrenzt - und leider von Person zu Person unterschiedlich. Z.B. kann man davon ausgehen, dass man “auf einen Haps” ca. 1,5 - 2 mcg über den IF aufnehmen kann. Der Rest des B12 wird dann nahezu ungenutzt ausgeschieden. Du müsstest also eher so kleine Dosen MEHRFACH über den Tag verteilt einnehmen.
Zweiter Aufnahme Weg ist über passive Diffusion. Da kannst du ca. 1-2% der B12 Dosis aufnehmen. D.h. bei einer 100mcg Dosis bekommst du ca. 1-2 mcg über Diffusion.
100mcg pro Tag als Einzeldosis ist kein schlechter Wert, da du 2 mcg über IF und 1-2 mcg über Diffusion = 3-4 mcg B12 Aufnahme bekommst. Das entspricht in etwa der DGE Empfehlung (4 mcg für einen Erwachsenen).
Lasst euch aber bitte euren B12 Spiegel einmal im Jahr messen, da das Thema B12 Aufnahme sehr unterschiedlich ist und man sich oft an seine persönliche Dosis rantasten sollte. (Eine Messung des B12 HoloTC Wertes ist recht aussagekräftig)
Ich nehme da Essentials Plus von Watson Nutrition.
Aber egal welches Präparat ihr nehmt, guckt drauf dass aktuelle LABORANALYSEN für euer Präparat mit ausgewiesen werden. Nahrungsergänzung ist ein recht unreguliertes Feld und nur weil “10 mcg B12” drauf steht, heißt das noch lange nicht, dass die auch wirklich drin sind.
Hmm… Finde die Liste etwas schwierig, da die Hülsenfrüchte im Rohzustand angegeben sind. Die isst man aber nie roh, was den Vergleich mmn nicht gerade erleichtert.
Web 3, nature conservacy, crypto-somthing, blockchain? So this organization appears to be buying land to then put in the hands of stewardship organizations. One of the places being bought under this scheme is Traditional Dream Factory....
Hats off to you for being so honest and admitting this.
enough nuclear power to cover the gaps in demand
OK, please correct me if I haven’t understood you correctly, but you mean: “We should basically utilize natural systems energy (sun, wind, water, …) completely and turn off and on nuclear plants “on demand” to cover the peaks/gaps in demand.” Did I get that right?
What you are describing is called “load following”. Different power plants have different capabilities of doing this. E.g. coal plants (or other thermal plants) are pretty bad at this while e.g. gas turbines can be turned on/off very quickly to buffer out short peaks of fluctuations. Power plants get categorized into different groups: e.g. Base Load plants or Peak Load plants. Base load is basically the load that is “always need to be supplied” and everything else is modulated on top of that.
To do effective load following, you would NOT want base load plants.
To categorize power plants we need to look at 2 different things: the technical capability to do “load following” with a plant - and the economical viability of throttling the power output of a plant.
Nuclear power plants have extremely high investment costs and a greater proportion of fixed costs (e.g. for personnel) while having very low variable costs, as nuclear plants are not really “using up more/less fuel” during their operation. That means: The cost of nuclear power plants is pretty much constant over time - no matter if they are producing more or less power, but you only get an return on invest if you output power.
That is why nuclear power plants are normally used as base load power plants, as their economic viability goes pretty bad when you do (extensive) load following with them. However, they have at least some technical capabilities of being operated in a (slower) load following mode.
When we add in the fact, that there was probably not a single nuclear power plant, yet, that was economically viable without huge subsidies and the mere costs of keeping the radioactive waste products safe FOREVER are enormous, investors/plant owners don’t really like the idea of “throttling” their plants as they will be loosing money.
That is why - if you have a great amount of base load power plants in your grid - you tend to turn off the generators that are easy to regulate but hard to calculate: Wind & Solar. That’s why a high percentage of nuclear power in your energy mix will PREVENT the utilization of true renewable energy sources, making them a less viable investment.
This is one of the reasons why I asked about the percentage of “needed nuclear power” in the beginning. Different percentages of these plants will have different effects on the entire energy production system and it’s trajectory.
So I am coming back to my original question. And there is not right or wrong answer, just a gut feeling: How much nuclear do we need to make this work? Our current energy mix (primary energy consumption) consists globally roughly of 75% fossil energy and 4% nuclear. So do you think we will need to replace the 75% fossils with nuclear by 1:1? Or maybe 1:2 and fill the rest with Wind/Solar? Or do we keep the current 4%? Really, it’s about your gut feeling about what you think will be necessary. From that point on, we can then further explore the general viability and consequences of nuclear power in the grid.
It’s going to take a lot of batteries to buffer an entire power grid
The beauty of it is: You wouldn’t really need to do this - but I’m getting ahead of myself. This a different rabbit hole that I don’t think is needed to be explored right now.
But just a short pointers:
By controlling and deferring energy consumption in a “smart” way, you can match up the demand with the volatile supply (e.g. of Wind/Solar) pretty well.
In energy systems, we have other types of energy storing systems that are bigger, cheaper and more reliable than the ones we know from “consumer electronics” - e.g. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity
i just don’t think this is a valuable question to ask
But well, it kind of is! When looking at energy systems, each type of plant you put into the system has (often counterintuitive) consequences on the rest of the system. And this is especially true for nuclear power. That is why it IS important to get an idea of how much nuclear energy you want to have in your energy mix, because only then you can determine if your energy system is even sustainable.
Therefore, my question stands unchanged. Or maybe we can make it a little broader: How do you think that the energy system would need to look like?
I’m content to stick by my layman position that anything that gets us away from pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is better in the short term.
And I fully agree with you on that. I just want to discuss with you if nuclear is really the solution you think it is. (Because it probably isn’t.)
We already have the knowledge and infrastructure to do so way faster by using nuclear as a leg up
Are you aware of how little nuclear power there is currently in the energy-mix, what time it takes to build new ones and how much (usable) uranium exists on the planet? (I can tell you if you don’t want to look it up - just ask.) Because you might have wrong expectations of the technical potential of this energy source.
Sorry, I don’t quite understand that phrase. Does that mean you feel kind of attacked?! I hope not - this was not my goal. I think we can just learn by engaging in discussions with one another. And so far, I am very much enjoying our encounter. :)
You had a well prepared answer, however I’ll offer my unprepared thoughts in return.
Well, I mean it took me over an hour to compile that answer, because I didn’t want to spread false information. I am (re)learning a lot the stuff as well, and I kind of like to study the matter again. So I will gladly take your thoughts.
You kinda skipped past battery and other storage tech and the negatives associated with them
Well, yes, I did. As I said, it took me already over an hour to compile the existing answer and the needs of storage capacity in the energy system is reeeaaaally complex and counter intuitive at some points - especially if you need to understand the dependencies of the individual units in an energy-system as well at the same time. So it would have taken me at least another hour to give that topic my due diligence.
We can talk about that if you want / are interested. But I think we need to skip the nuclear power topic then, because otherwise it will get too complex and time consuming.
I’m a big believer in working with what we have now, there are far, far too many issues exacerbated by the premise that “Science Will Save Us”
Oh god. I hate people that are blindly trusting in “Science inventing a magic pill - we don’t have to change anything!!1!”.
People love the ideas behind some solutions, but can never seem to get them sufficiently well built
I know. And I was not talking about some “magical future solution” - I am thinking more about solutions that are already existing and have existed and proven viable for over a couple of decades. And they don’t need to include nuclear!
However it is a known tech, and an effective one
I mean, it kind of is NOT effective - at least not cost effective (as I hopefully have pointed out clear enough). We can build “known tech that is effective” which will not be a graveyard for billions of dollars and without the potentially catastrophic consequences nuclear power has. I am not advocating for “sitting on our hands”. We need to act quick and change our energy systems for the better - but nuclear energy is just not a viable solution for that. Luckily, there is existing technology that can do the job.
Nuclear may not be the best solution, but it is known, available, and can do the job.
I am afraid, that it is not as simple as you think it might be. The “availability” is kind of a deal breaker when it comes to nuclear.
You still haven’t provided a number for “how much nuclear” we need to “do the job”, so I am ending with a couple questions instead:
Are you aware how long it takes to build a new nuclear power plant?
Do you know how much (usable) radioactive material there is on the planet?
(I can tell you if you don’t want to do the research - just tell me.)
It’s a shame that you’re being voted down here, even though your points are actually more on the factual side. Well, that’s probably the fate of those who “dare” to say something against nuclear. Even if everyone else demonstrably doesn’t have a clue about the subject: They’re still bashing it. It’s just good that downvotes on Lemmy don’t really matter.
Even large scale nuclear plants are not economically viable without huge subsidies. Small scale reactors are even less cost effective. I haven’t really seen any of them “in the wild” except for research reactors or something like that.
Hats off to you for doing research and trying to pass on the knowledge in hostile comment sections. 💪 So sad that they don’t care for facts and really love to be confidentiality incorrect. I mean, I have a degree in that matter - still doesn’t count and everybody wants to keep spinning their (demonstrably false) narrative.
So, I’m not 100% getting where you are going with this argument, but I think what you are saying is: If beings have less brain capability they are less worthy of being treated with the same respect as beings with higher brain capabilities. And ultimately, that it would be OK to kill beings that have less brain capabilities.
I don’t think they’re being abused by giving dairy.
Could you spell out for me what is needed for a cow to give milk? Because I think we need to clarify “what actually happens” to cows in that process in order to classify something as abuse or not.
For example one of the least limited cases should be animal testing for medical purposes
Point given. Or at least half a point… The problem I have with animal testing is, that for
alternatives exist, that often are safer and better that animal testing - but they are often not considered of plain out forbidden just because of some ancient laws and regulations. Technology has advanced and could prevent a lot of animal suffering, just regulations have not been keeping up with the innovation.
Animals in testing facilities are treated like shit their whole life, just because it is “cheaper” that way. I mean yeah, there might still be cases where there is no current alternative to animal testing, but treating the animals with absolutely ZERO respect is not acceptable imho.
I don’t think there is anything fundamentally wrong with keeping livestock for eating it
So, if I would keep some cute, fluffy dogs or cats at my place just so that I can kill them tomorrow and eat them - maybe even sell their meat - would that be still be OK for you?
Human brains literally developed from agriculture and cattle farming
If if this was true, this doesn’t prove that it is still necessary or even beneficial today. Humans did a lot of things in the past that would be seen as strange today (you already mentioned crusades for example). It does not follow that, just because “we did it in the past” means we still need to do it today.
meat consumption is a need for the majority of the planet
I don’t fully agree. Please give me circumstances where there would be a NEED for this.
By that logic, you would also have no problem in killing people with lower brain capabilities - like people with dementia or mentally challenged people.
Demonstrably not true and I don’t get where you would pick up such a false bit of information.
Wie kann ich meine Ernährung verbessern?
Die Übersicht habe ich mit waistline erstellt und auch die Lebensmittel hinzugefügt. Mein Ziel sind grob 2200kcal. Unten zeige ich einen standard Tag auf, andere Tage weichen im Inhalt ein wenig davon ab, aber das Grundgerüst bleibt das gleiche. Ich nehme zusätzlich Eisen weil ich regelmäßig Blut spende, Vitamin D weil...
Wo kauft ihr Vitamin B12?
Wieviel Vitamin B12 nehmt ihr ein? Die empfohlenen 4μg pro Tag? Wo kauft ihr das? Ich habe noch keine 4μg Dosis gefunden....
Top vegane Proteinquellen: Die 105 besten pflanzlichen Eiweißquellen (veganfitness.de)
Sehr tolle Zusammenstellung an Proteinquellen
Crosspost, but took my B along (2014 M6R, well used, well loved, excellent condition) to drop my Bike Friday off for a Tune Up (r2.easyimg.io)
Bundestag - AfD-Abgeordneter fordert Möglichkeit zur Bewaffnung seiner Mitarbeiter (www.deutschlandfunk.de) German
Web3 and land stewardship, need ELI5 (oasa.earth)
Web 3, nature conservacy, crypto-somthing, blockchain? So this organization appears to be buying land to then put in the hands of stewardship organizations. One of the places being bought under this scheme is Traditional Dream Factory....
Solarpunk and web3
Note: I might just be uneducated on the subject....
You can't claim to be an environmentalist and be anti-nuclear energy at the same time
Cows milk is for their babies, and it should never be consumed by human.