Double wrote in message ...
I know you just said to take it with a grain of salt, and i have.
However I
just did a google newsgroup search and found alot of people who seem
to say
it is incomplete and a handful of people who say it is complete.
It's kind
of amazing that nobody seems to know the facts, or at least the
contemporary
views, on this basic question.

The definition of essential and nonessential (or more commonly now
indispensible and despensible) and thus the definition of whether a
protein is complete or incomplete is not such a clear cut issue as you
would like to make it. Metabolically speaking, only three of the amino
acids are indispensible in that the body could concievably manufacture
any of the other twenty in at least some quantity given the necessary
building blocks. Nutritionally speaking, all of the amino acids are
indispensible in that they are needed for good health.

Whether complete or incomplete proteins are being consumed is far less
important than the total amount of protein that is consumed. The WHO
estimates that to maintain nitrogen balance (a rough biomarker for
maintenance of lean body mass) the average adult requires 0.8g per kg
of body weight. Since in affluent societies protein does not come from
a single source, it is highly unlikely that any normally active
individual eating this recommended minimum amount of protein would be
deficient in any amino acid.

Given all this, I think the original question is foolish. Can an
individual meet all their need for amino acids by eating chickpeas
alone? No, and why would you want to? And even if a "just chickpea"
diet could meet all amino acid requirements there are a host of
mineral and vitamin deficiencies that would need to be addressed.
Whether one chooses to be vegetarian or not, the basic nutritional
advice of eating a well-balanced diet of a wide variety of foods is
sound.