266
Cost by Protein Source
(lemmy.ca)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
266 points (92.9% liked)
Data Is Beautiful
9 readers
1 users here now
A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz
(under new moderation as of 2024-01, please let me know if there are any changes you want to see!)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
So much wrong about this chart. It is factually correct, but it answers the wrong question.
This chart makes it way too easy to optimise for cheap protein, which is misleading. It is not this what it takes to have a healthy organism. It takes a varied diet, with balanced quantities of liquids (see milk), vitamins (see sprouts), fatty acids (see salmon), minerals (see shrimps, eggs, walnuts), actually carbs (potatoes, rice, spaghetti), and much more...
I think it's specifically meant to debunk the idea that meat is the only affordable source of protein-dense food, when in reality there are vegan protein-dense foods that are even more affordable.
That doesn't conflict with the fact that a well balanced diet is important; it's just addressing one sticking point that tends to come up in these conversations.
The legumes are pretty much bs though (except peanuts) as those are dry weight, cooked weight drops Pinto beans to 9 grams of protein. Protein density drops because bean weight increases through absorption.
What's wrong with reducing density through absorption (of water)?
Nothing at all. But it reduces protein density, so makes 25 grams of protein per 100 grams weight meaningless. No one is eating uncooked, dried pinto beans.
And meat would go the other way. Less fat and liquid after cooking. Doesn't change the overall amount of protein but does change how much you can consume at once.
Exactly. That would hold true for the green vegetables (that are cooked) as well, broccoli will become more protein dense through water loss.
This is not a problem with the nutrition of foods, it is the metric that is poorly designed. One more argument against the chart
To me it seems that your interpretation completely disregards the Y-axis. On the other hand, I wouldn't think the colour coding does a good job in separating along the carnivorous-vegetarian-vegan scale.
It's not that they are separated on the chart, but that they are comparable (on both axes), that impressed me.