267
submitted 2 years ago by Beaver@lemmy.ca to c/dataisbeautiful@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] mapto@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

What's wrong with reducing density through absorption (of water)?

[-] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

Exactly. That would hold true for the green vegetables (that are cooked) as well, broccoli will become more protein dense through water loss.

[-] mapto@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

This is not a problem with the nutrition of foods, it is the metric that is poorly designed. One more argument against the chart

this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
267 points (92.9% liked)

Data Is Beautiful

9214 readers
33 users here now

A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS