I want this chart, but add the third Z axis of "environmental cost" whether it be just CO2 emissions or a "total" impact score.
I imagine those legumes get even stronger, while the meats lose ranking.
Especially if water is factored into the equation. https://www.statista.com/chart/9483/how-thirsty-is-our-food/
this is such a great resource to understand why footprints are ridiculous metrics and how interconnected our industrial agriculture systems are.
This is not a great resource, because cows and sheep get 95% of their water intake from eating grass and drinking rain water. But when you grow vegetables, you actually have to water them a lot.
Excepr they barely eat grass anymore, but imported soy from deprecated tropical forests.
if you follow the citations they call that green water and break it down
why does cottonseed, which would otherwise go to waste, get counted against cattle, when that is a conservative of resources?
according to this, cattle mostly graze or are fed things that otherwise would be wasted.
I like this scatter plot. If you really want to get freaky with it, you should take into account the “protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scores.” Things like eggs and whey are 100%, beans are usually in the high 70’s, and peanuts are actually down at near 50%.
So for nutrition’s sake, not all protein sources are created equal, and it makes sense that if you are trying to get adequate protein at the lowest price, you also want to get sources where you can eat the least of it to satisfy the protein requirements of your body.
Curious where tofu would be at on this chart.
Probably somewhere around the legume cluster. They're really pulling their weight there, as expected, though peanuts are quite the dark horse.
Pricing and product availability is regional and variable, but some napkin math using my local Walmarts pricing puts it at:
That puts it in the green veggie cluster if I'm not getting the axes confused.
the problem is there are a ton of varieties of tofu, and they're all generally around the same price. it seems the silken tofu have around 5g of protein, but some of the extra firm varieties have over 15g protein per 100 tofu, putting it in a much more respectable spot in the bottom middle with the grains and such
c/theydidthemath?
Thanks so much, that's very helpful and actually a little disappointing.
No problem! Turns out my Walmart only sells a single package type of tofu so take it with a grain of salt. It's still a cheap and good protein source, but not as dense as an animal or legume protein source.
Take it with way more than a grain of salt
add some nutritional yeast and MSG, anything to give that tofu flavor!
Is that extra soft tofu? It usually has more protein than that. A pack of extra-soft I have is 8g / 100g, and some other varieties seem to be 10-15 from online sources.
I used a firm tofu, purely because the only other option was over four times the price and the chart specified they used the cheapest price/weight possible. The soft tofu does have about 30% more protein per serving for the same weight, but the price would likely make it an outlier.
Great post!
I wanted to add that this isn't quite how proteins work. Those protein-rich legumes aren't what you would call 'complete proteins.' There's a number of amino acids our bodies use as proteins and while legumes are a good source of many of them, there's a couple proteins you won't get enough of from just the beans. Fortunately, brown rice- while not as rich in protein- gives you the proteins that the beans are lacking. That's why beans and rice are a match made in heaven.
Herbivorous animals are just better at metabolising proteins from plants and of course they're capable of eating much more than us. That's why they're able to live off of grass.
This just stuff I read up on a few years ago so if I've gotten something wrong please say so
It's extremely unlikely that anyone with an even vaguely normal diet isn't getting all the essential amino acids as those complementary to legumes are found not just in rice but in all grains and seeds. So it's not just rice, any kind of bread, pasta, oats, barley/spelt/etc. or nuts will do. And soy is pretty much a complete protein.
The infos in your comment aren't wrong, but it's missing a crucial point: If you live in a developed country, you're likely eating 2-4 times as much protein as you actually need.
Even when a certain legume has only 70% as much content of a certain amino acid, if you eat double than what you need, you still reach 140%.
I'm not sure what the implication of living in a developed country is. People can have vastly different diets in developed countries and people may have different protein needs. Just because you live in a developed country doesn't make you immune to malnutrition.
I think it's just something that has to be considered in a wider context and people are bad at that in general.
See my friend who is quite obese and suffering from diabetes including kidney issues and bad liver enzymes, because he was obsessed with being big and lifting heavy things and obsessing about cramming as much 'protein' as he could thinking that weight lifting would burn off all the 'bad stuff'. He got way more protein than even any body builder could possibly need but was still always making a big show at gatherings of eating so much stuff to maintain his physique (which didn't look muscular, he always looked fat, but said his muscles weren't for show and that's why he looked fat not muscular).
So when some post seeks to help folks by indicating good sources of protein, it can trigger people that have no protein issues to make worse decisions, and it's worth pointing out that most people concerned about getting lots of protein almost certainly already have plenty of protein.
See the following on the concept of complete proteins: https://youtu.be/psAlJtgeQsY
Explains how elephants are able to get so jacked without consistent income, they just poppin' them peanuts for days!
Peanut butter is the secret to success
This would be cool with ratio of protein to calories as well, in the same format.
Yeah protein vs calories would be way more useful than protein vs weight.
Probably should also be noted that you're almost certainly eating more than plenty protein, no matter what you do.
As in, for medical reasons, when people have a dodgy liver, it's helpful to reduce protein intake to what they actually need, but with how much protein our usual diet contains, it's really difficult to get there.
Interesting podcast/video on the topic: https://zoe.com/learn/podcast-should-i-eat-more-protein
This may be helpful from a cost / gram of protein but its a bit misleading on the grams protein/ 100 g axis for beans - those are the dry bean numbers.
That seems reasonable, given they presumably use the price for dried beans as well. When you care about price (and therefore about about a price/protein graph) you buy beans dried.
Using a smart pot (like the ninja foodie) makes preparing dried beans a piece of cake. I’ve been making pintos, white beans, and chickpeas (for hummus) on the regular now. Really brought my costs down, especially when buying beans out of the bulk section. Thank god for winco.
Comparing liquid to dry foods on the same chart is completely disingenuous. Also look at any label. Cows milk always has more protein than soy milk.
I don't see what you mean. The left axis is a measurement of cost per gram of protein. The bottom gives you a measurement of density. So anything lower on the chart is cheap for what you get and then the further right you go the smaller the portion required to consume to get that amount of protein.
It would be nice to see cholesterol counts on here as well. Good work though.
Why? I thought dietary cholesterol had little to nothing to do with blood cholesterol levels? That’s what it seems to me like this source is saying, but I’m not an expert by any means.
This data seems way off - steak has 24-30g of protein per 100g, for example
how legumes have more protein per weight than ground beef?
80% ground beef is 20% fat
80/20 ground beef has 17g of protein per 100g, lentils have 9g per 100g
maybe its per dry solids? yeah something doesnt seem right though.
Yes, that's what it is, which is a useless metric.
Cooked Pinto beans are 9 grams of protein per 100 grams.
Yeah, it's dry weight. I just checked the labels on my beans at home. They all approximately 7g protein per 35g beans (i.e. 20g protein per 100g beans).
Most likely dried legumes vs uncooked meat that is full of water.
Sirloin steak needs to be added to this. It's not only cheaper than other steak but it's significantly higher in protein too at 27g per 100g.
What, no grubs?
Discuss how to save money.
