This data seems way off - steak has 24-30g of protein per 100g, for example
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Frugal
5112 readers
1 users here now
Discuss how to save money.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The problem is that a lot of those sources of protein aren't just protein. Take legumes; they all have a ton of carbs as well. Nuts? Loaded with fats. (Same with pork belly, TBH; that's a very fatty cut.) On the other hand, boneless, skinless chicken breast has a trivial amount of fat and carbs.
If you were plotting a 3-dimensional chart, factoring in proteins, cost, and other macronutrients, you would likely find that boneless, skinless chicken in general was the highest combination of both purity of protein, and price.
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.
How do liquids differ from dry foods in terms of protein stuff? (Waves hands vaguely).
I was mildly surprised that milk is way down in the bottom left quadrant.
its mostly water
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.
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.
You’re correct. Saturated fat intake increases LDL (atherogenic kind, e.g. the “bad”) cholesterol, there’s even a nice formula for it: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25286466/
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.
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.
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
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%.
If you live in a developed country, you're likely eating 2-4 times as much protein as you actually need.
Except if you are reducing animal products (not just if you are vegan). In many western cuisines, if you just reduce/avoid meat, egg and diary products, you probably will get too little of some of the amino acids, causing malnutrition. Therefore, this information is important.
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.
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.
Yours and other comments have been insightful and have made me reconsider some assumptions I did not realize I had made, so thank you.
I'll concede that a sedentary person of normal weight doesn't need to worry much about getting all their essential amino acids. If I was interested in gaining muscle on a plant-based diet, would you say that I would still be wasting energy by stressing about eating all the proteins? Wouldn't that make my only issue getting the right amount of calories?
I'll look for some literature when I have the time but if you have any off-hand knowledge you could share then I would appreciate it.
I mean, I think it's fine to make sure your diet contains all these things. If you're eating vegan (even if you're not) yeah, do eat beans/lentils/soy etc., for sure. But I think stressing is overkill. If you just eat a good variety of foods you're likely to get what you need.
It's very much possible. Look up Noah Hannibal, Nimai Delgado, John Thomas, Brian Turner, Lifting Vegan Logic, Lakshay Naidu, Patrik Baboumian.
They all eat Tofu and other soy products like edamame regularily, often for decades and can't exactly be called feminized.
So tofu is really your friend. Many benifits like high calcium content, isoflavones preventing specific cancers and the most complete protein in the plant world, IIRC. Quinoa and hempseeds have a pretty good amino acid profile too but are more cumbersome to consume than tofu. It's tastes bland on itself but it can transform into many delicious dishes if prepared right.
If you want to learn more about the body building aspects you find a ton of information on the respectice YT channels of above mentioned body builders.
I'd refer to these channels if you want to learn how to cook good whole food plant based dishes:
https://www.youtube.com/@thenarddogcooks https://youtube.com/@pickuplimes https://youtube.com/@healthyveganeating https://www.youtube.com/@RainbowPlantLife https://www.youtube.com/@YEUNGMANCOOKING https://youtube.com/@cheaplazyvegan
There is no real protein in most grains. This chart is misinformation.
Wrong
Y axis should be reversed. Since 90% of graphs are trying to find the sweet spot, would y the lowest-cost, highest protein be in the upper right? Unless I'm reading this correctly it's the lower right, which is hardly /dataisbeautiful
Course I'm shit at math and could be wrong...
You might notice Pork Belly and Ribeye Steak belong way higher than the red dots representing them. In your proposition, I don't think there exists an elegant way to represent those data points.
I basically live on turkey breast, only slightly more expensive than chicken breast, but more protein and almost no fat. Makes macros super easy.
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
Except if you do not (or rarely) eat meat, fish, egg and diary products, and do not adapt your diet. Why would you want to rarely eat that? For everyone's future: https://slrpnk.net/post/10599814
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/
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.
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.
if you follow the citations they call that green water and break it down
That's irrelevant when the first graph shows utter bullshit and people fall for it. Cows don't need water, veggies go.
Excepr they barely eat grass anymore, but imported soy from deprecated tropical forests.
I see cows all the time, they eat grass. Because grass is abundant and 100% free. A farmer must be dumb as fuck to pay for soy.
they're not dumb, they just have way more cows in their stables than the piece of land the stable is on could ever support with any crop. Am in Belgium. Pretty sure cows here eat a lot more imported crops (mostly from south america) processed to livestockfeed than they eat local grass.
Well, I don't know how it works in Belgium, but in the UK cows are usually moved between fields and field owners sometimes even pay for grazing animals to graze on their fields to keep them tidy. Paying for soy VS getting paid for grazing is a no brainer here.
that's not true. cattle hardly get any of the global soy crop, and most of what is fed to animals is the byproduct from making soybean oil. cattle are fed about 2% of global soy iirc and only 7% of all the soy that is fed to any animal is whole soybeans. the rest is basically industrial waste.
view more: next ›