Data Is Beautiful

7970 readers

1 users here now

A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

satur@lemmy.ml

otter@lemmy.ca

cirrokumulus@slrpnk.net

264

Cost by Protein Source (lemmy.ca)

submitted 11 months ago by Beaver@lemmy.ca to c/dataisbeautiful@lemmy.ml

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mapto@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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 10 months ago (1 children)

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 10 months 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 10 months 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