3 ms·
You're right, comparing just the weight doesn't tell the whole story. However, the same is true for calories. I think you should consider a kg of "weighted aver
by Zababa 5y ago
You're right, comparing just the weight doesn't tell the whole story. However, the same is true for calories. I think you should consider a kg of "weighted average" beef and not just steak, as steak tends to be lean. You would also have to take into account nutrients. That's why I'm not a huge fan of just comparing how much water different food need. Things are more complex than that.
- amacneil 5y agoAgreed - I think it would be better to just compare an overall diet of someone eating more plants vs less plants, then sum up their water usage. I’d have a hard time believing that overall eating fewer animals resulted in higher water usage (since those animals had to eat plants to grow), but would be interesting to see data on it.
- Zababa 5y ago> Agreed - I think it would be better to just compare an overall diet of someone eating more plants vs less plants, then sum up their water usage. I agree, that would be a better way to compare diets. > I’d have a hard time believing that overall eating fewer animals resulted in higher water usage (since those animals had to eat plants to grow), but would be interesting to see data on it. I agree too, but I don't think water falling from the sky on non-arable land is the same as using potable water for agriculture. I think those two should be counted separately.