3 ms·
Rice is nutritiously void though. You can make healthy things with rice, but rice itself (especially polished rice - vs whole) is an extremely poor source of m
by paulmd 4y ago
Rice is nutritiously void though. You can make healthy things with rice, but rice itself (especially polished rice - vs whole) is an extremely poor source of macronutrients. It's more or less straight carbs and starch.
As such it's not really the most useful point of comparison to other nutrient-rich foods. A valuable filler/staple certainly, but you can't live on rice alone.
- virgildotcodes 4y agoPerhaps a better point of comparison would be soy as it's much more nutrient-rich. According to this[1], beef emits 31 times more CO2 per calorie of food than tofu does. [1]https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/10/02/treating-beef-like-coal-would-make-a-big-dent-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions?utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_medium=social-organic&utm_source=twitter https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/10/02/treating...
- delecti 4y agoSure, but it's also the biggest single source of calories in the world (wikipedia says 1/5 of globally consumed calories, citing a book), making it a good point of comparison. And on top of that, if you look at the linked data, rice isn't even the most efficient (in terms of CO2/calorie) food source. I'm not suggesting everyone switch from beef to rice, I'm just saying that beef is egregiously inefficient. For comparison, even rice is 17 as bad as nuts, and beef is over 500x as bad as nuts. Also you basically can live on potatoes, and the chart shows root vegetables as basically on-par with rice for CO2/kcal. Beef is just so bad that any other diet looks fantastic in comparison.