3 ms·

It doesn’t matter because meat is delicious, densely nutritious and frankly not up for discussion amongst the general population. Even if it isn’t meat, a mostl

It doesn’t matter because meat is delicious, densely nutritious and frankly not up for discussion amongst the general population. Even if it isn’t meat, a mostly vegetarian country like India is heavily reliant on the milk that comes from cows for their protein requirement.

KennyBlanken 2y ago
> densely nutritious Aside from the fact that red meat is not particularly nutritious in terms of calories or nutrient variety and has well established health hazards for us, the density of nutrition doesn't matter. The resources needed to produce a certain amount of calories / 'nutrition' involved do. Beef has just about the worst possible resources-to-calories/'nutrition' value of any mass-produced food. The amount of water, land, and feed that goes toward growing cattle until they're old enough to go to the slaughterhouse is enormous compared to grains, legumes, nuts, chicken, fish, etc. Legumes often are a more complete source of "protein", which is actually several variations of protein. And then there's cattle being the number one source of methane in the world, and methane is a major greenhouse gas. >a mostly vegetarian country like India is heavily reliant on the milk that comes from cows for their protein requirement. Legumes like chickpeas and lentils are far more likely than the more resource and labor intensive processes involved in dairy/cheese. If you think otherwise you apparently don't do much grocery shopping.
- dyauspitr 2y ago
  You can have 0.2 lbs of red meat or 3 lbs of lentils for the same amount of protein. It’s not easy to consume that amount of lentils per day.
  - hombre_fatal 2y ago
    Then compare it to a more protein dense food like extra firm tofu, TVP, or seitan? Though I also contest the claim that animal foods are more nutrient dense compared to plants while singling out one nutrient. What about nutrients like vitamin C, fiber, and vitamin E? What about averaging their %RDA across all nutrients per calorie or gram like the "All Targets" column on Cronometer? Plant-based foods would rank above animal products in such a comparison.
  - gnabgib 2y ago
    Not sure where your numbers are from. Cooked chicken and pork are ~30% protein, beef ~25%, lentils ~10%[0]. So no, you'd have to eat 0.5lbs of lentils for the same protein as 0.2lbs beef. (Lentils are 25-29% protein by weight, but during cooking they absorb water) [0]: https://chefscornerstore.com/blog/high-protein-vegetables/ https://chefscornerstore.com/blog/high-protein-vegetables/
    - RiceRichardJ 2y ago
      Complete protein vs just protein. Animal protein contains all amino acids, and that is hard to find with non-animal protein.
      - hombre_fatal 2y ago
        Plant protein also contains all essential amino acids. Even broccoli. 500 calories (150g) of TVP (soy chunks) has 100%+ of each EAA while 500 calories (200g) of steak is sub-100% in three EAAs. The soy chunks also have 25g more protein than the steak. I use it in all recipes that call for ground beef as it's similar is texture. The 500 calories of soy chunks also has 59% of the day nutrition while the steak only has 47% (source: Cronometer). Seems to me that if you're going to bring up a concept like incomplete protein (which I think is a nonsensical concept), you'd have to bite the bullet on steak being incomplete and plant protein being superior. I dismiss the concept because we aren't limited to 500 calories per day. But if we were, I'd rather be stuck with TVP.
  - antiframe 2y ago
    Your claim that meat has 15 times the protein of lentils doesn't match what's in my data source (FoodCentral). I'm seeing a 2:1 ratio depending on your choice of meat and pulse. What's your source?
- RiceRichardJ 2y ago
  > Aside from the fact that red meat is not particularly nutritious in terms of calories or nutrient variety Animal proteins are generally more complete, containing all essential amino acids, which is more difficult to find with plant protein. > and has well established health hazards for us, Mostly correlative studies, I wouldn't call them well established. > The amount of water, land, and feed that goes toward growing cattle until they're old enough to go to the slaughterhouse is enormous These stats are fairly deceitful. Cattle are raised on low quality "marginal land" that would otherwise not be able grow proper crops. Cows with their four stomachs can digest rough grasses that grow there, making the otherwise useless land useful. Generally when you hear the "amount of water" required to raise a cow, this is simply rainwater. These headlines that get thrown around imply a massive amount of resources being diverted away from growing crops to raise cattle instead, but that is completely false.
colordrops 2y ago
Many things in the past were "not up for discussion" until they were. Society can change. > densely nutritious No, plant products are far more dense in proportion to water, fertilizer, land, and energy used to produce them. 10x the plants are required to get 1x the meat.
- dyauspitr 2y ago
  Yes, but you have to eat more plants and the amino acid spectrum is not always complete. An equivalent amount of red meat has 40% more protein than chickpeas, 400% more than green peas and 300% more than lentils.
  - colordrops 2y ago
    Protein isolate powder has more protein than red meat, so you should be eating that, not meat, by this measure. * The density of protein is not important at all. What is important is that you get the sufficient daily amount of protein, which is easily achievable by eating plant-based foods only. * It is a myth that the "amino acid spectrum" is not always complete. Plants contain all essential amino acids, and as long as you aren't on a strict white-rice diet, you'll get everything you need from a modest variety of foods. Please stop spreading misinformation.
  - hombre_fatal 2y ago
    And the equivalent calories of red meat has 50% the protein of seitan. At equivalent mass, red meat has 30% the protein of seitan. If you're going to pick one nutrient of comparison (which doesn't even make sense since we need more than protein), why wouldn't you compare foods that are dense in that nutrient? Would you accept someone comparing tofu to pig skin to conclude that plants massively dominate animal flesh in protein?
    - dyauspitr 2y ago
      Chickpeas were the most nutrient dense plant protein I could think of. I hadn't heard of seitan before this comment and looking into the amino acids it provides shows that it’s not nutritionally complete.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> a mostly vegetarian country like India One to two fifths of Indians are vegetarian [1]. The majority eat meat. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country
- dyauspitr 2y ago
  31% are vegetarian. An additional 9% consume only eggs. 30% of those who consume meat do so very infrequently.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > 30% of those who consume meat do so very infrequently You misread the quote. Less than 30% consume meat regularly; 30% consume it infrequently.
    - throw9474 2y ago
      --> 43% of those who consume any meat, consume it infrequently.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Yup. Three fifths of Indians eat meat, and four fifths to a half of those that do do so regularly.

KennyBlanken 2y ago

> densely nutritious Aside from the fact that red meat is not particularly nutritious in terms of calories or nutrient variety and has well established health hazards for us, the density of nutrition doesn't matter. The resources needed to produce a certain amount of calories / 'nutrition' involved do. Beef has just about the worst possible resources-to-calories/'nutrition' value of any mass-produced food. The amount of water, land, and feed that goes toward growing cattle until they're old enough to go to the slaughterhouse is enormous compared to grains, legumes, nuts, chicken, fish, etc. Legumes often are a more complete source of "protein", which is actually several variations of protein. And then there's cattle being the number one source of methane in the world, and methane is a major greenhouse gas. >a mostly vegetarian country like India is heavily reliant on the milk that comes from cows for their protein requirement. Legumes like chickpeas and lentils are far more likely than the more resource and labor intensive processes involved in dairy/cheese. If you think otherwise you apparently don't do much grocery shopping.

dyauspitr 2y ago
You can have 0.2 lbs of red meat or 3 lbs of lentils for the same amount of protein. It’s not easy to consume that amount of lentils per day.
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  Then compare it to a more protein dense food like extra firm tofu, TVP, or seitan? Though I also contest the claim that animal foods are more nutrient dense compared to plants while singling out one nutrient. What about nutrients like vitamin C, fiber, and vitamin E? What about averaging their %RDA across all nutrients per calorie or gram like the "All Targets" column on Cronometer? Plant-based foods would rank above animal products in such a comparison.
- gnabgib 2y ago
  Not sure where your numbers are from. Cooked chicken and pork are ~30% protein, beef ~25%, lentils ~10%[0]. So no, you'd have to eat 0.5lbs of lentils for the same protein as 0.2lbs beef. (Lentils are 25-29% protein by weight, but during cooking they absorb water) [0]: https://chefscornerstore.com/blog/high-protein-vegetables/ https://chefscornerstore.com/blog/high-protein-vegetables/
  - RiceRichardJ 2y ago
    Complete protein vs just protein. Animal protein contains all amino acids, and that is hard to find with non-animal protein.
    - hombre_fatal 2y ago
      Plant protein also contains all essential amino acids. Even broccoli. 500 calories (150g) of TVP (soy chunks) has 100%+ of each EAA while 500 calories (200g) of steak is sub-100% in three EAAs. The soy chunks also have 25g more protein than the steak. I use it in all recipes that call for ground beef as it's similar is texture. The 500 calories of soy chunks also has 59% of the day nutrition while the steak only has 47% (source: Cronometer). Seems to me that if you're going to bring up a concept like incomplete protein (which I think is a nonsensical concept), you'd have to bite the bullet on steak being incomplete and plant protein being superior. I dismiss the concept because we aren't limited to 500 calories per day. But if we were, I'd rather be stuck with TVP.
- antiframe 2y ago
  Your claim that meat has 15 times the protein of lentils doesn't match what's in my data source (FoodCentral). I'm seeing a 2:1 ratio depending on your choice of meat and pulse. What's your source?
RiceRichardJ 2y ago
> Aside from the fact that red meat is not particularly nutritious in terms of calories or nutrient variety Animal proteins are generally more complete, containing all essential amino acids, which is more difficult to find with plant protein. > and has well established health hazards for us, Mostly correlative studies, I wouldn't call them well established. > The amount of water, land, and feed that goes toward growing cattle until they're old enough to go to the slaughterhouse is enormous These stats are fairly deceitful. Cattle are raised on low quality "marginal land" that would otherwise not be able grow proper crops. Cows with their four stomachs can digest rough grasses that grow there, making the otherwise useless land useful. Generally when you hear the "amount of water" required to raise a cow, this is simply rainwater. These headlines that get thrown around imply a massive amount of resources being diverted away from growing crops to raise cattle instead, but that is completely false.

colordrops 2y ago

Many things in the past were "not up for discussion" until they were. Society can change. > densely nutritious No, plant products are far more dense in proportion to water, fertilizer, land, and energy used to produce them. 10x the plants are required to get 1x the meat.

dyauspitr 2y ago
Yes, but you have to eat more plants and the amino acid spectrum is not always complete. An equivalent amount of red meat has 40% more protein than chickpeas, 400% more than green peas and 300% more than lentils.
- colordrops 2y ago
  Protein isolate powder has more protein than red meat, so you should be eating that, not meat, by this measure. * The density of protein is not important at all. What is important is that you get the sufficient daily amount of protein, which is easily achievable by eating plant-based foods only. * It is a myth that the "amino acid spectrum" is not always complete. Plants contain all essential amino acids, and as long as you aren't on a strict white-rice diet, you'll get everything you need from a modest variety of foods. Please stop spreading misinformation.
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  And the equivalent calories of red meat has 50% the protein of seitan. At equivalent mass, red meat has 30% the protein of seitan. If you're going to pick one nutrient of comparison (which doesn't even make sense since we need more than protein), why wouldn't you compare foods that are dense in that nutrient? Would you accept someone comparing tofu to pig skin to conclude that plants massively dominate animal flesh in protein?
  - dyauspitr 2y ago
    Chickpeas were the most nutrient dense plant protein I could think of. I hadn't heard of seitan before this comment and looking into the amino acids it provides shows that it’s not nutritionally complete.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> a mostly vegetarian country like India One to two fifths of Indians are vegetarian [1]. The majority eat meat. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country

dyauspitr 2y ago
31% are vegetarian. An additional 9% consume only eggs. 30% of those who consume meat do so very infrequently.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > 30% of those who consume meat do so very infrequently You misread the quote. Less than 30% consume meat regularly; 30% consume it infrequently.
  - throw9474 2y ago
    --> 43% of those who consume any meat, consume it infrequently.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Yup. Three fifths of Indians eat meat, and four fifths to a half of those that do do so regularly.