https://medium.com/@hrnews1/producing-a-kilogram-of-beef-requires-15-000-liters-of-water-while-a-kilogram-of-potatoes-only-da4e86fd6af0?sk=867a396ed116d1bb7ce3d8b036b9376d
Wouldn't it have been better to compare the water consumption of farming beef with annother protein source like beans, lentils etc?
Comparison generated by AI:
| Food | Liters of Water per 1 kg | Protein per 1 kg | Liters of Water per gram of Protein |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beef | 15,415 liters | 200 g | 77 liters |
| Chicken | 4,325 liters | 310 g | 14 liters |
| Pork | 5,988 liters | 270 g | 22 liters |
| Lentils | ~4,177 liters | 250 g | 17 liters |
| Beans | 5,053 liters | 230 g | 22 liters |
| Potatoes | ~264 liters | 20 g | 13 liters |
It would be more convincing but it would not be more meaningful. If you only ate potatoes and you got enough calories, you would be getting enough protein. The whole idea of a "protein source" being a nutritionally significant concept is bogus. If anything, you want to moderate your protein.
I don't know, it seems sort of arbitrary comparing a high protein source with an all rounder, and the water requirements for producing lentils (whilst substantially higher than potatoes) is still significantly lower than for beef. Don't get me wrong, I love me some taters and lentils.
As for proteins nutritional significance, wouldn't depend on your lifestyle and dietary requirements?
I think it seems sort of arbitrary to classify foods by protein content as though it were critical to our nutrition. Like, we could classify foods by colour and then get concerned when we don't have enough purple food, and track how much purple per calorie or gram we get for each food, and publish charts on that basis, but it wouldn't be telling anyone anything they can actually use, no matter how much they might be concerned about getting enough purple. But the fashion might become, "you need purple food to have big muscles," and then people start thinking that charts that aren't arranged by colour are comparing arbitrarily different things.
I know it sounds pretty wild and fringe, but have you ever seen or even heard of someone ever suffering from the consequences of insufficient protein in their diet who wasn't also suffering a massive calorie deficit? Every fitness store in the world sells protein, protein, protein, but they also sell a hundred other kinds of bunk. Have you ever heard someone say, "Wow, adding this protein REALLY increased my gains!" This space is really vulnerable to snake oil.
All our favorite health-based researchers tell us that the protein goals specified by body building culture are wildly beyond what the body actually uses.
Maybe I'm just conditioned to approach this like a utilitarian; I'll think about rough macros for my meals. I'll load up for legs, back & deadlift etc but I won't just go full send on spuds, (much as I love them).
I'll put my body though a lot every week, I can feel a difference between an 'ample' and less than optimal protein intake.
Not to say that I don't deeply appreciate the significance of decent carbs to fuel that exercise (rice, oats, potatoes etc).