Hacker News Reader

Comment by kennethh | Hacker News Reader

Totally agree, this is a misconception. If you look at the numbers you get different results based on how you calculate it. Meat also comes out a lot better if you compare protein instead of calories.

Greenhouse gas emissions per 100g protein https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore?tab... Dark Chocolate 93.30 kg Beef (beef herd) 49.89 kg Coffee 35.66 kg Lamb & Mutton 19.85 kg Tomatoes 19.00 kg Oatmeal 1.91 kg

When the tomato is grown in an open field, the production emits an average of 80 kg CO2 per ton. If the tomatoes are grown in a greenhouse, they emit up to 700 kg CO2 per ton. In tomatoes there is 1.31% protein https://www.sdu.dk/en/om_sdu/fakulteterne/teknik/nyt_fra_det...

At least for us in Northern Europe, all tomatoes are grown in green houses.

View on HN

I don't understand this list at all. Who is eating dark chocolate, coffee, and tomatoes as a source of protein??

On the other hand, you don't mention it, but greenhouse emissions for 100g of beef protein are 25x the emissions for 100g of oatmeal protein. That's astounding if you care about CO2 from your food production.

To address the tomatoes way more than they deserve, tomatoes have 4 protein per pound, and locally here cost perhaps USD$2 (maybe half that in season on sale). So 100g tomato protein is $50 and requires you to consume 25 lb (!!!) tomatoes.

[Edit: sister comment posted while writing.]

> Greenhouse gas emissions per 100g protein https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore?tab...

Doesn't this link confirm that meat is indeed bad with respect to emissions?

With respect, focusing on tomatoes is a bit odd. I don't think anyone is eating tomatoes for their protein source, as it would take a lot of tomatoes to get to 100g of protein (and yes, that would create a lot of emissions).

If we're talking about non-meat protein, it's best to focus on vegetarian protein-dense sources like legumes, grains such as oats or quinoa, nuts, etc. All of these are much lower than the meat examples here, sometimes by a factor of 10 or more. Poultry and fish are the closest, with poultry being 2x "grains" (a broad category), and almost 3x tofu.

You also have to factor in protein quality as well as quantity. Protein in animal products is generally higher quality because it has the right proportions of amino acids and is easier to digest.

Those claims seem questionable. Even if true, is having the "right proportions of amino acids" at all desirable? Human digestive systems are pretty good at extracting what they want from our diet; we don't need to measure out precise proportions.

What evidence have you got that animal products are "easier to digest"?

It’s wildly known that animal protein is easier to digest.

Vegetables have anti nutrients, a class of chemicals designed to make them less edible. It’s one of the main reasons you can’t eat the vegetation around you.

Things like gluten are perfect examples of anti nutrients.

Meat on the other hand has no anti nutrients.

https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081825

Reply on news.ycombinator.com