Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by cageface | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

cageface

meat is pound for pound more efficient at energy storage for humans

Citation definitely needed here. Meat is an extremely inefficient vehicle for getting calories into humans.

View on HN

There are a lot of calories in a pound of beef, I think that's what OP was saying.

The other side of the equation is it takes way more energy per calorie to produce.

According to Wolfram Alpha, cashew nuts have over twice the calories of beef. [1][2]

[1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=calories+in+1+pound+of...

[2] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=calories+in+1+pound+of...

Except one steer gives you about 400 pounds of beef (https://www.skipperwbreeders.com/recommendations/quick-answe...).

400 pounds of Cashew nuts? Man that's a lot of trees. Not to mention the other nutrients in beef. A piece of beef contains everything a human needs to live. You could just eat beef and you'd probably not be great, but have all your nutritional requirements met. Cashew nuts... no.

According to https://www.quora.com/How-much-fruits-and-nuts-does-one-Cash..., to produce 500 pounds of Cashews, you need 2.47 acres. Now compare this to a pig, which, if you slaughter it at around 270lbs, yields about 154 pounds of meat. That means 3-4 pigs will give you enough meat as 2.47 acres of cashews, and pigs eat everything. Pigs can be kept with about 8 sq ft per pig: https://familyfarmlivestock.com/how-much-space-do-i-need-to-...

Beef is definitely less efficient as a form of meat. It's also not the only form of meat. If you had a few acres to grow things, you should grow some vegetables and a whole lot of forage for your pigs, which will constitute the base of your diet.

You forgot that the pigs/cattle need food.

You could just eat beef and you'd probably not be great, but have all your nutritional requirements met

You'd get scurvy, just for starters. Not to mention what a job a complete lack of fiber would do on your digestive system.

You need to eat at least some of the meat raw, but humans can survive on a 100% animal product diet (it might not be particularly healthy though)

seems fairly intuitive if you just think of fat and protein calories all being densely packed in a piece of meat vs a literal pound of lettuce? Just like people joke with celery being net negative calories, you would lose a good amount of calories just chewing all that lettuce. Almost that entire pound would be water.

Lettuce is not consumed for its calories. Grains, legumes, and oils are the vegetarian sources of calories.

Grains are incredibly inefficient. Legumes are good, but not very good at calorie density.

The idea that oil seed is more efficient than meat is funny, and really shows how the vegetarian-industrial complex has gaslighted the world. Oil seeds are incredibly inefficient, extremely environmentally harmful, and incredibly resource intensive. Not to mention a good portion of modern oil seed relies on petrochemicals to extract the oil...

In terms of calorie density, tubers like Potatos, Sweet Potato, Yam, Cassava, etc, are better calorie stores on microfarms. You're not going to grow enough grain on an acre to feed anyone.

A good chunk of the grains and legumes we grow is fed to livestock.

I had to laugh at "vegetarian-industrial complex" :D.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com