The average human gets 20% of their calories from wheat.

another 16% from rice

another 13% from maize

So far all starches! And that is HALF the diet!

Imagine a plate, and half of it is wheat, rice, and maize. Every meal like that. Every person like that. Wow.

another 8% from soybeans

another 5% from sugarcane (probably as white sugar)

More carbs!

That's already 63% of the human diet.

Yes, 63%. I rounded the above numbers. Why are you checking my work? Don't you trust me?

Next is 3.8% from pig meat. Finally some meat! The total meat will be more than 7% once we count it all.

Imagine those carnivore diet people. Fuck 7%. They are at 100% (I suppose?)

3.1% from rape and mustard seed (probably as canola oil)

2.1% from potatoes (more starch!)

Wait... people get more calories from canola oil than from potatoes!?

2.1% from barley (more starch!)

1.9% from poultry meat. Finally some more meat, but this so far adds to 5.7% meat. I hope there is more...

Finally we get to 1.8% from all other vegetables combined.

So those recommendations that say your plate should be 1/2 vegetables.. I guess they didn't consult with the food growers of the world first.

1.7% from sugarbeet (as more white sugar again!)

1.5% from groundnuts (is that peanuts?)

1.4% from sorghum (I'm not even sure what sorghum is)

and then 1.4% from bovine meat... Our meat total is now up to 7.1%.

That's the end of the list. Everything else was too small to count.

Historically a number of other crops have made up large portions of the human diet such as: Rye, Jerusalem artichoke, Cassava, Sweet Potato, Parsnips, Broad (Fava) beans, and Squash / Pumpkin. Did I miss any? I'd like to know if I did.

I feel like calories is a strange metric to measure this by 🤔 considering most healthy foods are lower in calories. carbs and sugars are naturally high in calories so it skews the results and provides a false image... If you used protein as the metric then meat would appear much higher on the list. Maybe near the top.

I think maybe mass is the best way to measure this sort of thing? 🤷🏻‍♂️ but that also skews due to sugar having such low mass compared to calories for example 🤔 OK, So we need a metric like mass corrected for calories or vice versa.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Calories are pretty much the standard metric and it makes sense since they're the energy unit. You burn the food and measure the heat it generates, boom: calories. Protein burns and makes heat, fat does, sugars/carbs do. It makes sense to measure calories because they're measurable across components using the same methods. Mass doesn't seem relevant at all and skews, like you mentioned, based on caloric (there they are again) density, water content, cell structure, etc. Someone could eat a truly massive amount of leafy greens and get less sustenance (Calories+nutrients) than a small steak or modest bowl of porridge would give.

Calories are standard only because they are easy to measure.

Doesn't take into account the metabolic costs of digestion or the myriad antinutrients plants contain. Or their interactions.

Weight gain in rats as a fraction of mass of food consumed for a particular diet is a much better metric.

(Yes, rats nutrition is quite relevant to human nutrition. After the primates and the tree shrews, Rodentia are our closest living relatives).

I'll agree with that

Yeah, I am aware of why we use calories, and I understand it's importance, but I think the use case in this above example is kinda redundant, that's really what I was getting at.

However, I still don't think it's a great metric when thinking about nutrition, too reductive, it also doesn't take into account the variety of other vitamins, minerals and chemicals consumed from certain food groups which the body might benefit or draw harm from. Nutrition is kinda hard to draw scientific concensus on, I would go so far as saying it is something of a "sudo science", (or at least it has been in the past, things seem to be improving) especially as it seems that there are certain food groups which benefit certain portions of humanity better than others. 🤷🏻‍♂️

"Don't consistently eat more calories than you burn in a day" is a big part of the story, but it's not the whole story.

It is a good point. Mass is skewed too much by water weight. I think the data might be available by protein somewhere, but wasn't at the source I consulted.

Ah yeah, the water content is an issue with mass 😅

most of the protein is from soybeans i think, which is now mostly quite contaminated with residues from years of glyphosate and the beans themselves are mostly GMO, i personally get an allergic reaction from eating much of it and my cat refuses to eat it (and i've had other cats who also refused to eat it)

fat is another one, likely rapeseed is number one, second would be sunflower, and then probably refined olive oil, and then below that butter/cream and tallow

for some reason there is almost no palm oil anymore, until about 4 years ago it was one of the most common

the heat and chemical extracted rapeseed and sunflower oil are greatly increasing inflammatory chronic disease and harm nerve function, as well as damage the liver, and increase oxidative free radicals in brain tissue, which is supposed to be primarily saturated fats and medium chain triglycerides, and the disappearance of tallow (beef fat mainly, but also sheep) is affecting us because at least one thing - that is also in chocolate - stearic acid, which is a key precursor for the hormone that signals satiety

that stearic acid is a major part of why carnivore people so often report finding they are actually eating less food and their weight is normalising