You must log in or # to comment.
There is something weird about this plot. I think because the calories are normalized to weight and the price is normalized to calories, there is no interesting interaction between the two, looking at it feels like reading a table. You can check which food is expensive and which is calorie dense and that’s it. Perhaps it would be more interesting to look at if both calories and price were normalized to weight…
Just my 2c, but I think this is actually the correct way of graphing it, or at least one of the correct ways
Price per gram is not a particularly useful metric when comparing across food types, because foods have highly variable energy density. It’s a really good metric when comparing various items of the same type, like two different brands of bagged lettuce, etc.
But by charting the energy density on the bottom, and then the cost for that energy on the left, we have something that’s actually useful to think about. Right like if you’ve ever bought nuts and seeds, you know they’re super expensive. But by looking here we can tell at a glance that nuts and seeds as a whole are actually a great, cheap way to add calories to a meal, even to the point of being comparable to whole wheat spaghetti, which I think more people would already identify as cheap calories
Could do the same thing for protein density/cost per protein and it would be very useful, I’d love to see that actually especially to see how some of the protein-heavy plants like peas and brussels compare to animal sources
Exactly my thoughts.
Perhaps it would be more interesting to look at if both calories and price were normalized to weight…
Slop graphs…
The point of the original community this was based on was shit an actual statistician would look at and consider elegant.
Someone that doesn’t have past a surface familiarity with stats, just see a graph. But they “like graphs” as a visual concept and generate weird slop graphs that do in fact transmit information, just in such an inefficient way, that you can’t help but ask
Why even make a graph of this?
Like you can throw literally any two things on a graph, and it’s a fucking graph. Very very low bar to entry for the whole “graph” thing.
People got to draw a line on what they consider beautiful…
What are you so angry about
Slop graphs…
…
Like you can throw literally any two things on a graph, and it’s a fucking graph. Very very low bar to entry for the whole “graph” thing.
People got to draw a line on what they consider beautiful…
Every day for you must be exhausting
Not really, I give people an opportunity to communicate in good faith…
I took you question at face value.
That you were legitimately confused so I tried simplifying my comment to see if that would help.
Then you clarified you weren’t confused. You just wanted to engage so you could have an argument.
Now I can just block your account (although, it seems you’re not the first protist on it …)
So I guess I’ll see you on your next account. I might remember the name but if not, this took two minutes of my time
Nowhere near exhaustive, and now it’s handled.
Repitition isn’t clarification.
Gotta say, seeing this as 1 out of 3 replies from the same account was actually pretty funny.
It’s also completely worthless data for anyone who isn’t struggling financially to feed themselves.
You don’t eat fruit and vegetables for caloric density. You eat them for everything else your body needs.
It’s not “worthless” it’s two incredibly different things that have individual uses but no actual combined usage.
So there’s zero benefit from making a graph.
Like, I can duct tape an iPad to a football, and combine two things. But now both things are worse at their intended usages then before they were strapped together.
This graph is an iPad taped to a football, and that is meaningless. Doesn’t make footballs and iPads meaningless
I’ve made this comparison myself for years.
Knowing the value of calories per dollar is definitely a useful comparison.
Unless you’re someone who’s just plain strapped - is that you perhaps?
It would be more interesting to create an aggregated index of nutritional value/calories per dollar.
Any reason to exclude dairy products besides eggs? Milk/cheese/yogurt/greek yogurt are staples almost everywhere.
Do… Do you think eggs are a dairy product?
They’re often considered one in grocery stores
I am well aware they are not made from milk, thank you
yeah have to agree with you here. where I am from it would be understood your talking about the grocer area. its like tomatoe being called a vegetable.
Tomatoes are a vegetable…
Vegetable is just a culinary term. There are plenty of botanical fruits that are culinary vegetables. Eggplant, peppers, tomatoes, squashes, cucumbers, avocados, olives, green beans, peas, corn…
yeah exactly. they are technically one thing but known as another.
Well it’s more that “fruit” and “vegetable” aren’t really separate things. All edible fruits are also vegetables. Vegetable is just any part of plants edible to humans. There’s absolutely no such thing as a botanical vegetable.
It’s only that there is a botanical term for fruit (the seed-bearing reproductive part from the ovary of a flowering plant) and a culinary term for fruit (a sweet plant used in desserts and other sweet foods).
A strawberry is not a botanical fruit, but considered a culinary fruit. Rhubarb is generally considered a culinary fruit, though it isn’t a botanical fruit either.
Then you have botanical fruits that are poisonous to humans, and are not vegetables either.
yeah. which again is like the egg dairy thing. no one would call an apple a vegetable or a tomatoe a fruit in casual conversation unless they were being pendantic.
They are in different cultures. I learned in high school spanish that egg is a dairy. Either to do with “dairy = animal byproduct” or “they feel similar to eat.” (They do)
Sources:
- Walmart for pricing (2024, North Carolina region): https://www.walmart.com/
- USDA FoodData Central for caloric density: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
Tool: Microsoft Excel
I see a lot of negativity so I will mention that I like it and its interesting. I kinda feel it would be better if the axis were switched but that is my only thing. I think dairy is a big thing that should be in it as well as would be sugar. Really surprised nuts seem to be on top over beans and carbs.
Nuts have A LOT of calories. Some of them beat raw sugar for calorie density by a good margin.
Well, yeah. They’re mostly fats. Fat is more than twice as calorically dense than sugar. 9kcal per gram vs 4kcal per gram. I’d expect pretty much all nuts and seeds to be more calorically dense than raw sugar.
given all their nutrients its kinda amazing. calories, fat, protein, vitamins.
This graph is the opposite of beautiful, it’s not organized well, it’s a bad font, the colors aren’t great, and I’m not even sure what it’s actually supposed to be telling me.
If you are on a budget for food focus on getting a complete protein not how many calories you’re taking in. Politics and opinions about meat aside, there are a lot of vegan meals that are cheap and have a complete protein.
The beautiful aspect of it is thst it’s nice someone tried to make something so helpful in that regard, but the comments suggest it’s not executed correctly to inform people in detail nor to be quick and snappy.
I feel the axis should be switched. that feels more natural.
I don’t think flipping the axes would change that there is basically no usable correlation between the two datasets.
the two values used are ones people are interested in. they correlate by calories. You can think of it like cost per calorie and gram per calorie to see it more.
Well, Consider my corn cobbed…
I’d like to see a third dimension, showing nutrient density.
would be interesting to see what this looks like in other parts of the world. most nuts are extremely expensive here.
Where the hell are avocados cheaper than apples and carrots?
Its per 100 claories. Apples and carrots have basically no claories.
The axes are a bit misleading. The x axis is kind of obsolete if you make y cost per calories. Cost per 100g on the y axis would make make the graph more interesting imo.
I understand that, but avocados are moderately expensive where I live.
Might be. I didnt check initially but did a quick search now. An average avocado weighs around 250g with 140kcal/100g, so thats 350kcal per avocado. The graph suggests 0.40$/100kcal which leads us to 1.40$/piece. That seems about right for where I live, cheap ones can go for 1€ but it depends on the store and season, 2€ is not uncommon.
Does that weight include the pit?
Is there something to be gleaned?
If you’re poor, eat stuff near the bottom. It will cost less for your daily requirements.
If you’re going hiking, eat stuff on the right. You won’t have to carry so much to meet your daily requirements.
Your daily calorie requirements vary based on how active and how big you are. The chart for men and women based on height is basically the same line; the average woman’s requirements are lower since they’re smaller on average, but we’re made out of the same stuff and need the same food.
As a diabetic, I would like this chart, but instead showing carbohydrates v. dietary fibre for common foods, so that I’d know what’s best to eat without spiking my blood sugar.
That’s how you’d read the Y axis…
If the X axis doesn’t matter, it’s not a graph, it’s a list.
If you’re going hiking, eat stuff on the right. You won’t have to carry so much to meet your daily requirements.
What?
Dont fucking tell people to go into the woods with a pocket of nuts because they’re calorie dense…
You’re grasping at straws for why two completely unrelated lists need to be shoehorned into a graph.
Don’t take your bad day out on me, sunshine ;-)
I’d probably recommend mint cake for the hiking, it’s traditional, but that’s because it’s calorie dense. And tasty.
Would probably recommend anyone on a diet to stay on the left-hand side, you’ll feel full faster. Obviously, poor people on a diet, bottom left. Bit more disposable income, top left.
That’s not how any of that works, but I’m sure as shit never trying to explain anything to you again.
Wow, you’ve convinced me! What a compelling argument!
No. Calories mean fuck all in the grand scheme of nutrition. What’s important is that you get a complete protein every day. Which can be done for cheap but not by using this graph.
