[nihakue]

It's a good point, and maybe Broccoli isn't then as compelling as something like tofu, which contains nearly as much (and nearly as bio available) protein/calorie as lean steak.

I guess I'd challenge the 'no downsides' claim. Few people stick to super lean grass-fed cuts, and the picture on the site is even a ribeye steak :P

The protein density (g/kcal) of a ribeye steak is basically the same as tofu (I think like 14g/100kcal vs 11g/100kcal in tofu)

I know I'm moving the goal posts slightly (I admit I didn't know about bio availability, and see now that I have more to read up on e.g. Broccoli), but am learning as I discuss rather than arguing a fixed point.

[themk]

Bioavailabilty is a bit of a non-issue. It's measured as if the food you are measuring is the only food you eat. So if it is slightly low on one amino acid, the "bioavailabilty" drops, but noone eats like that. Once combined with other foods, the total "bioavailabilty" tends to increase.

[treis]

The bigger problem is nutritional density. I tried meeting the 1-1.5 g/kg protein level through a vegetarian whole grains diet and it's a lot of flipping food. Equivalent of like 3kg of chickpeas a day to make it.

It was definitely eye opening on the sort of ancient benefit of meat. It's really hard to reach your muscular potential without it.

[rafram]

An adult who weighs 75 kg, so is targeting about 75 grams of protein intake per day, would only need to eat 833 grams of cooked chickpeas (which are 9% protein by weight) to get there. That is indeed a lot of chickpeas! But a lot less than you claimed, and you probably shouldn't be getting all your protein from chickpeas anyway.

[treis]

You're probably talking about dry weight. My can says 6g protein / 130 g. I'm about 100kg and to hit the 1.6 g protein/kg I need 160g of protein. 6g/130g * 3500 g is 161 g of protein.

[rafram]

Two numbers from the USDA:

- Canned, drained and rinsed: 7g protein / 100g [1]

- Boiled: 9g protein / 100g [2]

Not sure what explains the discrepancy (though the second number is much older), but both are considerably higher than what your can says. Sure you aren't reading a per-serving amount?

[1]: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/food-details/2644288/nutrients

[2]: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/food-details/173757/nutrients

[treis]

Nope, here's the can:

https://www.kroger.com/p/kroger-garbanzo-beans/0001111010648

[rafram]

Net weight (3.5 * 130g = 455g) includes the liquid, which you'd normally drain before cooking. The beans themselves are much more nutrient-dense.