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...

Do.... Do you think eggs are a dairy product?

Nuts have A LOT of calories. Some of them beat raw sugar for calorie density by a good margin.

I feel the axis should be switched. that feels more natural.

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.

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.

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.