because it's very standard to list nutrients per 100g, deviating from that for an infographic like this would have people assume it's per 100g anyways and become accidental misinformation.
100g of seitan isn't that much seitan and I'd eat that much in a sitting.
I'm never going to eat 100g (588 calories) of peanut butter in a sitting, so it's not really useful for anything. It has twice as much protein per 100g than tofu, yet tofu is a way better food for hitting daily protein goals. So what exactly is this number useful for if higher isn't better?
Serving sizes on nutrition info are arbitrary, but useful for having an idea of how much of something to eat at once. Protein per calorie is more useful for meal planning to hit minimum protein goals.
I don't see how protein per calorie would misinform as long as it's labelled. To me this is more misinforming because of the vastly different serving sizes.
because it's very standard to list nutrients per 100g, deviating from that for an infographic like this would have people assume it's per 100g anyways and become accidental misinformation.
100g of seitan isn't that much seitan and I'd eat that much in a sitting.
I'm never going to eat 100g (588 calories) of peanut butter in a sitting, so it's not really useful for anything. It has twice as much protein per 100g than tofu, yet tofu is a way better food for hitting daily protein goals. So what exactly is this number useful for if higher isn't better?
Serving sizes on nutrition info are arbitrary, but useful for having an idea of how much of something to eat at once. Protein per calorie is more useful for meal planning to hit minimum protein goals.
I don't see how protein per calorie would misinform as long as it's labelled. To me this is more misinforming because of the vastly different serving sizes.