I guess you misunderstood my providing illustrative examples in parentheses. Replace or remove the examples, the argument is still valid.

In another subthread they’ve pointed out that processing food also changes its protein density, most obviously by water transfer.

This is not a problem with the nutrition of foods, it is the metric that is poorly designed. One more argument against the chart

Your seem to insist to twist this towards vegan wars, but this is you. It’s not the graphics, it’s not me.

What’s wrong with reducing density through absorption (of water)?

To me it seems that your interpretation completely disregards the Y-axis. On the other hand, I wouldn’t think the colour coding does a good job in separating along the carnivorous-vegetarian-vegan scale.

So much wrong about this chart. It is factually correct, but it answers the wrong question.

This chart makes it way too easy to optimise for cheap protein, which is misleading. It is not this what it takes to have a healthy organism. It takes a varied diet, with balanced quantities of liquids (see milk), vitamins (see sprouts), fatty acids (see salmon), minerals (see shrimps, eggs, walnuts), actually carbs (potatoes, rice, spaghetti), and much more…

Let’s say that for millions of years a healthy biosphere grew around forests and the balance worked. Now you come to tell us it doesn’t. Wouldn’t you think it’s a bit unconvincing?

I wonder why forestation is not present in this chart, as it is a low-cost carbon capture with side benefits. Sure, it is hard to scale, but reducing current deforestation rates would be a big step.

Why would the logs be emitting CO2 (rotting?) if they are alive and growing?