If you plan meals based on how well your body can actually absorb nutrients—like iron and zinc from meat—instead of just counting total nutrients, it ends up costing 50% to 89% more each day to meet your needs.

Evidence from Studies

Supporting (1)

0

Community contributions welcome

0

The Role of Beef for the Lowest Cost and Adequate Provision of Bioavailable Nutrients in Modeled Diets at a Population Level in the United States

Computational/Algorithm Study

2025 Dec

The study shows that when diets are planned using nutrients your body can actually absorb, they cost more and include more meat and animal products, just like the claim says.

Contradicting (0)

0

Community contributions welcome

No contradicting evidence found

Gold Standard Evidence Needed

According to GRADE and EBM methodology, here is what ideal scientific evidence would look like to definitively prove or disprove this specific claim, ordered from strongest to weakest evidence.

Source Study

The Role of Beef for the Lowest Cost and Adequate Provision of Bioavailable Nutrients in Modeled Diets at a Population Level in the United States

0

DOI: 10.1016/j.cdnut.2025.107604

Similar Assertions

When figuring out the cheapest way to eat healthy, models show that most people in the U.S. end up with foods like beef, milk, eggs, and fish in their diet — meaning animal foods often make the most sense when you want good nutrition at the lowest cost.

0

77%

Beef gives you key nutrients like protein, B-12, and zinc for less money than other foods when you consider how well your body can actually use them — at least in theory, according to diet models.

0

76%

It might be really hard for women between 19 and 50 to get enough iron and zinc from affordable, everyday foods—even if they're trying to eat the cheapest healthy diet possible.

0

71%