Not sure where your numbers are from. Cooked chicken and pork are ~30% protein, beef ~25%, lentils ~10%[0]. So no, you'd have to eat 0.5lbs of lentils for the same protein as 0.2lbs beef. (Lentils are 25-29% protein by weight, but during cooking they absorb water)
Plant protein also contains all essential amino acids. Even broccoli.
500 calories (150g) of TVP (soy chunks) has 100%+ of each EAA while 500 calories (200g) of steak is sub-100% in three EAAs. The soy chunks also have 25g more protein than the steak. I use it in all recipes that call for ground beef as it's similar is texture.
The 500 calories of soy chunks also has 59% of the day nutrition while the steak only has 47% (source: Cronometer).
Seems to me that if you're going to bring up a concept like incomplete protein (which I think is a nonsensical concept), you'd have to bite the bullet on steak being incomplete and plant protein being superior.
I dismiss the concept because we aren't limited to 500 calories per day. But if we were, I'd rather be stuck with TVP.
Your claim that meat has 15 times the protein of lentils doesn't match what's in my data source (FoodCentral). I'm seeing a 2:1 ratio depending on your choice of meat and pulse. What's your source?
Then compare it to a more protein dense food like extra firm tofu, TVP, or seitan?
Though I also contest the claim that animal foods are more nutrient dense compared to plants while singling out one nutrient.
What about nutrients like vitamin C, fiber, and vitamin E? What about averaging their %RDA across all nutrients per calorie or gram like the "All Targets" column on Cronometer?
Plant-based foods would rank above animal products in such a comparison.
