Having eaten a lot of home-prepared South Indian food, I'm not sure I really agree. Home cooked food has the ability to be healthier than restaurant prepared, but I don't know if there's enough data to really claim one way or the other - homecooked is not healthier just by virtue of being homecooked.
For south Indian food the problem is excess rice and starch.
I'd say most vegetarian Indian food has the problem of excess starch and carbs. One potential reason for the wide prevalence of diabetes in India.
so being allergic to wheat, peas (beans) and parsley (celery, carrots, etc) all this stuff is pretty much poisonous. if they replace the wheat proteins perhaps...
You've also got the issues with processed food: Butchering a critter and cooking it up is a lot more natural than a highly engineered mixture from a group of chemical engineers. It may be that all the processing involved in making the plant compounds look/smell/taste/feel like meat are harmless, even beneficial, but it's perfectly reasonable to withhold trust for some time - especially to those of us who grew up with…
The chemicals they use to keep the animals foodstuffs free of pests and weeds, along with the antibiotics pumped into them to keep them healthy while in packed conditions? Its all chemical engineered now, unless you can afford to buy a piece of land and DIY. -Avid Meat Eater.
The sheer scale of industrialisation of livestock is an American thing, especially with beef.
Most Beef in the world is grass fed, and not pumped full of antibiotics. Generally animals are more or less left in a field until they're old enough, then taken in a slaughtered.
I've been a vegetarian for the last decade and change, and I simultaneously think that finding a cheaper, appealing alternative to meat is both a fantastic opportunity for the world and a really difficult thing. I used to love meat when I was a meat-eater, and I'm a fairly picky eater that dislikes many vegetable options. (Green peppers are nasty and food-destroying in my opinion, which immediately removes over half…
When I visit India and eat vegetarian food properly prepared by a culture that has refined vegetarian cuisine beyond "fake meat", I don't miss meat at all. Much of Western food is only expected to be an accompaniment to a meat dish, which is why you can't just cut meat out and eat the vegetable dishes you're used to when you're eating meat as well, imnsho.
It's a culinary difference in how meals are laid out in western cuisine.
In the west, we tend to have a protein of some sort, which is the centerpiece of the dish, with supporting elements of carbs and veges.
With Eastern food, they tend to have a carb, and then a curry or other mix of meat and veges to go with it.
I've been a vegetarian for the last decade and change, and I simultaneously think that finding a cheaper, appealing alternative to meat is both a fantastic opportunity for the world and a really difficult thing. I used to love meat when I was a meat-eater, and I'm a fairly picky eater that dislikes many vegetable options. (Green peppers are nasty and food-destroying in my opinion, which immediately removes over half…
Not a vegetarian or vegan, nor will I ever be in all likelihood - but I have been trying to curb the amount of meat I eat purely due to the environmental impact it has. I have a box of beef burger patties in the freezer that never gets touched outside of family gatherings, when I decide I want a burger I grab my bag of Morningstar Spicy Black Bean patties and toss one on the frying pan. I've also gotten really good a…
Can you elaborate on the environmental impact? I've heard so many vegans say this but I've never seen a proper explanation of it. How can eating meat have a negative environmental impact when humans are natural omnivores?
It seems to me like people are confusing eating meat with our modern agricultural processes. And if that's the case then the solution should be to improve said processes, not to stop eating meat.
I think the problem here is that "vegan" is used to describe two different things: 1. A product that has been changed to not use any animal products. 2. A product that already fits within those constraints. Products in the former group have a history of being noticeably worse than their non-vegan counterpart, so "vegan" carries the stigma of "tastes worse than it looks". That stigma then wafts over to products in the…
That's a great point. I wonder if there's an elegant/clean way to denote that something is vegan but not changed to be vegan. "Naturally fat-free" is good, and the sort of plant logo that some restaurants use at least avoid the word "vegan" which may help.
Sometimes plant-based is used as a more socially acceptable word for "vegan". I think there's also a difference between titling a product "vegan" and specifying that it is vegan. "Vegan donuts" isn't as appealing to non-vegans as "Donuts (vegan)". Likewise I'd be discouraged to get something labeled "Gluten free cookies", but if I saw "Oatmeal chocolate chip cookies (gluten-free)" I wouldn't hold it against them.
The number of people who need to be on a keto diet is incredibly tiny though. Most people who are on them do not need to be, all evidence shows low carb diets are equally effective regardless of ketosis or not.
>all evidence shows low carb diets are equally effective regardless of ketosis or not. Well I will take my anecdotic evidence (and my girlfriend's, and two friends') over your scientific studies. Fat and protein make me feel full well below my caloric needs for maintaining the same weight; I am hardly ever full with carbs, and even when my stomach feel fulls, my brain keeps wanting me to eat.
I don't understand low-carb/keto diets, outside of treating an actual disease. A person can eat 5-10 lbs. of "wet" (i.e. not grains and starches) fruits and vegetables a day and stay well below 2,000 calories, rounding it off with some fish, nuts, etc. for protein and oils. It's physically difficult to eat 1,000 calories of salad at 100-200 calories/pound. The problem is it also costs about 5 times as much as a classic junk food diet (but not much if any more than a beef and bacon and cheese diet).
I've been a vegetarian for the last decade and change, and I simultaneously think that finding a cheaper, appealing alternative to meat is both a fantastic opportunity for the world and a really difficult thing. I used to love meat when I was a meat-eater, and I'm a fairly picky eater that dislikes many vegetable options. (Green peppers are nasty and food-destroying in my opinion, which immediately removes over half…
> Most of my meat eating friends won't even try any of these, sight unseen.
I don't want to speak for your friends, but I'd be unwilling to try any veggie burger, sight unseen, either, due to a long history of disappointment with people trying to get me to try veggie burgers that aren't tasty.
Not a vegetarian or vegan, nor will I ever be in all likelihood - but I have been trying to curb the amount of meat I eat purely due to the environmental impact it has. I have a box of beef burger patties in the freezer that never gets touched outside of family gatherings, when I decide I want a burger I grab my bag of Morningstar Spicy Black Bean patties and toss one on the frying pan. I've also gotten really good a…
Can you elaborate on the environmental impact? I've heard so many vegans say this but I've never seen a proper explanation of it. How can eating meat have a negative environmental impact when humans are natural omnivores? It seems to me like people are confusing eating meat with our modern agricultural processes. And if that's the case then the solution should be to improve said processes, not to stop eating meat.
Cows produce a huge amount of methane, from their digestive system. That alone is enough to cause significant environmental impact, and if we stopped eating beef we would see a decrease in the amount of methane released.