Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can protein startups and their investors take on Big Cow?

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Can protein startups and their investors take on Big Cow?

#51

Post by WillPostForFood »

jamesgagan wrote: post #24
rgrieselhuber wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a great food for men, though.

Debunked: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524224 "Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men: results of a meta-analysis."

Citing one study (meta analysis or not) and claiming debunked is not a serious argument, especially with respect to diet where there is data all over the place.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2721724/

There was an inverse association between soy food intake and sperm concentration that remained significant after accounting for age, abstinence time, body mass index, caffeine and alcohol intake and smoking. In the multivariate-adjusted analyses, men in the highest category of soy food intake had 41 million sperm/ml less than men who did not consume soy foods.

Re: Can protein startups and their investors take on Big Cow?

#53

Post by macintux »

azakai wrote: post #26
cyanexttuesday wrote: post #12

I hope so. If we can make meat or something really similar without killing animals, I would consider this a huge win for lessening the misery of the universe.

In addition to lessening misery, reducing the consumption of animal meat also helps prevent global warming (since animal farming is a significant contributor to the problem).

Not to mention the fresh water consumption requirements for cattle are obscene.

Re: Can protein startups and their investors take on Big Cow?

#54

Post by russdill »

CM30 wrote: post #2

Okay, am I the only one finding these 'Big Industry' names kind of ridiculous now? Big Pharma, yeah that works. Big Tech? Sure I guess. But calling these companies Big Cow just sounds utterly ridiculous. It just doesn't work at all.

It's the milk people.

Re: Can protein startups and their investors take on Big Cow?

#55

Post by pampa »

jpao79 wrote: post #50

I really do think there is a pretty sise-able market at least in California for people looking to reduce their intake of meat but not wanting to go full vegan. People who like the taste of a good burger but want to be healthier (more fiber, less fat and less antibiotics) and reduce the environmental impacts. I am one of them. I think one of the simplest solutions would be to have a different line of products under a…

> People who like the taste of a good burger but want to be healthier (more fiber, less fat and less antibiotics)

If the goal is to be healthier, why not just go with the highest quality beef you can find, but eat it less often? A quality steak once a week sure must be healthier than a heavily processed veggie burger every day (tho i have no data to prove it).

Re: Can protein startups and their investors take on Big Cow?

#56

Post by dang »

CM30 wrote: post #2

Okay, am I the only one finding these 'Big Industry' names kind of ridiculous now? Big Pharma, yeah that works. Big Tech? Sure I guess. But calling these companies Big Cow just sounds utterly ridiculous. It just doesn't work at all.

I assume they intended that one whimsically.

Re: Can protein startups and their investors take on Big Cow?

#57

Post by sn9 »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #35
sn9 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soy-based foods have essentially no impact on testosterone levels in men at the typical levels of consumption: https://examine.com/nutrition/is-soy-good-or-bad-for-me/ You'd have to basically almost be subsisting off of soy to start to see effects.

Your second point is worth looking into further. Soy can be found in many products: https://www.verywell.com/food-and-ingredients-to-avoid-on-a-...

Presence isn't really the an indicator of amount.

Re: Can protein startups and their investors take on Big Cow?

#58

Post by DiabloD3 »

rbobby wrote: post #48
DiabloD3 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an unpopular statement around these parts, but, there's no proof that any human activity is causing the current increase in global temperatures, and they match the progression that preceded previous solar grand minimums, of which we are headed into another one now. Not saying humans aren't causing tons of ground level pollution, which we totally are and that's indisputable. Just don't confuse it with global w…

> there's no proof that any human activity is causing the current increase in global temperatures "No proof that any" is just flat out wrong... on the level of "there's no proof that 1 + 1 always equals two".

How is that an acceptable response?

A hypothesis must be falsifiable for it to be valid in the first place, and saying "the Sun did it" is a valid way to falsify the hypothesis; thus you now must also prove the Sun is not affecting climate change to the degree that we have measured.

No one has been able to prove this, and all evidence collected by NASA seems to indicate that the Sun is by far the largest driver of climate fluctuations on Earth, even during the modern age, not humans.

Re: Can protein startups and their investors take on Big Cow?

#59

Post by anotherbrownguy »

amalag wrote: post #11
rgrieselhuber wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a great food for men, though.

I think men in societies where they have eaten tofu for centuries like China, Indonesia and Japan are doing just fine.

Yeah,

- only some people

- occasionally

- along with all other types of food making tofu a very small portion of the diet

Re: Can protein startups and their investors take on Big Cow?

#60

Post by vikeri »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #58
rbobby wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's no proof that any human activity is causing the current increase in global temperatures "No proof that any" is just flat out wrong... on the level of "there's no proof that 1 + 1 always equals two".

How is that an acceptable response? A hypothesis must be falsifiable for it to be valid in the first place, and saying "the Sun did it" is a valid way to falsify the hypothesis; thus you now must also prove the Sun is not affecting climate change to the degree that we have measured. No one has been able to prove this, and all evidence collected by NASA seems to indicate that the Sun is by far the largest driver of cl…

Say 97 % of doctors agree that you will die if you don't change your lifestyle. Would you not change your lifestyle even though there's a theoretical possibility that you will die irregardless?

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Post reply on HN