Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal • Hacker News Board

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#311

Post by senorjazz » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:37 PM UTC

dashundchen wrote: post #231

zornado wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not getting this. Highly processed foods are the source of all problems and people cheer up for synthetic food!

I can't speak for all, but most vegan/vegetarians I know, myself included, don't view processed meat substitutes like this as a staple. They are expensive and seen as less healthy compared to less processed plant protein. Meals more often revolve around beans, legumes, tofu, tempeh, seitan. I think since many meat eaters are less familiar with cooking meals around these, they assume vegs are just subbing meat 1-to-1…

I agree. But I don't think this is targeted at established vegetarians though. Maybe those who want to eat less meat, or stop but don't know how?

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#312

Post by be-ez » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:39 PM UTC

thrillgore wrote: post #282

chefgoldbluum wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The burger is made primarily from Soy. Soy accounts for 2/3 of global protein feed. Humans eating directly from livestock's primary food source is likely to be much more efficient at a global scale.

Your parent is employed by Impossible Foods based on their post history.

Your right I probably should have disclosed that I previously worked there but it's fairly clear from my post history so I figured it didn't matter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#313

Post by technofiend » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #189

phkahler wrote: post #132

Why do some vegans and vegetarians want to eat something that looks like meat? This is not to say vegans and vegetarians are the only market for plant-based "meat" or "burgers".

> Why do some vegans and vegetarians want to eat something that looks like meat? Why wouldn't they? Most humans are hardwired to enjoy meat, whether or not they choose to indulge. Vegetarianism/veganism as an ethical stance is about humane treatment of animals. Enjoying the taste and texture of meat is completely orthogonal. I've spoken to several people who think that veganism is just about personal taste, including…

>Vegetarianism/veganism as an ethical stance is about humane treatment of animals.

No doubt, but there are health-related reasons to do it as well; I'm not as concerned about a plant-based meat substitute triggering my diverticulitis, for instance. I actively avoid eating burgers because too much red meat definitely does.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#314

Post by macintux » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

be-ez wrote: post #312

thrillgore wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your parent is employed by Impossible Foods based on their post history.

Your right I probably should have disclosed that I previously worked there but it's fairly clear from my post history so I figured it didn't matter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Now we have to go back and look at everyone’s post history in every thread?

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#315

Post by maxxxxx » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #138

screye wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being born in India, I've had the privilege to eat vegetarian meals that can rival even the best meat based meal. While I welcome 'impossible' meat replacements, it is funny that the meat reduction movement is looking at such impractical and immature products instead of simpler solutions such as bringing veg friendly cuisines to the fore. I am opposed to advocating for cold-turkey veganism though. Milk products and e…

The one big problem for me is that nearly every "veggie" dish I've ever known would be IMPROVED with meat in my very personal opinion. Is there any meal/food that tastes worse with a dead animal added?

Vanilla pudding may taste worse with meat :-). I am also not sure about pineapple juice.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#316

Post by maxxxxx » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

atonse wrote: post #94

screye wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being born in India, I've had the privilege to eat vegetarian meals that can rival even the best meat based meal. While I welcome 'impossible' meat replacements, it is funny that the meat reduction movement is looking at such impractical and immature products instead of simpler solutions such as bringing veg friendly cuisines to the fore. I am opposed to advocating for cold-turkey veganism though. Milk products and e…

Being of Indian descent, I might be biased. But Indian cuisine is the only cuisine I'm aware of where being vegetarian isn't a compromise in the creativity, quality, and sheer flavors available to you. For other cuisines, where centuries of culinary creativity mostly went towards making meat, this is the only viable approach to weaning us off growing animals for meaty foods.

There are also quite a few German/Austrian dishes that are sweet but are a full meal. Look up "Kaiserschmarrn" or " Zwetschgenknoedel". "Kässpätzle" are not sweet but also a full meal.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#317

Post by be-ez » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

soperj wrote: post #292

be-ez wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When compared to meat there is almost no doubt that Impossible is better for the environment. Impossible has an environmental mission first. Checkout the sustainability report from 2017 http://www.ift.org/~/media/Food%20Technology/Weekly/IF_Susta... Or the update from 2018 https://impossiblefoods.com/if-pr/2018-Impact-Update/

At least mention that you work for the company.

Your right I should have included the disclaimer that I previously worked there.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#318

Post by wil421 » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:50 PM UTC

unclewaltr wrote: post #301

wil421 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you get soy is the primary food source for cattle? This article recommends no more than 20% soy in cattle’s diet. The article is from last year. [1] >Researchers have found that when the oil content of the ration exceeds 7 percent, it can be toxic to the microbes in the cattle’s rumen and decrease digestibility. Too much oil in cattle rations will lead to scours (diarrhea), cessation of rumen fermentation a…

Interesting, this might be why soy is pressed for its oil before being used as cattle feed. The resulting patties are used as feed and the oil byproduct is sold.

I don’t think that’s the case.

It is not feasible for a farmer to buy feed during the lifetime of the animal. It’s the reason they have huge pastures for grazing during warm months. During winter they are usually fed hay.

All beef is grass fed period. Some are finished at the end with corn or other dense grains (your soy patties).

Here’s an article from a Meat Scientist.

https://meatscience.org/TheMeatWeEat/topics/raising-animals-...

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#319

Post by adam » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:50 PM UTC

I'm curious if anyone else has stomach issues after eating the Impossible Burger, the Beyond Meat burger, etc.? Something about the protein isolate or who knows what else doesn't sit well with me. I've talked to others anecdotally about the same thing, but is this a widespread occurrence?

It reminds me a bit of when Frito-Lay tried to introduce Olean into their potato chips and it gave everyone the 3's...

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#320

Post by groestl » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:51 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #277

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the 'proselytizing' was environmental instead? Switching away from meat would lessen your footprint considerably, and likely improve your health[1] even if you don't care about the moral arguments. 1: http://time.com/4266874/vegetarian-diet-climate-change/

You can reduce your carbon footprint by orders of magnitude more by not having children, or having fewer children, but I don't see as many people advocating for voluntary sterilization (or even just abstaining from childbearing). Most people believe it's their deity-given right (and often imperative) to keep reproducing, even if our environment suffers as a result. I point this out to suggest that at the end of the d…

Reducing the number of children is an aspect that rarely comes up in discussions about environmental impact (not necessarily about food), even though I find it a very compelling argument. In some countries (hint: not the US, or most of Europe), there is not even a need for much advocacy, as the concept is descriptive: fertility-rate times planetary-footprint is less than 2, so in the long run, those countries would actually be using zero resources.