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

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

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 538 posts

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

#421

Post by devmunchies »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #399
sc4les wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complete bogus, please abstain from spreading this misinformation. Unlike animal products which contain actual hormones active in humans plant products have an negligible effect and you would have to consume impossible amounts for the smallest of effects. Further, phytoestrogens actually benefit humans

...you would have to consume impossible amounts for the smallest of effects Further, phytoestrogens actually benefit humans Maybe I'm not parsing things well, but these 2 statements seem contradictory.

From what I understand, the phytoestrogens take the place of real mammalian estrogen, but our bodies don't process it like real estrogen, so its actually good for men who want less estrogen. It acts almost like an estrogen blocker.

Whereas drinking cow's milk, for example, is high in estrogen because its from it comes from a large female after giving birth.

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

#422

Post by nonbel »

devmunchies wrote: post #419
nonbel wrote: post #406

These burgers are not a suitable nutritional replacement for beef. Beef contains cholesterol, zero carbs, and has a different vitamin/mineral profile. This stuff has no cholesterol and (a small amount of) carbs while also containing way more salt, thiamine (vitamin B1), and folate (vitamin B9): https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/6205/2 http://livablefutureblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/impo... FY…

>MAY be linked to cancer (emphasis mine) Yeah but processed meat IS linked to cancer. https://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/multimedia/multimedia_pub/mul... And last I checked, most Americans have a problem with high cholesterol, not low cholesterol. Americans eat too much meat.

By "may", I meant "is" according to your definition. I am just skeptical of the standard process medical researchers use to determine this stuff (NHST), so used the term "may" as I would regarding anything else.

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

#423

Post by nonbel »

robotbikes wrote: post #410
nonbel wrote: post #406

These burgers are not a suitable nutritional replacement for beef. Beef contains cholesterol, zero carbs, and has a different vitamin/mineral profile. This stuff has no cholesterol and (a small amount of) carbs while also containing way more salt, thiamine (vitamin B1), and folate (vitamin B9): https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/6205/2 http://livablefutureblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/impo... FY…

That is interesting but I don't think that it would be healthy for people to eat beef burgers as their primary source of nutrition either. What annoys me about the fake meat is that in the dystopian future soymeat was supposed to be everywhere and cheaper where real meat was a sought after expensive delicacy but due to government subsidies and hding the costs of environmental externalities real meat remains much chea…

The economics/politics of it is a different issue. I am concerned about the danger of tricking people's minds into thinking the body has consumed something with nutritional value other than it really has. Humans have been consuming beef for a long time.

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

#424

Post by saagarjha »

white-flame wrote: post #381
puranjay wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love meat but I've always struggled to reconcile my love of eating it with my love of animals. I would be happy to pay a premium if it meant I could get meat-like taste without the guilt

Consider that killing a living thing to eat its body is not unique to "meat", nor is raising it in a controlled environment for the purpose of consumption. Fish (as is sometimes classified separately) and vegetables are living things raised and killed for consumption of their bodies as well. I believe reconciling all of these as ethically equal (including raising the ethical weight of killing a plant as equal to an a…

The parent has specifically mentioned that they love animals, and it's pretty easily to see why: animals are much easier to relate to, can show pain easily, and are much more similar to us than plants are.

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

#425

Post by xfitm3 »

devmunchies wrote: post #419
nonbel wrote: post #406

These burgers are not a suitable nutritional replacement for beef. Beef contains cholesterol, zero carbs, and has a different vitamin/mineral profile. This stuff has no cholesterol and (a small amount of) carbs while also containing way more salt, thiamine (vitamin B1), and folate (vitamin B9): https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/6205/2 http://livablefutureblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/impo... FY…

>MAY be linked to cancer (emphasis mine) Yeah but processed meat IS linked to cancer. https://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/multimedia/multimedia_pub/mul... And last I checked, most Americans have a problem with high cholesterol, not low cholesterol. Americans eat too much meat.

Is ground beef considered processed meat?

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

#426

Post by Broken_Hippo »

kkhire wrote: post #330
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sadly if everyone did this it would probably mean we would only see cows, sheep etc in zoos, rather than grazing in fields." Eh, not really, as cows and sheep and goats still provide valuable resources. Milk and wools, for example. I'm guessing lots of other things can be taken as they die naturally - leathers and stuff from bones and pet foods and whatnot. Sure, we could eventually engineer ourselves out of needing…

there's nut milks and faux leather. nearly everything has a plant-based alternative and if something doesn't, it will have one soon.

We do have faux leather. I have yet to find one that behaves like leather for footwear, however: Faux leather causes me to develop foot fungus. I can wear cloth, but by the time it gets treated as necessary, I'm not sure we are improving over the leather. But hey, it can improve.

Nut milks are an odd thing. They aren't really nutritionally the same nor do they behave similarly while cooking. The taste is lacking and I highly doubt they can make cheese. And if I remember correctly, many nuts milks are also bad for the environment - much better to just eat the nuts. I don't know if this is the same for oat milks. Soy milk is simply not edible. (I don't personally drink milk, but do cook with it).

Milk is truly one of those things that has to replace all functions for it to be a viable switch. The same goes for eggs.

All this basically to say that just because there is an alternative doesn't really mean it is viable. Cotton doesn't replace wools and neither do synthetic fabrics, for example. Not to mention that at least some synthetics are made with petroleum products. I always hope they are otherwise waste products from producing fuel (like many other plastics), but I'm not sure.

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

#427

Post by saagarjha »

dsabanin wrote: post #379
staplers wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People cheer while it's novel (like television, social media) but our children will hate it and feel cheated out of real nutrition by 'manufactured food'.

Or, quite possibly, since humanity's progress can't be stopped, our children will hate us once they open their eyes and realize who their favorite hot dogs and burgers were made out of and how we spoon fed them with corpses since their very first moments. Edit: I believe that there's definitely a potential version of the future where corpse eating will be looked at the same way we look at cannibalism now.

> how we spoon fed them with corpses since their very first moments

I have not seen meat recommended as food to give newborn infants, ever. They don't even eat solid meals!

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

#428

Post by zapzupnz »

RobotCaleb wrote: post #321
zapzupnz wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the best vegan and vegetarian food does its own thing, but for me, a pescatarian, the idea of not having the delicious taste and texture of salmon slowly baked in a cast iron pan for four hours whilst being basted with oil every half an hour … my tongue just disallows it. It's not yet a sacrifice I'm willing to make until I encounter a viable alternative, and so efforts like these are a step further not…

Tell me more about this delicious salmon you cook.

Basically we just roast it slowly in an oven in a cast iron pan on a low heat for a long-ish period of time. The skin gets crispy, but the inside seems like it's melting as you push your fork through it. I don’t know the exact details but I’m sure we got the recipe online, so it’s likely Googleable.

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

#429

Post by thebeefytaco »

okaram wrote: post #390
MagicPropmaker wrote: post #385

I'm disappointed they switched away from seitan / gluten protein to soy protein. I just like wheat protein better, it feels better to me. But there's tremendous--and unfounded--pressure to eliminate gluten. Sad.

It's not unfounded ... for whatever reason, it seems very few people are allergic to soy, whereas more than 1% of population (Americans ? not sure) have 'allergies' to gluten. My daughter has diagnosed celiac disease, so I'm glad for any pressure to eliminate gluten :) I'm also amazed at how many things you wouldn't imagine have gluten :(

Soy is actually one of the the top 8 food allergies, which is why it's required to be listed on labels.

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

#430

Post by devmunchies »

colechristensen wrote: post #322
puranjay wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love meat but I've always struggled to reconcile my love of eating it with my love of animals. I would be happy to pay a premium if it meant I could get meat-like taste without the guilt

You don't have to feel guilty. It is the disconnection between humans and animals that causes many of those feelings and if you shift your thinking, you can have a much better experience. When you participate in the process of raising, killing, butchering, and eating the animals which are your food you will appreciate them – love them – and the life they had and gave for you to live. Food encased in plastic from a gr…

I disagree. Once you shift your thinking in the other direction and cherish their life and only eat them if its the only option for survival you will feel greater love and appreciation for animals. I've eaten meat only once in the last 2 years and when I did I actually wept.

> Animals are my friends and I don’t eat my friends. --George Bernard Shaw

https://gist.github.com/samueleaton/cccfd86dcca72bc33f72bdfa...

Post reply on HN